PETA calls for cruelty investigation of IAMS and Menu Foods

[Holly_Hobby]

I don't agree with everything PETA does, but this appears to be appropriate in this instance;

Menu Foods reportedly knew of this potentially deadly food as early as February 20, 2007. When reports surfaced that its dog and cat food might have caused severe illness in customers’ animal companions, the company quietly conducted lethal toxicity tests to confirm the contamination. Dogs and cats were forced to ingest toxic and lethal food in Menu’s laboratory before the company announced the recall of pet food from stores nationwide nearly one month after the initial illnesses were reported. During this critical time, countless animal companions may have been at risk of getting sick, and many may have died.

In addition to the appalling failure to disclose information about the contaminated food to its consumers, Menu Foods chose to test the food by forcing healthy dogs and cats to ingest it—instead of using one of the reliable, humane alternatives that are readily available, including chemical analyses of the food, necropsies and tissue analyses of the already deceased animal victims, and non-animal test methods, such as the functional gastro-intestinal dog model (FIDO) or TIM-1 and TIM-2 (small and large gastro-intestinal models).

No one knows how many animals are dying in homes or how many are dying in laboratories for pet-food profits. PETA is calling on Menu Foods to provide full disclosure regarding the location of its laboratories, for law enforcement agencies to investigate whether cruelty-to-animals charges should be filed against Menu Foods in the U.S. and Canada for alleged failure to warn consumers about the tainted food as soon as the company had the information, and for Iams to stop unnecessary suffering and death by immediately ending its laboratory tests on animals.

PETA’s Investigation Revealed Cruel and Deadly Tests Conducted for Iams
For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003, a PETA investigator went undercover at an Iams contract testing laboratory and discovered a dark and sordid secret beneath the wholesome image of the dog- and cat-food manufacturer. Undercover footage captured images of dogs who had gone insane from intense confinement to barren steel cages and cement cells, dogs who were left piled on a filthy paint-chipped floor after having chunks of muscle hacked from their thighs, and horribly sick dogs and cats who were languishing in their cages, neglected and left to suffer without veterinary care. In addition to suffering through painful experiments, animals in Iams labs were denied companionship and enrichment and were confined to their barren cages for at least 23 1/2 hours every day. The recent massive recall by Menu Foods, contract manufacturer for Procter & Gamble’s Iams and Eukanuba brands—of more than 60 million cans and pouches of dog and cat food is further proof that laboratory tests on animals do not guarantee that a product will be safe to use.

...

The video is next...I don't have the heart to watch it.

http://www.peta.org/feat-iams_page2.asp

[Critters2]

1. I started to watch the video, but had to stop

They always do these awful things to beagles, who are the kindest most trusting animals in the world. Do these people just completely lack hearts?

[Holly_Hobby]

3. I don't understand how they can deteach

from empathy for animals. Someone please explain it to me.

[Donnachaidh]

2. These companies should be sued for CONSUMER FRAUD

As sickened as I am over the pet deaths, people seem to be missing a very BIG point here.

These companies -- Iams,Nutro-Max, etc. -- they ALL sold these products claiming them to be SUPERIOR to other foods on the market. They charged sometimes up to 3 or 4 times the price of the *regular* food.

And now we find out that the *pricier* foods are coming from the SAME plants as the cheap stuff?

I'd love to see a huge class-action lawsuit for the FRAUD they have perpetrated on the American public. I'd join it. They've no shame, and the bottom line is PROFIT for these lying sons of bitches.

They need to pay for ALL of this horror show.

[Holly_Hobby]

A class action lawsuit is going on behind the scenes

They will have their day in court. But it doesn't bring back the dead and suffering. I can't express how this saddens me. There is no justice.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. I'm not sure that's an adequate comparison.

And don't mistake this as a defense of the tainted pet food, but coming from the same factory doesn't necessarily mean they use the recipes and all the same ingredients in each brand.

I worked in a factory that made high quality name brand products and much lesser quality store brands of a similar item.

