| 
Iams
Response to IAMS spin
Dissecting the public relations smokescreen
 The
Sunday Express lead story "Pet food cruelty exposed - Cats and dogs
suffered in experiments for top brand", (May 27, 2001) refers to
five of the 24 IAMS-sponsored studies which Uncaged Campaigns has uncovered.
This spring, IAMS' cruel experiments were brought to our attention when
we were sent a batch of documents consisting of scientific papers describing
these experiments which had been published in obscure scientific journals.
Having analysed the documents and sought additional scientific advice,
we approached the Sunday Express. We had worked closely with the Express
on a much more complex story - the Diaries
of Despair revelations concerning Imutran's pig-to-primate organ transplant
research. Through this experience, the Express has the greatest confidence
in the quality of our analysis and our authoritative research. It is this
expertise which helped to produce a devastating front page exposé
which has educated millions of consumers about the cruel practices of
IAMS and it's parent company Procter & Gamble, and confirms Uncaged
Campaigns as a leading force in the struggle against animal cruelty. The
Sunday Express articles and this report are based on the public statements
of IAMS scientists. (The entire dossier of cruelty is summarised below.)
At least 460 animals were used in these experiments which were reported
between 1991 and 2000. Other experiments have also taken place for which
we have not received reports. The Iams Company was bought by Procter
& Gamble (P&G) in September 1999. Please be aware that 'EUKANUBA'
is also an IAMS/P&G pet food brand.
 Since
the exposé, IAMS spokespeople have been "spinning" furiously:
they have denied that these experiments were "cruel". The company
has also accused the Sunday Express of printing "inaccurate and misleading
information". These smears against the Express (and, by implication,
Uncaged Campaigns) are completely untrue, and represent a dishonest and
desperate attempt to deflect public outrage. In contrast, we are simply
presenting the truth and allowing the public to make up their own mind.
Let's look at the facts. "Cruel" is an adjective which means
"causing pain or suffering" (The Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus).
For IAMS to deny that their experiments have caused pain or suffering
is, quite literally, incredible. The papers describe, in black and white,
the infliction of kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, liver damage,
severe allergies and allergic reactions, severe diarrhoea, severe skin
disorders, lesions, skin wounds etc. on conscious animals... - not to
mention the slaughter of many of the animals.
IAMS' current public statements claim that certain procedures were incorrectly
described by the Express article:
'A skin biopsy - which is a common diagnostic test in both human and
veterinary medicine - was described in the article as "giving the
animal chest wounds."
Giving an animal a routine vaccination was described as "injecting
with live virus vaccines".' IAMS Customer
Services
However, the skin biopsies did indeed "wound" the animals on
the chest - on 12 occasions. Furthermore - and this is a key point - these
biopsies were not conducted as part of a veterinary treatment for the
sake of those particular puppies (as the IAMS statement tries to imply),
they were conducted as part of an experiment where the dogs were exploited
as tools of research.
The vaccines were indeed composed of live virus, and they were not "routine"
in the sense of being for the sake of those puppies' health. Instead,
they were administered specifically as part of a programme of injections
to induce severe allergies.
IAMS also claim that they have now stopped conducting experiments "requiring
euthanasia". We have asked for evidence of this change in practice.
However, this does not address an equally appalling aspect of their research
which is the infliction of pain and suffering on animals, even if the
animals do not die or are not actually killed by the experiment. The fourth
experiment (see section 4) described below, involving the inducement of
severe allergies in puppies resulting in severe diarrhoea and skin disorders,
is an example of a painful, but potentially non-lethal experiment. Furthermore,
this cannot alter the fact that The Iams Company has a long history of
killing animals for experimental purposes. While any reduction in the
harm they inflict on animals is to be welcomed, any violence against animals
is fundamentally immoral and unacceptable.
As IAMS point out, some other pet food companies do indeed also conduct
painful experiments on animals - please see Pet
Food Information Sheet. However, in our opinion, the IAMS vivisection
experiments have involved amongst the highest levels of pain and suffering.
