I don't remember saying that,
I've just googled it and found this The report, written by the paper's Health Editor Lucy Johnston drew largely on findings by the animal rights organisation 'Uncaged' which, the report claimed, had been "buried in obscure scientific papers".

Uncaged are closely linked to Peta,so as I said I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
Alot of the articles on the net go back to uncaged or peta.

Taken from the border collie site,again highlighting Peta and uncaged,

There are a number of organisations active in the UK that campaign against unneccesary experimentation on animals. Prominent amongst these are "PETA" (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and "Uncaged".

There are also a number of pet food companies who experiment on animals to 'test' and 'improve' their products. Prominent amongst these is 'IAMS' who manufacture 'Eukanuba'.

Both PETA and Uncaged have both investigated IAMS and uncovered a lot of information that the company would rather we didn't know. IAMS are by no means alone - just another company - but one that's been caught.

Link Iams Tests
I don't feed Iams anyhow mine have Burns.

I've heard this said before, but so far no-one has ever come up with any evidence to support this other than they both - along with many other animal rights organisations - often research and protest against the same companies. Uncaged's values and ethics are vastly different from those of PETA.

PETA and Uncaged (whether linked or not. I have seen evidence in the past to link them, but cannot find it currently) were not interested in Iams until P&G (who they are well nown to hate) took the company over.

I have NEVER seen any footage recently filmed or cruelty uncovered in the Iams labs. The footage which has been seen and mentioned repeatedly was filmed in the same lab use dby Iams, but was nit animals being tested on by Iams. Iams no longer use the same lab.

If anyone has any proved recent footage, I will change my view, until then, I do not believe a word of it.

(I do not use Iams, by the way, although that is because I believe there are better foods for my dogs, not for ethical reasons)

As for PETA, they have been caught out doing all sorts of cruel things to animals in the name of their 'crusade'. The whole organisation and what it stands for disgusts me.

PETA are linked with Uncaged but what difference does it make who uncovered it? The proof is there for all to see and no IAMS are not the only ones but there are plenty of good quality food manufacturers that have signed up to an agreement saying they won't test on animals. Personally, if I were to feed commercial food I would rather opt for one of them than any of the ones that refuse to sign up to the agreement.

Uncaged Campaigns: Pet food and animal testing

Thank God that someone else is taking my point. I just cannot believe some of these posts from people who are more concerned with discrediting Peta than looking at Iams and their barbaric treatment of animals. I thought I was on the wrong forum for a moment!!!!!

The most recent investigation was in 2003 I beleive. Whether they still test on animals I don't know but I still wouldn't touch IAMS with a barge pole as there are numerous good foods that did sign up and agree to not testing on animals. Burns being one of them. There are also some very good foods that have no links to animal testing but weren't given the chance to sign up. Orijen for example. I know which I'd prefer.

The point is, is it not proof. PETA have been found to have set up (paid staff) films of horses being slaughtered in abbatoirs, in barbaric ways that were not how the poor animals were usually killed. So they willingly cause dsuffering to animals, then passed the film off as what usually happens in the abbatoires.

I'm not sure on how I stand regarding humane animal testing on dog foods, but since I buy medicines which have been tested on animals and buy washing powder etc, I don't feel I am in a position to say that people shouldn't buy a dog food that is tested on animals. It seems hypocritical to me that some woudl feel it is OK to test a medicine on animals, but not a soap powder or dog food. It is all for our own means in the end, so i don't personally see any difference.

Of course, all of those who object to Iams may well refuse medicines for themselves, their animals or their children, but I doubt it in the majority of cases.

Do you class Burns as a good dog food then? It contains more rice and les meat than most other 'premium' brands.

[QUOTE=ajshep1984;225000]PETA are linked with Uncaged but what difference does it make who uncovered it? The proof is there for all to see and no IAMS are not the only ones but there are plenty of good quality food manufacturers that have signed up to an agreement saying they won't test on animals. Personally, if I were to feed commercial food I would rather opt for one of them than any of the ones that refuse to sign up to the agreement.

Uncaged Campaigns: Pet food and animal testing

Thank God that someone else is taking my point. I just cannot believe some of these posts, from people who are more concerned with discrediting Peta than looking at Iams and their barbaric treatment of animals. I thought I was on the wrong forum for a moment!!!!

__________________

Ideally I wouldn't use anything that has been tested on animals as I am dead set against it for ANY means. Anything that I know is tested on animals I don't use. I would like to see animal testing banned outright but that's just me. Realistically though I probably use 101 products that are tested on animals or produced by companies that test on animals.

I don't think any commercial dog food is good in all honesty but it's far from the worst.

Nina how did you edit my post above?

Rather than accepting dog food tested on animals becuase we use medicine etc tested on animals, perhaps we should be looking at animal testing across the whole spectrum.


In an article in this week's Dog World, the following statistics were quoted:

3.2million animal experiments were started in Britain in 2007, a rise of 21% since 1997 and a 6.3% rise since 2006.

Experiments on genetically modifying animals are up 11% since 2006 and 157% since 1998

5,648 dogs were used in experiments last year, 3,125 monkeys and 179 cats.
61% of these procedures were operations conducted without anasthaesia.
More than 532,239 other animals are used in British laboratories each year.

Animal experimanets at Porton Down have nearly doubled since Labour came to power.

"Independent reviews of animal research efficacy published in journals reveal that animal tests have limted applicability to humans. The most recent concluded that from a total of 221 studies using over 7,100 animals, half the animals results failed to correctly predict the human outcome.

A 50% success rate is about as useful as tossing a coin."

Given the two sentences in red, why don't we just toss a coin and save all that unnecessary suffering?