[Donnachaidh]

9. a good class action lawyer could and SHOULD tear that argument

apart.

It is an argument against a suit, but a review of the commercials and sales tactics of these companies just in the last five years would prove that they *claimed* their products are supposed to be healthier for our pets. and we paid for that *claim* with higher prices.

But our pets have died, and they are dying at tragic amounts, and in unspeakable pain and suffering.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Again....I understand you anger and frustration, but the fact remains...

....that just because two things are made in the same factory doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of each product.

A factory capable of producing a nice sturdy piece of furniture is just as capable of producing crap and often they produce both.

A restaurant capable of producing a nice gourmet meal is just as capable of producing a plate of fried shit.

Yes, this whole thing sucks, but you are making an illogical comparison as though a factory wasn't capable of producing both a crappy store branded item and a higher end product with better cuts and a different recipe. Some ingredients, regardless of the quality will likely be the same. A good example would be water. If a factory produced both a high quality and low quality product, do you really think they would use different water (unless they claim their high quality product is only made with mountain spring water or something).

I'm not outraged that Nutro premium brand cat food and Food Lion cheap store brand cat food are made in the same factory. My concern is the source of the contamination at this point.

[Critters2]

17. Same factory using the same (cheap, imported) ingredients.

I'll never buy from any of these companies again.

[Liberal Veteran]

22. That of course is your perogative....

....but some ingredients are common to nearly all pet foods out there and it shouldn't be shocking that cheep pet food and expensive pet food have many similarities.

Here's the ingredient list of a cat food that comes from a reputable maker of pet food's: Hill's Prescription Diet (found in almost all veterinary clinics)


Pork By-Products, Water, Pork Liver, Chicken, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Rice, Oat Fiber, Ground Whole Grain Corn, Corn Starch, Corn Gluten Meal, Guar Gum, Calcium Sulfate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Chloride, Choline Chloride, DL-Methionine, Iodized Salt, Taurine, Vitamin E Supplement, Brewers Dried Yeast, Thiamine Mononitrate, Ascorbic Acid (source of vitamin C), Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Beta-Carotene, Niacin, Manganous Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Riboflavin, Biotin, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Calcium Iodate, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenite.


Can you tell me where the ingredients came from?

I certainly can't.

That "corn gluten meal" may have come from Chernobyl or from the fields of Amish Organic farmers who lovingly tend the earth to eke out a living or from a farm next to a chemical plant in Kansas.

There are a whole lot of reasons to be upset over this thing, but the fact that expensive and cheap pet foods are made in the same factory is certainly not one of them. There seems to be a lot of outrage over that fact and I am not getting it. My outrage comes from the fact that pets are dying, not the fact that they happen to make "high quality" and "crappy store brand" cat food in the same place. It's like getting outraged because that shitty 30% fat chub of ground beef came out of the same butcher shop as that scrumptious T-bone steak you had last night.

[Critters2]

23. Hill's is crap. And yes, I do know where the ingredients of the food I now feed

come from. Some of it is raised by farmers I know, which guarantees they aren't in China. This is what I'm feeding exclusively from now on...

petpromiseinc.com

Using ingredients from Niman Ranch and Organic Valley (I know farmers in both of these groups), and grain sourced from the Midwest and Great Plains. You can feed wheat from China or corn from Chernobyl if you want. Me, I'll be more careful.

And if I ate meat, I'd only eat meat produced on farms where I know the farmers. Just like the eggs I buy, and most of my fresh veggies. I send relatively little money to China. If I can do it, why can't Hill's?

[rustydad]

38. Amish?

As an aside my daughter does puppy rescue work. She tells me that the Amish are the very worst at puppy mills. Most pet shops get their puppies from puppy breeders. The Amish are notorious for extreme inhumane treatment of breeders and their puppies. It is well documented. Bob

[CountAllVotes]

56. they sure are!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/846327093?ltl=1174882254

Please sign this petition to shut these awful puppy mills down. The list on this are the Amish now doing this in Ohio.

