I hope it's allowed to post this info. I am a member of the German labrador rescue organisation, and they officially boycott Eukanoba products because of their cruel treatment of animals, as well as encouraging writing to the company to insist on change. I didn't see anything on this board, so I wanted to share.

http://www.peta.org.uk/factsheet/files/images/iams%20factsheet_UK72.pdf

This is definitely an issue for concern, however based on my experiences with PETA, it has to be interpreted in the context of the source-- in other hands, taken with a grain of salt. I just don't trust PETA anymore.

The group in Germany lists other documentation too, but it's in German :( I know what u mean about PEtA

Yep, I don't listen to a thing PETA has to say anymore...Here's another site you should check out http://www.iamstruth.com. It has links to ASPCA inspections of IAMS/Eukanuba facilities and the works. I'd rather believe what the ASPCA has to say about the company over PETA any day- but that's just me!

Darcy:)

Yep, I don't listen to a thing PETA has to say anymore...Here's another site you should check out http://www.iamstruth.com. It has links to ASPCA inspections of IAMS/Eukanuba facilities and the works. I'd rather believe what the ASPCA has to say about the company over PETA any day- but that's just me!

Darcy:)

Iams questionable ethics aside, the ASPCA gets huge funding from the Iams Co. I seriously doubt that they are going to bite the hand that feeds it so well. In addition, the ASPCA(and other high profile charities) are not above endorsing a product for a price.

Like PETA or dislike PETA, Iams/Eukanuba testing in their own facilities or not testing in their own facilities, there is one fact that's hard to deny. Iams and Eukanuba are owned by (parent company) Procter and Gamble. P&G has so many products it's incredible but the fact is P&G does do animal testing with certain cleaners, drugs, make-ups, hair-face-body soaps, household cleaners etc. SO if you think about it, you are buying products for your pets from a company that does do animal testing since P&G owns Iams and Eukanuba. They state on their own website (P&G) that they test on animals-they say they have reduced testing and it seems they are but they test none the less.... Come to your own conclusions on if that bothers you or not but the profits go to the same place in the end--personally that would bug me. I'm far from perfect but buying pet products from a place that tests on animals-(that could have been pets at one time) is messed up.

SO if you think about it, you are buying products for your pets from a company that does do animal testing since P&G owns Iams and Eukanuba. They state on their own website (P&G) that they test on animals-they say they have reduced testing and it seems they are but they test none the less.... Come to your own conclusions on if that bothers you or not but the profits go to the same place in the end--personally that would bug me. I'm far from perfect but buying pet products from a place that tests on animals-(that could have been pets at one time) is messed up.

I'm glad someone brought this up... If you want to boycott a company that tests on animals, don't just not buy Iams, refuse to buy any Proctor and Gamble products...
http://www.pg.com/en_US/products/index.jhtml

Here's a link to their claims about how and why they conduct research:
http://www.pg.com/science/Brochure%20on%20Research%20with%20Animals.pdf

I don't believe a single word PETA says anymore. While claming to be in the interest of animals, the information I've seen gathered about them makes them seem like a self-interest group more interested in shock value than really helping any animal but themselves.

We do our best not to buy P&G products.....and it's hard-they own like everything in the grocery store. Once again, this is my position on P&G products-to each his/her own.

Iams questionable ethics aside, the ASPCA gets huge funding from the Iams Co. I seriously doubt that they are going to bite the hand that feeds it so well. In addition, the ASPCA(and other high profile charities) are not above endorsing a product for a price.

I don't know that I believe that (there is no proof of it from what I have seen), but then again to each their own.

