Boycott IAMS and Proctor & Gamble!!!

[Kugyou]

"Read between the lines"? Seriously. Let's read between some of PeTA's lines. They claim they have a videotape, yet have not produced it. They claim that dogs died or were killed, yet Iams spokesman said that didn't happen. PeTA claims that government regulations were being violated; Iams says that the lab may not have been up to IAMS OWN humanity regulations, but that no federal regulations were violated. These are binary, Nacht. Either something did or did not happen. Either there was a videotape that showed these things, or there wasnt. Either federal regulations were violated, or they weren't.

The LD50 test is being phased out. Provide sources for your claim on the methodology.

As to mycotoxins in pet food, the difference between the corn used as filler in pet foods and the popcorn you eat is the amount of mycotoxin allowed by the FDA. Mycotoxins can happen anywhere there's corn. Contaminations can happen any time there's food.

Provide sources (beyond the dogfoodsecrets site) for your claim that toxic chemicals are used in the rendering process (The Wiki Article on Rendering disagrees). And go read Call of the Wild - dogs eat dogs. Cannibalism happens in the animal world. I cannot find corroboration (outside of PeTA) for the claims against IAMS, or for the meaning of AAFCO standards as "the bare minimum to make sure a pet doesn't die from the food". This guy Perrino sounds like the same kind of quack who tells you that you really need to be taking 400% of the RDA for all these vitamins, because the RDA is really just the minimum you need to survive! He bills himself as a "research scientist" on multiple websites, yet I can't find any credentials for him, any peer-reviewed studies he's done, or in fact almost anything he's written that's not about how bad the pet food industry is. He claims he worked for a vet who said that no commercial pet food is recommendable for pets; why is this vet not named as a testimonial? Why is the only source for some of these claims a site designed for the purpose of selling a book? This is questionable source material.

You just provided a link to the same article I gave you that shows that PeTA's claims are disputed. Provide sources that the testing was to find out "what's the worst thing we can do to these animals". Back up your claims. Verify your assertions. Argumentum ad assertion (it is, because I said it is) is a serious logical fallacy, you know.

As a final critique - you need to work on your formatting, and especially your citing. It's hard to tell whether words are coming from you or one of your sources; it's bordering on plagiarism.

[Gekko]

Sadly, as smart as us ppl think we are, we are but cockroaches. Should we boycott some cancer treatments because they were discovered through the horrible period of history known as the holocaust? I dont think so. We are very good reverse engineers, but horrible creators. I'm not personally impressed by things like cloning. Create some new proteins that create something new never before seen, then we can talk. Our failures are how we learn, so testing is a necessity. An unfortunate reality.

[Jaena]

Let me first off start by stating that I cannot stand PETA. Even a little bit. However, as far as animal testign goes, I have a little bit different perspective.

Say we use ingredient group A, which is our top notch stuff. The animals eat it, it's wonderful. However, it is bookoo expensive. Which means we must find something comparable, but cheaper. That still does the same stuff.

Ingredient group B is created, with lesser quality ingredients. But CHEAPER ingredients. New testing must be done to see if the animals will still eat it, and if it does what it says it will do. If animals won't eat it, they'll die of malnutrition, and the company loses big money in lawsuits from awful dog food. If it doesn't do what it is supposed to, but is tasty, the company will still lose huge amounts of money to lawsuits, because peopel don't want to spend huge amounts of money on a tartar control dog food that doesn't really control tartar.

Ingredient group C is created, with bits of A and B. It is a happy medium for teh animals, the company, AND the people buying it. The money saved by using ingredients from B is passed on to the buyers who then continue to buy the food.


This can also be applied to other things. ESPECIALLY those with chemical components. If we mix Chemicals A and B, they may clean like they should, but they may also be EXTREMELY toxic. While it is not always necessary to test this on animals, some companies look at this as a "cheaper" alternative to buying huge amounts of equipment. Stick teh new compund in a glass box, stick a mouse in there. If the mouse dies from fumes, it's probly not a good idea to sell this to humans. And the mouse was cheaper than newfangled equipment to measure toxicity. Looking at it from a business perspective, the buttloads of new equipment could mean increased manufacturing costs, which get passed on to teh consumers, who then get pissed because the prices went up, and go to a new brand.