Also, watch this video here: www.baby94.com

[Critters2]

60. No, the people I mentioned aren't Amish. And yes, the Amish are

notorious for the puppy mill work.

The family farmers I mentioned are either members of my current or my former congregation (United Church of Christ).

[mopinko]

28. ditto. i worked for a contract packer years ago

we made similar products for several companies. some watched everything we did like hawks, others did not give a shit. some used ingredients in common, others insisted on complete separation of ingredients.

same factory does not mean ANYTHING.

[Critters2]

29. It did in this case. All the companies were using wheat gluten imported from China

Aldi, Nutro, Eukanuba, all using cheap ingredients.

[durtee librul]

33. Ok, here I go...

Rant alert....

First, lemme educate some folks out there. Having spent some summers in a canning company for a large company (Del Monte)and guess what folks, the same corn and peas for generic store brands went right into the same cans the higher priced stuff. An order comes in for 'x' amount of cans and labels, then the next order comes in....do ya REALLY think they stop the cookers, empty them out of the cheap stuff and refill with the 'good' stuff? Get real, they make so many pallets of whatever with 'x' amount of labels, and when the next order rolls along, in goes whatever is in the hopper and cookers.

I'd bet it's the same with dog/cat food. All I know, is that if one of my pooches was going thru this, I'd have a huge ownership in the company by the time it was done and/or be sitting on a beach with an umbrella drink.

And, I couldn't agree more with a class action suit against these clowns. They oughta be made to eat the shit....and see how they like it.

I have a relation who works at Abbott Labs in N Chicago and she won't even go near the testing labs anymore. It only took one trip there and that was more than enough. Says she still has nightmares from a 3 minute walkaround (exit door to exit door)

[Donnachaidh]

34. you're entitled to your opinion

Mine is not illogical.

I don't back companies that monopolize markets while LYING to the American public.

[kestrel91316]

4. When complaints came in, Menu Foods had a DUTY to determine

whether or not they had any basis in reality. You'd be surprised the lies people routinely tell about food companies and about anyone else if they get some crazy idea in their mind. They had to rule out crazy people complaining about BS.

The way they did it was with a FEEDING TRIAL. Feeding trials of commercial pet food are never intended to kill ANYBODY. I suspect Menu Foods did the trial, confident that nothing whatsoever was wrong with the food. They has a serious responsibility to approach this in a scientific manner rather than a faith-based and superstitious manner.

When the trial subjects died, I suspect the people at menu Foods were stunned with disbelief.

I personally would NEVER feed a pet food that hadn't been through rigorous feeding tests per the AAFCO protocols. But that's just me. Facts and science and reproducible research are my friends.

[Holly_Hobby]

8. What exactly are AAFCO protocols?

That the subjects live for 60 days? 90 days? Please elaborate.

I'm angry. I apologize in advance. Just how in the HELL did dogs and cats survive for thousands of years without Purina?

[kestrel91316]

19. About AAFCO:

http://www.aafco.org/

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=2&cat=1661&articleid=662

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=1&cat=1399&articleid=657

They set the basic standards for pet food nutrient levels.

It's main significance to me as a practitioner is that I advise my clients to NEVER feed a food that only says that it is "meets AAFCO nutrient guidelines for adult maintenance/growth/all life stages" or some such. You only want to feed a food that says "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that____________provides complete and balanced nutrition for the maintenance of adult cats (or growth)". It's called Statement of Nutritional Adequacy, and a food that hasn't been proven adequate through actual feeding is not something you want to feed. Has to do with nutrient availability (digestion/absorption) as opposed to stated contents. Just a way of screening out foods that are TRUE CRAP.


Here you go - I just love the "internets" - saves me from much reading and thinking and typing, lol:

AAFCO Statement of Nutritional Adequacy
AAFCO nutritional adequacy statements are required on all pet foods. Products may either be formulated or tested according to AAFCO procedures and recommendations.