Like PETA or dislike PETA, Iams/Eukanuba testing in their own facilities or not testing in their own facilities, there is one fact that's hard to deny. Iams and Eukanuba are owned by (parent company) Procter and Gamble. P&G has so many products it's incredible but the fact is P&G does do animal testing with certain cleaners, drugs, make-ups, hair-face-body soaps, household cleaners etc. SO if you think about it, you are buying products for your pets from a company that does do animal testing since P&G owns Iams and Eukanuba. They state on their own website (P&G) that they test on animals-they say they have reduced testing and it seems they are but they test none the less.... Come to your own conclusions on if that bothers you or not but the profits go to the same place in the end--personally that would bug me. I'm far from perfect but buying pet products from a place that tests on animals-(that could have been pets at one time) is messed up.

If you're going to be fair, throw this into the pot- EVERY pet food company does animal testing of some sort whether it be just feeding tests or something more extensive. Therefore, PETA would have everyone believe that ALL pet food companies are terrible as they ALL do testing. Next thing you know, everyone is boycotting ALL the food companies for doing testing or being owned by a company that does testing- and that's exactly what PETA wants!

Believe what you want. But if you're going to take qualms up with a company that has had many years of experience making a decent quality food, I'd rather see people argue that the quality doesn't match the price (which I'd agree with) versus all these bogus and very worn-out cruely case arguements.

I'm sorry, no part of this is meant as a personal attack on anyone (this is all just my personal feelings and opinions- and no, I don't feed either food but my choice has nothing to do with these debates), but this is such a tiresome arguement against IAMS/Eukanuba. They themselves are a decent company no matter whom they are owned by. It's time to leave these PETA vs. IAMS/Eukanuba/P&G cruelty debates alone. The supposed evidence of all these arguements itself has YEARS (and possibly DECADES) of dust on it.

The times have changed and the pet food companies have had to either change with them or have faced extintion. IAMS/Eukanuba has obviously survived. Why do you think that is? Because they are lining the pockets of the ASPCA? Or is it because they make a decent product and are not doing the things PETA claims? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, but believe what you want. To each their own.

Here's a link to their claims about how and why they conduct research:
http://www.pg.com/science/Brochure%2...%20Animals.pdf

Btw, not that I believe everything a company tells me about themselves (because most of the time I definately don't), but this information is at least more believable than anything PETA has offered because it is supported with actual data that can be proven.

Just my 2c, I've said my piece and now I'm getting off my soap box. Hack away if you all want but this is one person's mind you will not change without some recent cold, hard facts.

Darcy

Btw, not that I believe everything a company tells me about themselves (because most of the time I definately don't), but this information is at least more believable than anything PETA has offered because it is supported with actual data that can be proven.

Just my 2c, I've said my piece and now I'm getting off my soap box. Hack away if you all want but this is one person's mind you will not change without some recent cold, hard facts.

Darcy

/agree . I think PETA's got an agenda of their own, and serving the best interests of animals is not it. Debate of P&G aside, I have some very strong opinions about PETA. (obviously :ton: )

I think Darcy said it very well, I agree!

Just my :2cents: but I think Iams and Euk have survived because people (well the majority of them anyway) really do not look at what is in dog food. They buy the most expensive grocery food they can find and beleive it is good because of the cute commercials and because their vet thinks it's ok.

Some dogs do great on grocery food, others do not.

For myself, a little bit of research went a very long way!

I also agree the PETA has it's own agenda...

PETA hates everyone, even themselves, since they think even owning a pet is abuse! I don't believe anything they put out as fact. I know of other animal testing going on in other fields (not pet foods) close to me and those caretakers are some of the nicest, most animal -loving people i know, so i only hope most people working in pet-food test labs are similar. :2cents:

I don't know that I believe that (there is no proof of it from what I have seen), but then again to each their own.



If you're going to be fair, throw this into the pot- EVERY pet food company does animal testing of some sort whether it be just feeding tests or something more extensive. Therefore, PETA would have everyone believe that ALL pet food companies are terrible as they ALL do testing. Next thing you know, everyone is boycotting ALL the food companies for doing testing or being owned by a company that does testing- and that's exactly what PETA wants!

Believe what you want. But if you're going to take qualms up with a company that has had many years of experience making a decent quality food, I'd rather see people argue that the quality doesn't match the price (which I'd agree with) versus all these bogus and very worn-out cruely case arguements.