I am NOT CONDONING CRUEL ANIMAL TESTING. I'm jsut saying, there is some simple logic behind all of the twisted facts and convoluted reports. To a huge company, pissing off PETA isn't that big a deal. Not when so many people have lost faith in the organization because of their OWN dark past.

As for Iams specifically stating that some of their labs didn't meet their own standards, I doubt that those labs are still below those standards. It causes bad publicity, which is what REALLY causes issues for comapnies. Not PETA initiated bad publicity, but clear, straight from the company bad publicity.



And if we were to ban all testign on animals, that would include things similar to Pavlov's experiments with dogs, as well as teh study that was tryign to prove homosexuality was evolutionary or somethign liek that by sticking rats in a caged environment, and then lettign them breed until they became overpopulated. This was kinda cruel, but it gave them the info they were looking for. Because certain animals have certain similarities to us, such as sensitive skin, or similar organs or brain functions, it just makes sense to test thigns on them. A lot of these animals are bred specifically for the purpose of having the fur shaven off their butts to get makeup. Until society as a whole either finds a way of replicating these tests entirely, or decides that breeding for testing is wrong, there's going to be animal testing.

(and on those companies that dont' test on animals: how many of their products are almost identical to products that WERE tested on animals? It woudl eliminate the necessity if they were basing it off of a tried and true formula)

[Kugyou]

One quick note in response to Jaena - I think the labs in question aren't actually owned by IAMS/P&G. I think they're on contract. PeTA's own site about the incident indicates that IAMS is probably no longer doing business with that lab.

Now we open ourselves up for the next round of hypocrisy, probably, so I'll go ahead and point out the argument I've heard before.
PeTA: IAMS is still bad people because they associate with/hire bad people!
Us: Then stop giving money to ALF, SHAC, and Rod Coronado.

[Jaena]

*blink* So we shoudl boycott them because they WERE using a lab that allegedly was cruelly treating animals? But they're not now?

Now I'm just dizzy. Too many circles.

[Kugyou]

Welcome to PeTA logic.

[Nacht]

kugyou: "As a final critique - you need to work on your formatting, and especially your citing. It's hard to tell whether words are coming from you or one of your sources; it's bordering on plagiarism."

so.... i cite my sources... but then i am plagiarising because i am taking examples out of said sources.... or i state info w/out citing a source and then i am NOT citing a source to back it up....
that just goes around in circles. i can't state anything without a source, but i can't cite a source because that is plagiarism.
i have read a LOT of things. i can't save every page i have ever looked at. you also have read quite a lot. i doubt you saved all of those addresses. that website is not the only place i have read that info. the problem is not with the cannibalism. cats and dogs are natural scavengers; they eat everything. heck my cats even chew on plastic bags sometimes. ^_- the problem is with the euthanasia. if the food doesn't get rendered properly, our animals are eating death drugs.
http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1
here is one site. and before you go on about the fact that it is an animal protection site, go all the way to the bottom and read THEIR cited sources. plenty of doctors in there.
http://www.sojos.com/truthabout.html
plenty of doctors on this one

iams claimed they would "stop most testing by october 2006". i would like for some ACTUAL federal people to inspect them to see if this is true.

here are some people who's jobs are to monitor these things. maybe i should go work for them, eh? then maybe someone will listen, because it won't be in the name of peta?
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC3863.htm

[Doot]

Nacht, I think Kugyou meant that it would be easier if your farmatting of your post flowed a bit easier to decipher between what you are stating and what a website is citing.

Example:

_____________________________________________________

Here is my opinion. My opinion is this sentence. Now here is something to back it up:

(Insert Link Here - www.opinion.com)

[Kugyou]