A "formulated" statement means the product has been manufactured according to AFFCO nutritional guidelines, but not actually fed to cats or dogs prior to sale.
A "tested" statement indicates the product has been formulated, then fed to dogs or cats prior to sale to ensure it meets important criteria related to growth, maintenance, and/or reproduction.


Edited to add this from the FDA Consumer (newsletter):
Nutritional Adequacy
The nutritional adequacy statement assures consumers that a product meets all of a pet's nutritional needs. The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), an advisory body of state and federal feed regulators, develops recommended standards for nutrient contents of dog and cat foods. AAFCO also publishes ingredient definitions and regulations.

The FDA's CVM works in partnership with AAFCO to determine safe pet food ingredients and testing protocols. In addition to federal regulation of pet food, most state governments regulate pet foods and labeling through their agricultural departments. AAFCO has created a model feed bill that states often adopt in their own laws.

CVM gives scientific and regulatory advice to AAFCO and the states on pet food issues, and CVM representatives serve on AAFCO committees and meet regularly with AAFCO's board of directors. CVM investigators also team with AAFCO to check out questionable pet food ingredients or claims.

Manufacturers can show their food meets AAFCO's standards for nutritional adequacy by calculations or by feeding trials. Calculations estimate the amount of nutrients in a pet food either on the basis of average nutrient content of its ingredients, or on results of laboratory tests--but not animal feed tests. If the calculations show that the food provides sufficient nutrients to meet the specific AAFCO nutritional profile referenced, the pet food label will carry a statement like: "(Name of product) is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO (Dog or Cat) Food Nutrient Profiles for (specific life stage)."

Feeding trials signify that the manufacturer has tested the product (or a similar product made by the same manufacturer) in dogs or cats under strict guidelines. Products found to provide proper nutrition based on feeding trials will carry a statement such as: "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that (name of product) provides complete and balanced nutrition for (specific life stage)."

Regardless of the method used, the nutritional adequacy statement on a cat or dog food label must also tell which life stage the product is suitable for. AAFCO has established two nutrient profiles each for dogs and cats--growth/lactation and maintenance--to fit their life stages.

Every product must meet at least one of these two profiles. A product intended for growing kittens and puppies, or for pregnant or lactating females, must meet AAFCO's nutrient profile for growth/lactation. Products that meet AAFCO's profile for maintenance are suitable for an adult, non-reproducing dog or cat of normal activity level, but may not be adequate for an immature, reproducing, or hard-working animal. A product may claim that it is for "all life stages" if it is suitable for adult maintenance and also meets the more stringent nutritional needs for growth and reproduction.

Growth/lactation and maintenance are the only nutrient profiles authorized by AAFCO and CVM, so terms like "senior" or "formulated for large breed adults" mean the food meets the requirements for adult maintenance--and nothing more.

Snacks and treats that are clearly identified as such are not required to include a nutritional adequacy statement. But these foods, in all other respects, must meet FDA and state regulations for pet food labeling. Dog chews made from rawhide, bone, or other animal parts (such as pig ears) are also considered "food" since pets eat them. These products must bear a list of ingredients and provide the manufacturer's name and address, but they are not required to give a guaranteed analysis, nutritional adequacy statement, or feeding instructions.

[kestrel91316]

21. BTW, most of the recalled brands are what we call generics or

house brands, notoriously the worst foods. You can tell a generic because the label says "Distributed by" rather than "Manufactured by".

Just one more way we are trained to screen out utter crap.

[Critters2]

24. Nutro and Eukanuba aren't generics

They claim to be "premium" foods. So much for those claims.

[kestrel91316]

27. Of course they are not generics. If you look at their labels for at

least their dry and pate canned, you should find (I did last I checked)that they say "Manufactured by" and then their own company name. I said MOST of the recalled foods were generic, not all.

I still consider Nutro and Eukanuba to be a cut above. I NEVER liked ANYBODY's cuts and gravy. Even Hill's. I wish I had checked to see if their recalled varieties said "Manufactured by Hills". I am betting it did, ON A LEGAL TECHNICALITY. Grrrrrr

[LisaL]

42. I agree. Peta can say all it wants that feeding trial was cruel,

but I think it was fastest the most reliable way to find out if there was a problem with the food. Yes, they could have done other tests, but didn't anyone notice how much longer it took to figure out that it was rat poison in the food? Those tests take time.