I'm sorry, no part of this is meant as a personal attack on anyone (this is all just my personal feelings and opinions- and no, I don't feed either food but my choice has nothing to do with these debates), but this is such a tiresome arguement against IAMS/Eukanuba. They themselves are a decent company no matter whom they are owned by. It's time to leave these PETA vs. IAMS/Eukanuba/P&G cruelty debates alone. The supposed evidence of all these arguements itself has YEARS (and possibly DECADES) of dust on it.

The times have changed and the pet food companies have had to either change with them or have faced extintion. IAMS/Eukanuba has obviously survived. Why do you think that is? Because they are lining the pockets of the ASPCA? Or is it because they make a decent product and are not doing the things PETA claims? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, but believe what you want. To each their own.


Btw, not that I believe everything a company tells me about themselves (because most of the time I definately don't), but this information is at least more believable than anything PETA has offered because it is supported with actual data that can be proven.

Just my 2c, I've said my piece and now I'm getting off my soap box. Hack away if you all want but this is one person's mind you will not change without some recent cold, hard facts.

Darcy
Last time I checked PETA's website they DID actually recommend purchasing certain brands of pet food based on the type of testing done(or not done). Natural Balance and Natural Life are two that come to mind. The ASPCA has some of the most ambitious corporate affiliate programs of any of the high profile animal welfare organizations. They offer numerous corporate/product licensing opportunities including, ASPCA name & logo licensing, ASPCA "Seal of Appoval" endorsements and corporate partnerships. Th Iams Co. is listed on the ASPCA's website as a corporate sponsor with a link to the Iams homepage. A few years ago the ASPCA website had a pet food selector whereby you could give a description of your dog and an ASPCA "expert" would supply you with a list of foods that would be suitable for your dog. I filled out this form and surprise, surprise the recommended products were Iams/Eukanuba/Eukanuba veterinary diets! No amount of proof will satisfy some imdividuals and thats fine. It's naive, IMHO to think that the ASPCA doesn't receive funding from the Iams Co. and to think that it doesn't influence the ASPCA's recommendations. There is no doubt that partnerships and endorsements are a major source of revenue for animal protection organizations. Maybe the ends justify the means as the ASPCA(and others) do a lot of good for animals nationwide. Its just that with all the quality pet foods on the market today I don't see the need to compromise values. I almost forgot: to each their own.

Last time I checked PETA's website they DID actually recommend purchasing certain brands of pet food based on the type of testing done(or not done). Natural Balance and Natural Life are two that come to mind. The ASPCA has some of the most ambitious corporate affiliate programs of any of the high profile animal welfare organizations. They offer numerous corporate/product licensing opportunities including, ASPCA name & logo licensing, ASPCA "Seal of Appoval" endorsements and corporate partnerships. Th Iams Co. is listed on the ASPCA's website as a corporate sponsor with a link to the Iams homepage. A few years ago the ASPCA website had a pet food selector whereby you could give a description of your dog and an ASPCA "expert" would supply you with a list of foods that would be suitable for your dog. I filled out this form and surprise, surprise the recommended products were Iams/Eukanuba/Eukanuba veterinary diets! No amount of proof will satisfy some imdividuals and thats fine. It's naive, IMHO to think that the ASPCA doesn't receive funding from the Iams Co. and to think that it doesn't influence the ASPCA's recommendations. There is no doubt that partnerships and endorsements are a major source of revenue for animal protection organizations. Maybe the ends justify the means as the ASPCA(and others) do a lot of good for animals nationwide. Its just that with all the quality pet foods on the market today I don't see the need to compromise values. I almost forgot: to each their own.

