| 
iams
Support for THE Campaign Against IAMS
 We
have received thousands of messages of support for our campaign against
the cruel animal-testing policy of the IAMS
petfood company, from all anti-vivisection organisations, 'pet-owners',
breeders, welfare and rescue centres, 'pet' supply shops, vets and animal
magazines, etc. from all over the world.
They all tend to echo sentiments expressed by David Griffiths, Director
of the organisation publishing The European Independent Feline Yearbooks:
"We have heard of your organisation and applaud your work
and especially for bringing the terrible story regarding IAMS/Eukanuba
to the attention of the Sunday Express.
"Although we can do little, we would not accept any advertisement
from this company for the yearbook... despite being grateful for every
penny of sponsorship we can get."
Organisations that have refused to condemn IAMS' practices, such as the
Kennel Club (the organisers of Crufts), the Governing Council of the Cat
Fancy (GCCF - organisers of the Supreme Cat Show, the cat equivalent of
Crufts) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCC),
and the American Kennel Club (AKC), and various supermarkets, are invariably
ones that receive large amounts of money from the IAMS Company, or who
have close organisational or personal links with the petfood manufacturer.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA):
"At the time the allegations appeared in the press the RSPCA
was extremely concerned. We made our own enquiries and IAMS admitted
to us in June 2001 that they had indeed cooperated in a number of studies
involving this type of invasive animal research. We therefore acknowledge
that the allegations were indeed well-founded.
"Some months ago the RSPCA recognized that it needed to embark
on a review of its procedures for evaluating its commercial relationships
and established a working party to take forward the process of developing
a clear ethical policy framework to guide future decisions. The concerns
arising from the recent promotion with IAMS, and the deficient statement
from Procter & Gamble that 'we do not use cats and dogs in research
or testing for non-drug products have served to reinforce the importance
of this approach and the trustees are committed to moving this project
forward...
"Clearly the Society would not wish to enter into any commercial
relationship which may conflict with its animal welfare policies
or lead to a loss of public support."
Caroline H Vodden (Mrs), Head of Supporter Care
Battersea Dogs Home:
"We leave campaigning to those who are best at it. That does
not mean we disagree. I am grateful to you for providing me with the
information which you have clearly researched well... I will certainly
take the issue to my board, I will discuss it with the Director general
of the RSPCA and I will also discuss it with IAMS."
Duncan Green, Director General, www.dogshome.org,
Tel: 020 7622 3626
After discussing the issue with these parties and meeting
with Uncaged Campaigns Director Dan Lyons, Duncan Green pledged that Battersea
Dogs Home would not renew any contracts IAMS had to advertise in PAWS
(the magazine of Battersea Dogs Home).
The Blue Cross:
"We did unfortunately feed these [IAMS/Eukanuba] products
some three years ago before switching... At that time we didn't know
of their involvement in tests which goes against all the Welfare
Society stands for.
"Thankfully we stopped using it [IAMS/Eukanuba] and I know
a lot of rescue centres have now dropped them, which is good news.
"Thank you again for your concern and rest assured the animals
here are safe and fed on food not tested or tried out in anyway on animals
that is of harm."
Neil Edwards, Manager, www.bluecross.org.uk,
Tel: 0121 453 3230
British Hedgehog Preservation Society (BHPS):
"We were very shocked and sickened by the contents of your
report. We have only very recently become aware of the terrible
cruelty carried out by the IAMS Company and we will make sure that any
mention of the IAMS product is removed from our literature as soon as
possible.
"Thank you for keeping us informed."
AH Coles MBE, Chief Executive, BHPS. Tel: 01584 890801
National Canine Defence League (NCDL):
"You will be relieved to know that we do not and have not
used IAMS or Eukanuba at any of our centres. We are not involved in
any sponsorship or promotional activities with them and we make every
effort to be ethical in all of our dealings... On a more positive note,
the whole issue of cat and dog experimentation for pet food is now being
brought out with the rest of the industry, which should hopefully ensure
that this does not happen again in the future."
Vicki Horsley, Information Officer, www.ncdl.org.uk,
Tel: 020 7833 2701
A Vet's View:
"Recently The IAMS Company has been under attack for some
of their non-clinical research. Clinical research is performed on patients,
be they human or otherwise, who have a naturally acquired disease. This
type of research has the potential of helping the individual involved.
It also has the advantage of looking at a disease as it occurs in the
real world, without the artificiality of trying to mimic what happens
naturally and gradually, in the contrived setting of a laboratory. It
is this type of non-clinical, artificial experiments that cause me concern,
both as a scientist and as a compassionate person.
"Chronic kidney or renal failure is a leading cause of death
among companion animals. One of my personal cat companions has had some
evidence of mild renal failure for many years. I attribute her continued
health and happiness in no small part to modifications we have made
in her diet. The quality and amount of protein in the kidney patients'
diet seems to be of paramount importance. One set of IAMS sponsored
experiments that has come under fire involves the induction acute kidney
failure in both dogs and cats to study the effects of diet. I have a
couple of problems with this. The barest perusal of veterinary literature
as it pertains to kidney disease highlights the critical differences
between chronic and acute kidney disease. Chronic renal failure is amenable
to dietary modification however acute is not. By destroying 7/8ths of
the kidney function in a single surgery, one creates a model of acute
kidney disease. Do findings from this study have any bearing on the
naturally acquired disease? I don't know and neither do the researchers.
"Given the wide spread nature of this problem, it would have
been well within the realm of practicality to have recruited client
owned animals with naturally occurring disease. This would lend credence
to their studies, as clinicians are rightfully more trusting of studies
that transpire under natural conditions. It might have benefited the
affected animals and their people. Obviously, no one is going to sign
up to have Fluffy slaughtered, but that does not preclude a world of
other data that could be obtained. Non-invasive to minimally invasive
data collection provides reams of useful information. Kidneys can be
examined via ultrasound, urine analyzed, blood tested, and so on. Enrolled
animals will eventually die. I find that most owners are eager to have
their pets autopsied, if they are made to understand that we use what
we learn to help other pets.
"Why not do clinical studies? They are cumbersome and inconvenient.
They make those of us doing the research dependent on the whims of owners,
who tend to be less focused on our problems. If I induce allergies in
dogs and lock them in a lab, I can be fairly certain that they will
all show up for the next part of our study! Clinical research tends
to be slower and more expensive. Rather than inducing allergies in thirty
dogs, I have to wait for thirty dogs and their co-operative people to
wander through my office. Rather than ordering my technicians to feed
a particular diet, I must be dependent on the owners to be compliant.
"The question becomes, is the extra trouble worth it? I think
scientifically it is.
"As a veterinarian, I am much more interested in how a
diet or drug worked in natural situation, than I am in what happened
in an artificially induced disease in an artificial setting.
"Ethically, it's an even easier call. I would much rather
buy pet food from a company that thinks all animals, not just the ones
who are lucky enough to live in my house, are important."
Dr Jean Swingle Greek, D.V.M., Veterinary Consultant
(NB: all emphasis is added)
Related links
Uncaged Campaigns 31.05.02 |