[MoonRiver]

6. K&R

:mad:

[Bitwit1234]

7. The had a vet on CNN and he said don't feed your animals

any of the food in pouches. He said that the other companies did not have any poison food, but you wouldn't know when it might happen. Don't take a chance. Feed them dry food with plenty of fresh water. The pouches and canned food is not good for them. I do not understand how people can be cruel to animals.

[TZ]

37. Although you can get better food quality wise

how is it cruel to give your pet something they love? My cats love canned food much more than dry food. I would rather them eat food designed for pets, then human scraps which are often just as bad with all the processing and preservatives put in our food. Domesticated animals often now do better with what we designed for them than some "natural" foods because of how we have changed them through specific breeding for specific traits. If my cats had allergies or health needs I would change my tune and get prescription food. But you can find decent food stuff for them if you look at the labels. You can't call my spoiled and pampered cats "mistreated", especially when they are soo obviously healthy. My vet has always praised me for my care of my animals/children!

[LisaL]

43. Cats don't drink enough water.

And it's not like you can make them.

[TZ]

44. yes and that's why so many eat these

cuts and gravy. I think some cats lick the gravy and get their "water" intake that way, it being very tasty to them.

[LisaL]

46. Yep, that's what I fed my cats.

Of course possibly giving them rat poison was never my intention.

[TZ]

47. yes same here (Iams brand)

They will eat dry but really love wet food and will pester my unmercifully if they don't get it. I switched my two to Fancy Feast. Technically it has wheat gluten but it looks more like a gormet sauce type thing than the gravy of the other brands so I feel okay (not 100% safe but better) feeding it to them.

[LisaL]

48. I fed mine nutro. No by-products.

Yes, they do demand their wet food. Right now I don't know what to feed them.
I am trying different things.
They do like solid gold tuna but it's just tuna so I am sure they will want something else. They do bug me non-stop if they don't get their wet food.

[TZ]

52. yes they do get addicted to their wet food don't they?

I call it "Kitty Crack" because of it. Be careful with tuna, though. Several vets have told me several times fish is not great for cats and should be fed to them minimally. If you feed regular food to them you are better off with chicken or turkey with occasional tuna.

[kestrel91316]

10. BTW, PETA can't possibly actually care about the whole food

recall issue, because they are opposed to the "exploitation" of animals and that includes pet ownership. They want all vets to be out of work, too. We are part of an evil conspiracy to them.

They don't like to mention that in their literature.

I don't believe a word they say just on general principle.

[Donnachaidh]

11. Peta is looking for yet another public vehicle to get their message across

And I don't care for their message either.

But if these companies can be charged with cruelty, what does it really matter where the complaint start? As long as the outcome helps the pets, and the grieving families.

[Eric J in MN]

13. Plenty of PETA employees own pets. NT

NT

[Skip Intro]

18. That PETA is against having pets seems to be bs.

------------------------
http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

“Does PETA believe that people shouldn’t have pets?”

The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that humans’ fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.

Read more about ways to provide rich, interesting lives for your domesticated animal companions.
------------------------

They seem far more concerned with ending overpopulation, and the resulting misery of millions of animals than saying people shouldn't have pets.

I think they have a problem with the term "pet ownership," and perfer to use, "pet companion or guardian." There may me room for arugment there, but that comes nowhere close to saying people shouldn't have pets.

Exploring PETA's site for a bit just now, I stumbled across articles about making sure your disaster plans included your pet and making sure a pet's collar isn't too tight, restricting airflow. That doesn't sound like a group against humans having pets.

I tend to believe PETA's posted principles, and suspect an orchestrated animal rights opposition effort active in smearing those who are active in demanding ethical treatment for animals, both here and in the UK. AT least.

