|
|
 |
Features > PETA Files Complaint With FTC Against Iams
Claiming Ads Are False and Misleading
PETA Files Complaint With FTC Against Iams Claiming Ads Are False
and Misleading
BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
COMPLAINT SEEKING ACTION AGAINST IAMS (PROCTER & GAMBLE) FOR DECEPTIVE
ADVERTISING
“[P&G] will only conduct the veterinary equivalent of any
tests on cats or dogs
which are acceptable in nutritional or medical studies in people.”
Submitted to:
Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20580
Submitted by:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
501 Front St.
Norfolk, VA 23510
Tel.: 757-622-7382
Fax: 757-622-0457
June 10, 2003
Nature of the Complaint
Procter & Gamble (P&G) claims that the animals it uses for
the research and development of its products are humanely treated:
“Each animal is given the best possible veterinary care and treated
with care and respect.” —P&G Web site
P&G explicitly states that its research protocols restrict experimentation
to only the most benign procedures:
“[P&G] will only conduct the veterinary equivalent of any
tests on cats or dogs which are acceptable in nutritional or medical
studies in people.”
—P&G Web site
P&G acquired the Iams Company (Iams) in September 1999. In this
complaint, we will detail disturbing findings from a 2002-2003 PETA
investigation of a laboratory that conducted experiments on dogs and
cats under contract to Iams. These animals were subjected to invasive
and painful procedures and confined in inhumane conditions. Some experiments
resulted in the destruction* of the animals—a gross violation
of Iams’ own policy, which attests that Iams “will not participate
in any study requiring or resulting in the euthanasia of cats or dogs.”
We will also demonstrate that Iams practices “deception by omission”
by failing to disclose that dogs and cats are often destroyed during
the Iams’ experiments that are conducted by independently owned
laboratories under contract to Iams.
Finally, we will illustrate the ways in which Iams intentionally misrepresents
the status of the animals that it uses—and has used—in experiments
by referring to them as “four-footed research associates.”
This deceptive euphemism and other similarly deceptive implied claims
give the impression that the experiments are harmless and that the subjects
are treated as human subjects would be.
These statements must be considered within the context of Iams’
general strategy. Iams targets consumers who are seeking a premium brand
of dog and cat food, and the brand appeals specifically to those consumers
who consider their companion animals to be—in Iams’ own
language—“furry family members.” In fact, Iams commissioned
a Gallup poll that revealed that 66 percent of people would not trade
their companion animal for $1 million. Iams’ capitalization on
this sentiment is shameless and cynical. It touts itself as a company
that shares this devotion, distinguishing itself from generic brands
in every stage of production and development. Iams deliberately deceives
caring consumers into believing that animals used for its research enjoy
the same lifestyle conditions as the consumers’ animal companions.
*Please note that we do not use the word “euthanize” in
this case because the destruction of the animals was not for the purpose
of mercy killing but, instead, was the result of deliberately inflicted
injuries, accidental injuries that were left untreated, and neglected
illnesses.
If consumers were exposed to the actual methods employed by Iams’
researchers, the company’s credibility would be severely compromised.
However, average consumers have little hope of properly or accurately
evaluating Iams’ statements for themselves, because Iams’
studies are conducted in secret and are not accessible or verifiable
to even the most diligent and probing consumer, and the scientific language
used to describe these studies is not easily decipherable for the average
consumer. Moreover, activities in Iams’ laboratories and misnamed
“retirement facilities” are hidden from the scrutiny of
both the public and animal protection organizations. We have, therefore,
provided evidence to help the FTC take appropriate action and enforce
truthfulness in P&G and Iams’ advertising statements regarding
the treatment of animals involved in Iams’ tests.
This FTC complaint comes in the wake of the U.K.’s Advertising
Standards Authority’s April 2002 ruling, which upheld two complaints
regarding Iams’ “exaggerated” and “misleading”
claims regarding the beneficial effects of its senior pet foods on the
immune systems of animals.
Similarly, Nutro and Kal Kan have launched lawsuits, currently in progress,
charging Iams with “false advertising and misleading labeling”
in the promotion of its dog food brands. They have accused Iams of jeopardizing
the health of dogs by reducing both the nutritional value and the recommended
serving size in order to lower its prices to compete with supermarket
brands.
Expressly Deceptive Claims and Deception Through Omission
“[Iams] will not participate in any study requiring or resulting
in the euthanasia of cats or dogs. We will only conduct research that
is equivalent to nutritional or medical studies acceptable on people,
including: urine, feces, blood and immune cell analysis, allergy tests,
and skin and muscle biopsies, for which adequate anesthesia and analgesics
will be provided when necessary.”
—Iams Web site
Both aspects of the above statement are false. During our investigation,
we found that Iams performed painful and invasive surgeries such as
deep muscle biopsies on animals and conducted studies that resulted
in the destruction of animals.
