|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Features > The Campaign to Get Animals Out of Iams’
Labs
The Campaign to Get Animals Out of Iams’ Labs (Note: References
to actions by HSUS and the ASPCA are provided in order to clarify the
differences in position between our groups’ approaches in light
of confusion regarding this issue.)What PETA Discovered In April 2003, after our undercover investigation of an Iams contract lab showed that Iams was lying to us and the public about its treatment of dogs and cats in laboratories (e.g., Iams said that animals received exercise and socialization, but we found that they did not; Iams said that no invasive procedures were done, yet 60 dogs had huge chunks of muscle cut out of their legs; Iams said that dogs had beds in their cages, but we did not find even a simple resting platform in any of them; Iams said that no dogs were killed, yet we found that they were), we took our complaints and findings to the company for the second time in two years. At that time, Iams was using more than 30 contract and university laboratories yet admitted that it had no idea how those laboratories fared on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspections. We showed Iams officials the inspection histories of every laboratory they used. They were surprised by all the Animal Welfare Act violations reflected in those inspection reports. What Iams Did Within months of our meeting, Iams had stopped dealing with all but eight of those laboratories. Iams also went quietly to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) to ask that the two organizations sit on the Iams Animal Care Advisory Board. Iams wanted to shield itself from scrutiny. (In 2004, the ASPCA accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Iams. Iams also sponsored HSUS’ 2004 PetFest Events, but although HSUS has received money in the past from Iams’ parent company, P&G, it no longer takes money from Iams. Regrettably, both groups agreed to be on the Iams advisory board without knowing anything about the case.) PETA Finds and Gets Alternatives Accepted PETA has done and still does a great deal of research into Iams and the pet-food industry. We attended both of the 2004 meetings of AAFCO (the American Association of Feed Control Officers) to make presentations and to determine what tests are legally required of Iams. We determined that there are no legally required tests. At the January 2004 meeting of AAFCO, we presented information on a home-testing protocol developed by two researchers at Oklahoma State University. Shortly after the meeting, we received written confirmation from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that AAFCO did not require the use of laboratories to conduct tests on dogs and cats in order to get the AAFCO seal of approval. The ASPCA and HSUS did not attend these meetings. Iams Lets the Dogs Out (Kind of!) PETA also attended the 2003 and 2004 Pet Food Forums in Chicago at which manufacturers and suppliers gather to discuss new trends in research, food additives, marketing, and how to exploit consumers’ love for their animal companions. It was at the 2004 Pet Food Forum that Iams’ Dan Carey announced that Iams had a “new and improved” policy—to allow dogs out of their cages for a miserly 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week, meaning that they are confined for 23 1/2 hours a day, Monday through Friday, and 24 hours a day on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. Neither HSUS nor the ASPCA attended these meetings. PETA Pries Information Loose PETA has submitted state open-records requests—the state equivalent of Freedom of Information Act requests—for information on Iams contracts for animal testing at state-funded universities. How badly does Iams want to keep this information from us? Mississippi State University has demanded that we pay it in excess of $42,000 for its records on Iams’ experiments. We have appealed this decision. When PETA made a presentation to the ASPCA board members and president on September 30, 2004, we told the group about an Iams-funded experiment at Purdue University to study the effects of nutrition on muscle atrophy. The atrophy is produced by suspending mice for a week by their hind legs. The mice are killed and cut up at the end of the experiment. Neither HSUS nor the ASPCA knew of this experiment or others being conducted. Both groups tell us that they have never asked Iams for a list of such experiments or filed state open-record requests to obtain them. A Few Surprise Ingredients in the Dog Food Through our research into ingredients used in Iams pet foods, we discovered that some of Iams’ manufacturing plants have rendering plants on the same property. Rendering plants are where animals not fit for human consumption are taken for processing. These animals may have been condemned because of cancerous tumors or tuberculosis lesions or perhaps because they were “downed” (could not walk) when they got to the slaughterhouse. Many rendering plants take the bodies of dogs and cats from veterinary hospitals and shelters. Needless to say, the cost of commercial dog and cat foods is kept down by using the cheapest possible ingredients, and that is precisely why the pet-food companies use protein from rendering plants. HSUS and the ASPCA tell us that they didn’t know that Iams uses ingredients from rendering plants. Iams Tries to Avert Criticism Creatively On October 7, 2004, Iams announced that by October 2006, it would move all of its outside testing into its own laboratories in Dayton, Ohio. This might have been a step in the right direction were it not for the fact that Iams is increasing the capacity of its own laboratories to hold more than twice as many animals. Of course, bringing the tests inside its own walls, with all the experiments and employee checks under one roof, also makes it harder for undercover investigators to get access. HSUS and the ASPCA have supported Iams in this move, with neither group addressing why the expansion is wrong—the fact that none of the tests that Iams conducts is even required. HSUS has said that it did not know that Iams plans to double the capacity of its Dayton laboratories. Why We Must Reluctantly Object to Involvement by HSUS and the ASPCA HSUS says that it is partnering with the ASPCA to appeal to the entire pet-food industry with a letter asking for improved standards for dogs and cats used in nutritional testing. There are three things wrong with this: First, the tests can all be done in the comfort of an animal’s home or in collaboration with a veterinary clinic that has patients who suffer from the disease or injury of interest to the pet-food company. There is no need to confine dogs and cats to laboratories. Supporting the use of laboratory-confined dogs and cats to test pet food is like approving of crude cosmetics testing on animals. Second, neither HSUS nor the ASPCA have staff dedicated to this issue, so they don’t find out a lot about it. Third, HSUS and the ASPCA have shown Iams that they are easy to please—they don’t pester or push. What Now? We know that there is NO need for laboratory testing of pet foods at all. Unfortunately, the involvement of HSUS and the ASPCA has made our campaign more difficult and given Iams comfort, but we will deal with that obstacle and remain focused, and with the help of so many dedicated people who want to put an end to dog- and cat-food tests in laboratories, we will ultimately prevail. To view our latest campaign items and to join us in letting the world know that no one should buy Iams food, please visit Iamscruelty.com regularly and often. Put it on your calendar and get involved! The dogs and cats and other animals in Iams’ laboratories need all the help they can get. If you would like to send a comment to PETA, please e-mail IamsCruelty@peta.org and let us know what you think about the campaign. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iams Continues Cruel Experiments on Animals
Update: Iams Stops Using Chicks in Tests!
We Want Empty Cages, Not Slightly Nicer Cages
