Boycott IAMS and Proctor & Gamble!!!

[Blackmage]

Unfortunatly the only thing I have to add to this is I miss Crystal Clear Pepsi as it was labled in Cali

[Kugyou]

Quick question for you, Nacht: Is it necessary to take possession of 92 animals under the pretense of taking them to a shelter where they will be adopted out to loving families, only to then immediately euthanise them without taking them to said shelter, put their bodies in garbage bags, and leave the bodies in dumpsters?

ADDENDUM: To add insult to injury - the people who did those horrible things to those animals fed them on IAMS brand pet food!

ADDENDUM THE SECOND: Here's the article talking about IAMS brand pet food found in the car of the PeTA staffers who killed at least 31 and up to 92 animals taken from animal hospitals and shelters.

Ongoing coverage of the PeTA animal cruelty trial, kill rate, et cetera.

ADDENDUM THE THIRD: PeTA's rationale for euthanizing these animals without even attempting to actually adopt them out? "They were going to die anyway".

[Nacht]

everyone is really concentrating on what peta has and has not done
this is not about peta
this about procter&gamble. about slicing dogs' gums open to test tartar control dogfood. hacking chunks out of their legs and leaving them bleeding in piles by the wall. like i said:how about using GOOD ingredients in the first place?
how many times do we need to test HANDSOAP? don't we know soap does already? we do, in fact, down to a molecular level. filling mice stomachs with soap doesn't really seem like a good test. i don't even know what you would learn from that.
yes, a lot of the products on the shelves have been tested. if can pull down THIS hugs company, we can set a precedent for others to follow.
victoria's secret seems to be able to make lotion without testing, as does bath & body works. abercrombie and estee lauder don't test either. it is NOT NECESSARY. testing feminine products and makeup does not save human lives.
this is NOT FROM PETA AND SAYS THE SAME THING!
http://www.compassionateconsumer.com/b_law_us.php
"Known safety data exist for common ingredients currently subjected to further animal testing practices. More than 8,000 ingredients are already deemed safe after years of testing. Additionally, huge strides have been made in non-animal-based (in vitro) testing which offer valid alternatives to antiquated (and arguably inapplicable) animal-based tests. Progressive companies use in vitro testing practices such as chemical assays, artificial skin systems, human volunteers, and computer models"
alternatives to testing:
http://www.api4animals.org/a2_research.php
"Validated alternatives to animal testing exist, as do number of promising alternatives waiting in the wings that are cheaper, more humane, and more reliable. Progressive and innovative companies are developing and utilizing alternatives to animal testing, replacing the animal model. "

passing blame onto peta for past mistakes DOES NOT MAKE THESE FACTS UNTRUE! it IS verifiable and it IS unnecessary.
if you don't have time to write a letter or raise your voice, do the smallest thing and don't buy from procter. we can change our world. it is OURS after all. not theirs! THEY don't get to decide what we put into our bodies or the manner in which products reach us.
do your own research if you don't believe me. change things you don't like. it can be done. we changed slavery, women's voting rights, segregation etc... we can change this! don't lie down and take it!

Procter & Gamble Co. (Clairol, Cover Girl, Crest, Gillette, Giorgio, Iams, Max Factor, Physique, Tide), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.pg.com

Unilever (Axe, Dove, Helene Curtis, Lever Bros., Suave), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-1260; 800-598-1223; www.unilever.com

write to them yourself. these are the biggest companies on the shelves. they test on dogs and cats just like yours.

[Kugyou]

First off, Nacht - I don't believe that animals that outnumber humans 100,000 to one deserve "rights" like humans. Equating "animal rights" to getting rid of slavery or giving women the right to vote is a false analogy, and indicative of the PeTA groupthink of "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy".

Second, I'm pointing out PeTA's (and your) hypocrisy here. PeTA says "Boycott IAMS", yet it was IAMS brand pet food in the death van. PeTA says "don't use 'they're going to die' as an excuse", yet uses the same excuse when killing animals that can be adopted to homes. You know, cats and dogs just like yours. The same PeTA that demonizes animal rescue groups that don't run no-kill shelters, yet has a 90% kill rate themselves. The same PeTA that funds groups that are referred to as domestic terror threats. Why is PeTA not up for scrutiny for its own lies here?

Third, the claims PeTA has made about IAMS have been disputed. Have you gone looking for any news on this issue other than the PeTA claims? In the interest of equal time, I'll put forth the IAMS position on the matter.