Furthermore, since IAMS was bought by Procter & Gamble in 1999, they
have been part of a multinational corporation that tests on animals during
the development of cosmetics, toiletries and household products, as well
as pharmaceuticals and other chemicals. Animal tests for cosmetics and
toiletries have now been banned in the UK, and a similar ban for household
products is likely to be implemented soon.
If IAMS' protestations of innocence were remotely true, then they would
rightly be entitled to sue for libel. But they are very unlikely to sue
because they know we are telling the truth (although big corporations
often use unjustified legal attacks as a means of silencing critics -
luckily the Sunday Express is big enough to defend itself!). The fact
of the matter is that the Sunday Express article has deeply embarrassed
a company that has sentenced animals to suffer and die, while claiming
to be concerned about the welfare of animals - an image which is useful
when trying to sell pet food. In fact, the only libel suits that would
be feasible would be claims by ourselves and the Sunday Express against
IAMS for calling us both liars! We have a commitment to telling the truth
both as a matter of principle and also as a precaution against legal attacks
from multi-billion pound companies. This is not a personal attack on IAMS
- it is a crusade to expose and abolish cruelty to animals. We have exposed
IAMS' cruelty in order to put pressure on them to do the right thing and
stop inflicting suffering on animals and adopt ethical research methods.
That is our aim.
Ironically, the Sunday Express article was edited to dilute the full
extent of the cruelty and destruction inflicted on cats and dogs by IAMS,
so as not to upset the paper's readers. In order to prevent the public
and the media being misinformed by IAMS/P&G, we present a more detailed
resumé of some of the animal experiments. We leave it for the reader
to judge the honesty of a company that denies that cruelty has been inflicted...
Deciphering the latest IAMS policy statement
Annabel Fiddian Green
Fleishman-Hillard International Communications
15 June 2001
Dear Annabel
Following on from our telephone conversation Thursday lunchtime, I
would like to clarify some of the fundamentally ambiguous elements of
the statement reproduced below. Because of the highly equivocal nature
of the statement, we find the stated intentions to achieve "complete
transparency" and "to clarify" the IAMS' policy regarding
animal experimentation lack credibility. We are not so naïve as
to assume that Fleishman's role as PR consultants for The Iams Company
involves a commitment to complete transparency and honesty - after all
if IAMS were committed to such practices we doubt they would need to
employ you! Nevertheless, I hope that you can give us some straightforward
answers. The questions we would like you to answer appear after the
statement.
8th June 2001
THE IAMS COMPANY POLICY
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PET FOOD
For complete transparency The Iams Company wishes to clarify its policy
regarding animals in research for the development of pet foods.
"The Iams Company is committed to improving the health and well-being
of cats and dogs through the development of superior nutrition.
"The Iams Company will not participate in any study requiring
the euthanasia of cats or dogs, nor will we conduct the veterinary equivalent
of any tests on cats or dogs which are not acceptable in nutritional
or medical studies in people."
Since the recent acquisition of The Iams Company, Procter & Gamble
has been aligning research policies emanating from our many R&D
technical centres around the world. In the past, P&G's products
have been for use by people.
However, since the acquisition of The Iams Company, it became necessary
to recognise a new set of consumers and include cats and dogs in our
overall global policy. This new statement is compatible and aligned
with P&G's policy, it reflects the decision made two years ago by
The Iams Company to start no further studies which required euthanasia
of cats and dogs and it also demonstrates the commitment of both companies
to animal welfare.
This policy applies to all research of The Iams Company in the development
of pet food regardless of whether it is within our own technical centres,
universities or anywhere else.
Uncaged Campaigns' Questions
- The title/subject of the statement refers to "policy on the
development of pet foods". What does The Iams Company mean, precisely,
by 'research for the development of pet foods' (in other words, what
kinds of studies does this include and exclude)? Does this category
of research cover all of the research conducted on animals currently
or in the past supported in any way (i.e. through part or whole funding
and involving IAMS employees/researchers) by The Iams Company?