[Critters2]

25. Thank you

There's a lot of money to be made in cruelty to animals. Makes people defensive.

[Mend]

30. Do you have actual proof to this charge that PETA is against having

pets (and I don't count breeders and their breed groups say)? Has PETA stated this themselves anywhere? As best I can figure out, they say don't breed more dogs until the current ones are adopted. Four million animals are euthanized at taxpayers expense every year. I could be wrong but I think that is what they are concerned about: not adding to over-population.

[PinkyisBlue]

36. More PETA bashing.

It's ludicrous for you to say that PETA is against pet ownership and wants all vets to be out of work. PETA is against inhumane treatment of animals, and if some vets, directly or indirectly, allow animals to be mistreated, PETA will speak out against them.

I, for one, am a PETA member and a pet owner. I do NOT support "research" by pet food companies that requires animals to ingest tainted food to see if they die. There are other non-lethal tests that can be done to determine food toxicity. Most animal testing is not necessary. A "research" animal is just the same as my pet or your pet, except it doesn't have a human to advocate for it. I would no more desire to see a research animal suffer than my own animals. For this reason, I would never buy Iams brand pet food, as I know they test on animals.

As a vet, it would be nice if you could support humane treatment of ALL animals and not just those who are owned by humans with money.

[TZ]

39. Peta is way too extreme

As hard as it is to accept (and I love animals) medical testing on animals is an unfortunate necessity. Peta is agaisnt any kind of scientist or vet who accepts this harsh reality. They also object ot necessary learning tools like simple dissections of animals in school. Did you not hear about the German group that advocated EUTHANIZING a baby polar bear because the mother rejected it at a zoo because raising it was "unnatrual"? From time to time PETA advocates very similar positions although they will often deny it. They are not to be trusted. Especially after I heard about the extremely large numbers of euthanized domestic animals they were caught dumping illeagally. I would much rather see respectable groups like the ASPCA and HSUS work on issues with pet food companies and cruelty complaints.

[PinkyisBlue]

54. I disagree, as most animal research is unnecessary.

There are many good non-profit groups that promote medical and scientific research without using animals, two of which are Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and American Anti-Vivisection Society. I urge you to go to their web sites and read what they have to say. I believe forcing an animal to drink a bottle of shampoo is totally unnecessary research. There are also effective and humane alternatives to animal dissections. I myself have dissected animals, in high school and in college, and I look back in regret at what I did. I can't say that cutting open animals benefited me in any way. I'm glad there are alternatives to animal dissection now, and they should be heralded.

Look at the groups that are attacking and trying to discredit PETA. It all boils down to MONEY. Yes, there's a lot of money to be made in animal exploitation, including the use of animals in research. It sounds like you have fallen prey to some of the misinformation yourself. The incident that you speak of, where the PETA volunteers were caught illegally dumping bodies of euthanized animals, was an unfortunate episode. The volunteers' actions were not condoned by PETA and they were ousted from the organization.

I'm a member of PETA and I have never received anything but informative literature from them. I do think that PETA is a lightening rod for controversy because its mission is to change legislation and public policy regarding animal welfare. It does this by trying to expose animal abuse and educate people about the need for change. Some of its tactics are controversial and, though I might not agree with everything they do, I agree with their basic philosophy that ALL animals, not just the cute ones, deserve to be treated humanely.

Don't believe everything you read, think critically. Just as you don't believe everything the media tells you about what's going on in Washington, don't believe everything you hear about the fight for animal rights. It's all the same media, and it's still about profits and money. Whose side do you think gets to talk louder, the animals or the people and corporations who are profiting off them?

