Uncaged Campaigns, campaigning against vivisection  
Uncaged 1993-2012: This is the archived website of Uncaged. All information correct at the time of archiving - November 2012.

news archive

animal experiments
procter & gamble
vegan recipes

International Animal Rights Day

More Uncaged sites:

Read the secret history of xenotransplantation experiments




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


Uncaged 1993-2012: This is the archived website of Uncaged. All information correct at the time of archiving - November 2012.