Despite the company’s claim that it only performs experiments
that would be “acceptable on people,” Iams cannot maintain
that deep muscle biopsies, such as those that we witnessed and videotaped
during our investigation, would ever be performed on human subjects.
In fact, an extensive search of published scientific literature revealed
that there is no equivalent human procedure to the biopsies that dogs
in the Iams’ studies were subjected to in this laboratory.
During the investigation, we also found that dogs used in Iams’
metabolism studies were being bled by the laboratory in order to sell
their blood to other companies—even though the studies do not
call for blood draws. Our investigator also reported that shortly before
finishing the investigation, “The lab director told the veterinary
technicians to debark all the Iams dogs, as he was being disturbed by
their desperate cries for attention.”
These procedures are clearly not the veterinary equivalent of tests
routinely conducted on humans. The devocalizing of human beings for
nutritional tests is not a standard, acceptable practice. This debarking
procedure was verified by the lab’s general manager himself, John
Laverett, in a news release dated May 14, 2003, in which he confirmed
that “animals did go through a procedure that made them unable
to bark, as PETA alleged.”
Iams’ and P&G’s assurance that animals used in their
studies are never euthanized is also false. PETA’s investigator
documented the destruction of 27 of the 60 dogs who had muscles cut
from their legs. She reported that “two more of those dogs were
found dead in their cages several days after the muscle surgery. One
of them had been suffering for 11 days prior to her death. Her dead-animal
form read, ‘pyometra [infection of the uterus] possible, bloody
discharge from vulva—foul odor present. Lethargic, not eating
well, dehydrated.’ … I reported that an Iams dog was limping
and was told by the vet tech that the laboratory had an x-ray machine
that dated back to the 1960s but no film for it and that the director
of the laboratory preferred to kill, rather than treat, animals with
broken bones.”
Video and photos of some of these experiments and of general laboratory
conditions can be viewed here.
Iams simply cannot guarantee that animals used in its studies will not
be destroyed by contract laboratories. The laboratory in question actually
owned the 27 dogs who were destroyed in the Iams’ study. Iams
does not explain to consumers that it may contract for tests with laboratories
that have panels of dogs available for any number of companies to use.
In other words, Iams does not disclose that it rejects accountability
for the dogs and cats who are owned by contract laboratories but used
for Iams’ tests. This is another deceptive practice and is classified
as “deception by omission” by the FTC.
Iams also makes expressly deceptive claims regarding its animal husbandry
policies, misrepresenting the confinement conditions and isolation of
the animals used in its experiments:
“We will ensure the humane treatment of cats and dogs and provide
for animal well-being, socialization, and husbandry in a manner compatible
with the company’s philosophy, creating a total culture of care.”
—Iams Web site FAQ
Iams gives very specific directives regarding the living conditions
of the animals in its laboratories:
“Research will be closely monitored at internal and external facilities
with the goal being to eliminate even minor pain or discomfort and to
create enriched environments for the cats and dogs involved.”
—Iams Web site FAQ
“[The animals] are groomed and played with daily. Each has spacious
quarters and receives personal attention from dedicated employees.”
—Iams Web site
Again, these are blatantly false claims. Below are some of the laboratory
conditions and routine practices that were videotaped and catalogued
by PETA’s investigator during PETA’s undercover investigation:
- Dogs being dumped on cold concrete flooring after having huge chunks
of muscle cut out of their thighs
- An employee instructing another to hit the dogs on the chest if they
quit breathing
- An employee talking about an Iams dog who was found dead in his cage,
bleeding from his mouth
- A dog limping in pain caused by Lyme disease
- Iams studies in which tubes were stuck down dogs’ throats in
order to force them to ingest vegetable oil
- Iams dogs with such severe tartar buildup on their teeth that it was
painful for them to eat
- Vet technicians with inadequate training and experience performing
invasive procedures
- Two employees conducting a pregnancy test on a terrified dog who was
lying on top of a wheeled cart that moved every time she struggled
- Dogs and cats who had gone stir crazy because of confinement and isolation
- Dogs and cats in windowless, dungeon-like buildings
- Employees talking about a live kitten who was washed down a drain
- Employees talking about how they had to go home because the ammonia
fumes in the animal trailers were so overpowering that their eyes burned
- Cats being kept in a cinderblock room containing crude wooden “resting”
boards with nails protruding from them. One of these boards fell on
a cat and crushed her to death while our investigator was there, but
even after the animal’s death, the lab director did not remove
these boards. He did, however, remove them when he was informed that
the lab was going to be inspected, because he knew that they were illegal.
Iams cannot be permitted to continue using the grossly deceptive phrase
“total culture of care.” Animals used by Iams are reduced
to disposable “things” and are not given so much as minimal
consideration for their basic needs.
These atrocious conditions are even more disturbing considering the fact
that this laboratory was one that Iams allegedly monitored. PETA’s
investigator documented Jeff Greene, director of the Iams research center
and contract research, inspecting the laboratory. Greene witnessed the
neglect and abuse, yet he did nothing about it.