[TZ]

55. animal research

is needful for such things as vaccine research, testing of experiemental drugs, helping model how diseases work and effect people. My sister has lupus. The drugs she takes to control them would never have been approved had they not been first tested on mice. Small pox, polio and other lethal and horrible diseases would not be nearly wiped out without the use of animal testing of vaccines. I hate using animals myself and personally prefer not to be around it. But it is necessary. Those who claim that testing in cell lines/tissue culture can replace it are wrong. I do lab work. I have a biology degree. I also don't like PETA and the other extreme groups because I know of people in industry who have had their lives THREATENED in the way the anti-abortion group threatens doctors. As for dissections, perhaps some virtual reality stuff can be worked up, but if you are going to be doing real surgery, its helpful to actually physically practice it before hand. I learned quite a bit from dissections even if I didn't particularly enjoy it. I much rather put my trust for protection of animals in HSUS and ASPCA.

[PinkyisBlue]

59. The information I have obtained shows you are wrong.

From the PCRM website:

Examples of animal-based "safety" tests gone wrong:

Thalidomide
Flenac (Fenclofenac)
Rezulin (Troglitazone)
Propulsid (Cisapride)


Some drugs are toxic in animals but not in humans, including:

Penicillin
Lasix
Aspirin


"Safety tests using human cells are more accurate than animal tests...researchers evaluated 68 different methods to predict the toxicity of 50 different chemicals. Rat LD50 tests-lethal dose tests currently used-were only 59% accurate, but a
combined human cell test was 83% accurate in predicting actual human toxicity."

The PCRM encourages funding for finding alternatives for medical and scientific research that doesn't use animals. What is wrong with that? The FDA requires animal testing before new drugs can be approved for use in humans, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems with the data obtained. If there's a better way to obtain results that doesn't use animals, let's find it!

By the way, PETA isn't an extreme group. Their goal is to expose abuse, educate the public and change policy. PETA doesn't approve of death threat tactics or violence of any kind. If someone in your industry has had his/her life threatened, the police should be contacted and the guilty party should be disciplined. Most PETA protests I have read about are peaceful, non-violent and seek to educate and inform (and usually involve a letter-writing campaign, handing out leaflets or holding up signs). I'm sure more PETA protesters have been the targets of violence than have been the perpetrators of violence.

[Beaverhausen]

41. Wow- what an informed post.

What you don't know about PETA is a lot. Remind me not to bring my pets to you.

[spoony]

58. Any group that compares

cruelty to chickens to the holocuast, as they have done, loses all credibility with me.

Too much over-the-top, offensive flashy crap and not enough common sense in that camp.

[Critters2]

61. It wasn't PETA that made that comparison originally

The idea comes from Isaac Bashevis Singer who wrote this in reference to the treatment of animals:

“What do they know -- all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world -- about such as you. They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.”

[Skip Intro]

12. I have two responses to this story about PETA re: the recall -

First, to read what goes on in these places, with video evidence, makes me want to see the perps suffer the same circumstances. How utterly inhumane, to treat any animal like that. But these were cats and dogs. By the company responsible for the customers' pets' deaths. Like most things PETA (most, not all), I agree with them here, and maybe this time, people will listen. That leads me to my second response, as morbid as it sounds, this move by PETA is a move that could earn them lacking respect in the public at large. They have an opportunity, as people for ethical treatment of animals, to win a lot of new fans by coming to the aid of the victimized, and calling attention to the current problem with menu, and the larger inhumanity of the mass treatment of animals by industry, from test labs to factory farms. This whole menu situation is terrible and repulsive, but through justice and public awareness, maybe something positive can come from this whole episode.

[Holly_Hobby]

14. AAFCO protocols

From the Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated:

For adult maintenance dog food to pass the AAFCO test:

8 dogs older than 1 yr. must start the test.
At start all dogs must be normal weight & health.
A blood test is to be taken from each dog at the start and finish of the test.
For 6 months, the dogs used must only eat the food being tested.
The dogs finishing the test must not lose more than 15% of their body weight.
During the test, none of the dogs used are to die or be removed becasue of nutritional causes.
6 of the 8 dogs starting must finish the test.

And that's it, folks. I feed my animals USDA inspected meat. Now you know why. There are at least 100,000 members on this list. Maybe more of them will wake up.

http://home.att.net/~wdcusick/04.html

[Critters2]

16. It wasn't meat that killed these animals. It was gluten imported from

a country notorious for lax inspection. Maybe people will wake up, and start buying local products.