I'd also like to see your sources for your statements about soap (specifically, the implication that animal testing is being done on ingredients whose safety are already known, and a source for the bit about filling a mouse's stomach with soap).

[Doot]

I'm just going to venture a guess that PeTA donates funds practically all the animal rights groups/intitutes out there.

[Shino]

[Nacht]

the page says:
"Iams spokesman Bryan Brown denied that any of the dogs at the facility that was investigated died.
He says that all of the 20 or so contract facilities were freshly investigated and although some of them didn't meet the company's humane standards, there were no violations of federal laws or regulations."
read between those lines and you will see my point.
he didn't DENY that they were testing. in fact he answered in the affirmative! some of them didn't meet standards. the dogs dying or not doesn't tell us anything about the conditions they live in.
federal laws and regulations are VERY lenient. they still allow the 50% test. start at the maximum amount of substance and they come down until only 50% of the animals die. kinda backwards don't yah think. mr. brown isn't going to say "yeah, don't care about dogs, we just wanna sell dogfood"
my whole goal here is to create awareness. ask any random person "do you think they still test on animals?" i have. here's the most common answer. "oh, no, they don't do that very much anymore"
if there were people who's JOBS it were to investigate humane treatment of animals, peta wouldn't exist would it? we need to make educated decisions, and understand what goes on behind the scenes. like i said in another post: the more leeway we give them, the worse our products are going to get. if no one cares enough to watch them, they will do whatever they want to us and our pets. we need to make them see that society as a whole DOES care what they are feeding their pets and themselves.
also on that page was the next thing to think about: commercial dogfood isn't good for our animals anyway. http://www.dogfoodsecrets.info/
http://www.dogfoodsecrets.info/Commercial_Dog_Food_Production_is_Non-regulated.html
"Products unfit for human consumption are put into dog
food. That includes rendered pets. Yes, euthanized
and animals that die from disease are rendered into
products that end up in your dog food. Supporters of
this practice say that the product is sterilized so
that no diseases are transmitted. When you read
pet-food labels and it says meat or bone meal, that's
what it is -- cooked and converted animals, including
some dogs and cats. Even worse than the thought of
our dogs becoming cannibals is the process that the
flesh goes through to become bone meal. This meat and
bone must be treated with toxic chemicals to render it
to product."
not to mention the corn and wheat used in pet food that is often rotten. it is called myotoxin. your pet will start throwing up or having uncontrollable diarrhea, and you won't know why.
no. it is not feasible to feed our pets steaks, but these companies need to know that we don't want them poisoning our pets!

[Doot]

The photos were put out by PeTA. We've seen what they are capable of with euthanizing perfectly good pets. How are we to know that it wasn't them who took the pictures of the very pets they were putting down?

They have an agenda with a terroristic approach. I don't trust anything they put out.

Yes IAMs can be testing their animal directed products on animals.

It's understood that it is what is needed to make sure the product is safe for millions of other animals.

[Gryph]

[Nacht]

yeah, i get it, peta sucks. but you can read that article straight out of the iams spokesperson's mouth.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/i/iams.htm
let's think about it this though.
if they knew the ingredients they were using were good in the first place, why would they need to test in the first place. let's see if corn meal is good for animals? come on. they already know the answer to that.
what they are doing is seeing what the WORST things are that they can use and still sell petfood to the unknowing consumer. "ok guys, today we are testing to find exactly HOW much euthanized cat is too much." petfood is comprised of all the pieces left over deemed "not fit for consumption". yes, cats and dogs have remarkably stronger stomachs than humans, but our pets ARE getting sick! degenerative bone diseases, arthritis, skin conditions due to malnutrition, diarrhea, vomiting... our pets have natural lifespans longer than what our pets are living presently.
http://www.dogfoodsecrets.info/
http://www.dogfoodsecrets.info/Commercial_Dog_Food_Production_is_Non-regulated.html
this isn't the only place you can find this information. ask your vet. they will tell you the same thing. vets are the ones who WROTE these types of articles.
maybe we keep BUYING the product, but at least write them and tell them it isn't ok with you that they use euthanized cats and dogs, rotten leftover cow meat, and rotten wheat and corn meal.
research it. the next time your animal gets sick, really pump your vet for info about petfood, and if that was the cause of illness. the cheaper the food, the worse it is. (of course)
a written letter goes a long way. the more they receive, the more they will listen. hell, give me your address, and i will personally mail a letter in your behalf. you don't even have to do any work.