- Can The Iams Company provide hard evidence of "the decision
made two years ago... to start no further studies which required euthanasia
of cats and dogs"? To the best of our knowledge, this decision
was not communicated to the Sunday Express prior to the publication
of the first exposé on 27 May when the paper spoke to Dr Dan
Carey, IAMS' Director of Technical Communications. Naturally, this
raises about the truthfulness of the references to this decision.
Furthermore, we did actually request that IAMS provide evidence of
this decision two weeks ago but nothing has been forthcoming.
- How does IAMS propose to facilitate ongoing verification of its
stated policy regarding non-lethal studies on cats and dogs?
- From the wording of the passage referred to in the above point,
we presume that ongoing studies involving killing cats and dogs were
occurring within the last two years. If so, what were those studies
and when did they cease?
- Will/does IAMS participate in any experiments (i.e. including and
excluding the category of 'research for the development of pet food')
involving the killing/euthanasia of cats and dogs?
- Have any cats or dogs died as a result of experiments that IAMS'
has participated in over the last two years? (The reason I ask this
is that even if we accept for the sake of argument that IAMS does
not participate in experiments REQUIRING the killing of cats and dogs
in the "development of pet food" category of research, such
experiments may still have possibly unforeseen consequences that lead
to the deaths of cats and dogs.)
- Will/does IAMS participate in any studies on cats and dogs that
contain procedures that cause pain, suffering or illness to those
animals? (For example, the severe allergy study conducted on husky
puppies (Olson M. E. et al., "Hypersensitivity Reactions to Dietary
Antigens in Atopic Dogs", Proceedings of 2000 IAMS Nutrition
Symposium, p. 69-77) which was referred to in the Express article
and in our report clearly caused pain and suffering, yet may not necessarily
have required the euthanasia of those puppies.)
- IAMS state: ". nor will we conduct the veterinary equivalent
of any tests on cats or dogs which are not acceptable in nutritional
or medical studies in people." This is classic spin! The procedures
performed on cats and dogs by IAMS obviously have some parallels with
human medical interventions, but the fundamental difference is that
IAMS' practice has traditionally involved taking healthy animals,
making them sick, and then performing these tests on them. This is
hardly the same as performing diagnostic or other procedures on a
human patient for his/her own benefit. Maybe you could comment on
this?
- The remainder of the statement is so vague as to be meaningless.
However, I note that the statement is said by IAMS to be "compatible
and aligned with P&G's policy". Does this mean that P&G
conducts no lethal tests on cats and dogs whatsoever? (Although I
concede that the public relations statement is compatible with P&G
policy insofar as it is deliberately ambiguous in order to give the
impression that the company is less cruel to animals than it really
is - it is part of a pattern we have observed!)
- We presume that IAMS conduct lethal tests on animals apart from
cats and dogs. If this is not so, or if you would like to explain
the position fully, please comment.
I look forward to receiving your reply - for the sake of 'transparency'
and 'clarity' (!) of course. I shall also be posting this on our website
in order to facilitate public scrutiny of IAMS' position and I look
forward to being able to communicate your response.
Yours sincerely
Dan Lyons
Uncaged Campaigns
On June 15, we received a fax from Gary Cunningham, "Director of
External Relations" for Procter & Gamble UK. He explained that
he would follow the matter up with IAMS and would "ensure" we
received a response.
We had to remind Procter & Gamble about this when we protested outside
their office four weeks later as part of Global Boycott Procter &
Gamble Day. The following week we received a slightly updated version
of the propaganda that IAMS & P&G had already been disseminating!!
These are the main points to emerge:
- The new version of events now refers to "animal health research"
rather than the "development of pet foods."
- IAMS refers to a decision made by the "IAMS Scientific Advisory
Board on March 8, 1999... to not consider or sponsor any new studies
that required the euthanasia of dogs and cats." However, no hard
evidence is provided to support this assertion, and no explanation was
given as to why IAMS didn't mention this when they were first approached
by the Express prior to the story, and didn't mention this when members
of the public made enquiries to IAMS about their animal testing practices.