[Holly_Hobby]

20. Maybe I wasn't clear

I'm angry...sorry.

I didn't intend to blame the poison on meat. I intended to bring the AAFCO "protocols" for testing pet food to everyone's attention.

[MzNov]

53. Menu foods claims it was in the wheat gluten. It may have come from

the scrapings from the floor, droppings, etc. that are put into pet foods.

Besides, why are there so many RATS in these manufacturing plants. The actual rats themselves can end up in the food. They put every other kind of road kill, diseased dead animals, beaks, feet, feathers, etc. IN THE FOOD.

This CRIME hopefully will wake people up to how pet foods are made and what goes into them. Kind of like the old hot dog thing. When people found out what the percentage of rodent droppings etc. were allowed in the food, BY REGULATION, they stopped eating them.


edited to add link:
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/jesse.htm

[williesgirl]

26. Off to the greatest page - they knew they could be lax w/this admin and this is the result.

[EvilAL]

31. didn't peta's lawyers

admit that animals have no value? eliminating the fraud charge.
Say that the animals were the property of peta? making the killing of the animals fine and dandy.

So for a place that wants total animal liberation we get employees injecting puppies to death and claiming ownership of animals.
ya, peta. it only gets worse everytime. Cruelty to animals? Killing them with the least amount of pain doesn't fucking count!

[nicknameless]

32. Menu Foods knew about these problems for 3 MONTHS ???!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x496360

[LisaL]

45. How did you come up with three months?

If February 20th is the start date, it's only been a little more than a month to this day.

[yewberry]

49. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=496360&mesg_id=496360

[Contrary1]

35. Pretty disgusting, even if they only knew about it for 3 days

I was at a website last night that a pet owner set up. I quit counting how many said they had lost pets in the last month. I think it end up being several hundred, if not more.

One woman's story was particularly heartbreaking. Her cat showed signs of illness, and she rushed him to the vet. Renal failure. They hooked him up to IV's and he was at the clinic for 3 days. Then he started perking up. On the 5th day she took her kitty home weak, but recovering.

The vet told her to try to get him to eat, even if only small amounts. So, she pureed his favorite brand and spoon fed him. He died a couple days later.

As soon as Menu Foods even suspected there was a problem, they should have gone public.

[SOS]

40. F#ck Iams!

"When they stop breathing, just whack 'em!"

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=iams

[MzNov]

50. And we'll never know how many feral cats and strays have been poisoned

as someone from DU mentioned the other day. I fed feral colonies for years and tended to buy the cheaper brands, and donations were the less expensive brands. Who knows how many of them have or will perish. It just makes me sick.

We should be boycotting and suing Menu Foods and anyone related to this horrible tragedy FOREVER.

and I fully support PETA, mostly. Also the Humane Society of the U.S. if you want to support the cause.

[CountAllVotes]

57. what about those in shelters and rescues?

They take any type of food donations they can get!

How scary is this? :nuke:

REAL SCARY!

:kick:

[Critters2]

63. When I was on the board of a Humane Society, nearly all of our food

was donated stuff from Wal-Mart, broken or damaged containers. So, we were feeding almost exclusively the stuff on the recall list. Now they're begging for donations (I've given them some).

[gravity]

51. Iams did the right thing

In reality, the only fast way to confirm that the food was dangerous was to test it on the animals. Customer complaints aren't reliable enough since anecdotal evidence isn't always accurate. It will be financial suicide if the company recalled it's products every time customers complain without verifying it first.

The testers weren't trying to kill the dogs either, they probably weren't even expecting deaths. As tragic as these deaths were, they helped saved the lives of thousands of other animals with the issuing of the recall.

[Critters2]

62. Using high quality ingredients, which they claim to do but don't really

would have prevented this whole mess. Importing cheap grain from China and then claiming to be a "premium" food is the real fraud. Iams, and all companies using Menu foods deserve to be driven out of business over this.