The report on our investigation explains, “[The Iams representatives]
toured the facility and felt the overpowering heat and humidity of the
lab on a summer’s day, knowing the animals can’t sweat. An
Iams veterinarian who came to see the first group of 49 Labrador retrievers
that the company had purchased for testing from a USDA class B dealer
saw that one of the dogs had given birth in a cement kennel and that she
had been provided with nothing to rest on while nursing her pups. He didn’t
do anything to ease her suffering. One of the puppies and an adult Labrador
died shortly before our investigation ended—perhaps because the
temperature in the building had fallen to 34 degrees. An Iams ‘behaviorist’
saw dogs who were spinning out of madness in their cages, yet said nothing.
An Iams cat dental researcher even overheard two employees talking about
animals who were being treated inhumanely at the facility, yet Iams continued
to conduct business there as usual.”
Iams assures the public that it monitors all internal and external facilities
for compliance with its “high standards,” but Iams does not
know how the animals in its contract laboratories are treated when the
company is not on site, and the company refuses to be accountable even
when Iams representatives witness deplorable conditions. As recently as
April 10, 2003, in a meeting with PETA representatives, Iams and P&G
officials admitted that they had not finished even a cursory inspection
of the conditions at the company’s external contract laboratories.
Iams withdrew its testing from the laboratory that we investigated only
because of the public outcry over the conditions in the lab. It was this
exposé—not the internal controls or monitoring which Iams
expressly and falsely claims to carry out—that caused Iams to discontinue
contracting with the laboratory for tests.
Furthermore, Iams has refused to provide informational tours of its own
animal-testing facility in Dayton, its almost 30 contract laboratories,
or its facility that has been described by Iams and P&G officials
as a “sanctuary” and a “retirement facility.”
We now understand that this particular facility is simply a dog kennel
in Alabama.
Iams has been assuring consumers by using this glowing and self-congratulatory
“research policy” on its Web site and in its communications
with the public—including in its responses to specific queries concerning
their care of animals—since at least June 2002.
Deceptive Implied Claims
Iams not only falsely assures the public that it does not conduct any
tests on animals that it wouldn’t conduct on humans, it also tries
to secure consumer confidence by implying that it does not conduct tests
on animals in its laboratories that it wouldn’t conduct on its
own employees’ companion animals:
“Do [employees of Iams] love cats and dogs? Of course. While the
entire Iams Company can boast better than 80 percent of Iams employees
have pets of their own, Research and Development has the highest rate
of any department with 90 percent.”
—Iams Web site
This statement should be classified by the FTC as a deceptive implied
claim. The implication is that, because Iams employees have companion
animals of their own, they wouldn’t participate in inhumane experiments
on any animal.
Iams goes one step further and disseminates such misleading euphemisms
as “four-legged consumers,” “pet parents,” “furry
family members,” and “four-footed research associates”
on its Web site and in its promotional material. For example:
“We then feed these diets to our four-footed research associates
to ensure the nutrition and taste of the food meets or exceeds our expectations—and
the expectations of our on-staff pets. That’s right. We make ‘pet’
food, so we employ pets to help us. They have unique names.”
—Iams Web site
According to its Web site, Iams has even appointed Kersee, a 9-year-old
golden retriever, with the honorary title of “vice president of
canine communications” and reports that “her duties at headquarters
include sampling Eukanuba and Iams products and giving firm paw shakes
to Iams employees and guests. Niles and Clawdia, both American shorthair
cats and retired Iams taste-testers, also maintain offices in the company’s
Dayton offices.”
These deceptive statements are made for one purpose only—to imply
to the consumer that Iams loves and cares for the animals it uses in
its research. Needless to say, they do not actually employ animals.
After reading the above statements, consumers would never think that Iams
confines dogs and cats for long periods of time to barren stainless-steel
cages or cement kennels, denying them companionship or so much as one
toy—yet this is exactly what we found during our investigation.
Referring to animals who are used for experiments as “associates”
is as absurd as referring to prisoners of war as “guests”.
These animals are not privileged taste-tasters, and it is disrespectful
and deceptive to imply that they are. They are deprived animals who have
no lives outside their empty cages, no companionship, no chance to experience
fresh air or sunlight, nothing comfortable to lie on, and who are subject
to continual tests that are painful and frightening. They are certainly
not treated as one would treat an “associate.”
Recommendations
We ask that the FTC impose all appropriate penalties and that it mandate
Iams to remove all deceptive terminology and all deceptive claims—express,
implied, or by omission—about its “humane” treatment
of animals in experiments from its Web site and other advertising media.
Iams should be required to satisfactorily substantiate any such claims
according to the strict requirements of FTC before disseminating any
information about its research and development programs involving animals.
|
|
|
Iams Continues Cruel Experiments on Animals
Update: Iams Stops Using Chicks in Tests!
We Want Empty Cages, Not Slightly Nicer Cages