Given that this position now appears to be a key plank of IAMS policy,
these omissions seems a little weird!
- Lethal studies on cats and/or dogs continued until March 2001.
- IAMS "stand behind their research" and are "proud"
of conducting painful and deadly experiments on cats and dogs (and other
animals).
- IAMS now state that they will not fund experiments that result in
the euthanasia of cats and dogs.
- IAMS did not deny that they will continue to conduct experiments on
cats and dogs that could cause pain, suffering or illness.
- No clarification or comments were offered on our observation regarding
the IAMS claim that they will not "conduct the veterinary equivalent
of any tests on cats or dogs which are not acceptable in nutritional
or medical studies in people." We said that this was "classic
spin" and that performing tests on deliberately exploited and damaged
animals in laboratory settings in order to gain data was fundamentally
different to tests done on people for their individual benefit. Our
view is given further confirmation when considered together with IAMS'
failure to deny that they continue to perform cruel (if not deadly)
tests on cats and dogs.
- IAMS did not challenge our presumption that other animals apart from
cats and dogs will continue to be sacrificed by The Iams Company.
Lessons to learn
The response from IAMS to the exposure of their cruel and deadly tests
on animals has been a valuable lesson in the devious methods of corporate
information management.
IAMS' claims are transparently ambiguous and incomplete. But one of their
tactics is to hope that as few people as possible notice this. Our approach
is to open people's eyes and get them to read between the lines.
Another instructive element of this affair has been IAMS' fear of open
debate. The overriding approach involves publishing carefully crafted
statements and refusing to comment (on record at any rate) further, thereby
making it harder for conscientious enquirers to ask the obvious questions.
This is an approach that is also very prevalent in Government information
management. Think how hard it is to get a straight answer from a politician
(especially ministers or official spokespeople) to a straight question!
Another tactic employed by IAMS has involved enlisting the support of
various US pro-vivisection 'animal' organisations (some of which have
received money from IAMS!) to give statements of support for IAMS. Such
organisations include the American Kennel Club (AKC), The American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the American Veterinary
Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and an
Animal Medical Center in New York. These statements range from the vague
and irrelevant to the downright nasty and misleading (particularly the
AKC) - both about the Sunday Express and Uncaged Campaigns.
IAMS's legal bullying of Israeli anti-vivisection group
Having launched an education campaign about P&G's animal testing
in Israel, the Israeli Society for the Abolition of Vivisection (ISAV)
received a threatening letter from IAMS' lawyers in Israel. IAMS claimed
that P&G's policy: "is against product safety testing and any
other form of experiments on animals." - a blatantly untrue statement.
Uncaged Campaigns supplied documentation of P&G's animal testing and
helped fund an advertisement entitled "The Truth Behind Procter &
Gamble Products", which was published in the Sunday edition of the
Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. The ISAV (Israel), Uncaged Campaigns (UK)
and In Defense of Animals (USA) jointly sponsored the ad which exposed
the truth about P&G's practices.
P&G were forced to distance themselves from the IAMS statement. In
a letter to In Defense of Animals (IDA), P&G officials claimed that
the letter written by IAMS's lawyers contained "incorrect information"
and that it "was never approved" by P&G.
"Once again, we see spokespersons not knowing what P&G is
doing and basically saying what they know the public wants to hear,
that animals are not being tortured," said Rick Bogle of IDA.
"We believe that the attorneys for IAMS will have to make a public
pronouncement when the ad is released, stating that they disseminated
incorrect information, and P&G will be forced to admit, once again,
that they still torture and kill animals in order to make a new shade
of makeup or new type of shampoo."
Please contact IAMS to let them know your disgust at these animal
experiments. Phone them on 0800 426 785 or email customer.service@Iams.com.
Related Links
Original report written by Max Newton & Dan Lyons 27.05.01
|