Did you ever stop to think about the possible relationship there might be between PETA and the brands you listed? I just did and I actually want to thank you as I will NEVER purchase those brands!! I will NEVER support animals being blown up in labratories, puppies and kittens throats being cut and left for dead, or letting horses run freely across a road where they are ultimately run over by vehicles because they have a natural flight instinct! Like I said Thank you for letting me know! I will NEVER purchase these brands that might possibly support PETA in the background!

What's more is all the brands that listed by PETA just got there by putting "No Animal Testing" on their product. Hey! I could hang a sign on myself that says "No Animal Testing" and then I could be on PETA's list!! WOW! Wouldn't that be special!! Not really. I don't really care what PETA has to say about anything because they have not been a stable-minded organization for many years. For goodness sakes, they are actually advertising on their website right now that they are going to burn a HUMAN corpse to prove that "Meat is Murder"!!! Hmmm, makes me kind of wonder where they got or are getting the corpse...

It is not naive to think that the ASPCA is still expected to do their job even with an endorsement. They have standards and rules just like the AKC and USDA. If something was happening at the IAMS facitilites, we would know about it. There would be a report and as easily as reports are to hide, someone would have cracked. The report would have surfaced some how. The story would have leaked- come to think of it, just like the Diamond story before Diamond even made a statement. Any and all news spreads fast. Diamond is a great example. But, this is not the case here because there is no news. Why is there no news? Because there is nothing to tell!!

We have not heard anything other than what PETA has to say- which is DECADES old information, if it ever was truthful information to begin with. I don't call it naive to want more current, solid proof of indiscretions. You, on the other hand, obvious would rather continue PETA's ages old witch hunt against IAMS/Eukanuba without any current, solid proof of wrong doing and IMHO that's WAY more naive. But, carry on! Ya know the witch must be burned at the stake and everyone must know about it!!

Darcy

As a matter of fact I did stop to think about a possible "relationship" between PETA and those two dog food brands. According to the Natural Balance CSR I spoke with(I was using NB at the time), there is no affiliation between the two. I never contacted Natural Life or any of the other companies(and there were several) as I wasn't using those products. My understanding, without doing furthur research, is that those companies named by PETA were chosen because they met AAFCO standards by nutrient profiles and feeding tests with local owners and breeders rather than by AAFCO sanctioned feeding trials. Like you I will never support those atrocities you name. No sane person would. But, as far as that burning a human corpse at the stake stuff...that would be extreme, even for them! PETA really IS "burning" a cowboy, but in effigy and on a fake grill. I am not a PETA supporter so please don't liken me to them. I do admit to a bias against the Iams Co. which stems from my bias against anything that Proctor & Gamble produces. And my bias against Proctor & Gamble stems from the fact that they still maintain the right to test their products on animals and that, to me, is unethical. Lastly, I admire the ASPCA for the good that they do but I still maintain that it is naive to think that they are an unbiased source of information when it comes to the Iams Co. Another round???

Iams existed for decades before their acquisition by P&G. It's difficult to imagine P&G looking at the company and thinking, "hey, there's a corporation based on devil worship and animal abuse, just like us - let's scoop them up!"

Seriously, I do believe it's important to remember PETA's mission statement. It's very brief, and wonderfully clear:
PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

It's probably safe to say there would be mighty few of us on this board who wouldn't fall afoul of that goal! Even a plastic-shoe -wearing-vegan, feeding only the Natural Balance Vegetarian formula dog food, is wrong for loving the presence of a pet in the home.

PETA is very skillful in the way they pick their battles. They know they can't fight on all fronts simultaneously. Incremental change is valuable, so they strive to plant the seed of doubt one company at a time.

As a matter of fact I did stop to think about a possible "relationship" between PETA and those two dog food brands. According to the Natural Balance CSR I spoke with(I was using NB at the time), there is no affiliation between the two. I never contacted Natural Life or any of the other companies(and there were several) as I wasn't using those products. My understanding, without doing furthur research, is that those companies named by PETA were chosen because they met AAFCO standards by nutrient profiles and feeding tests with local owners and breeders rather than by AAFCO sanctioned feeding trials. Like you I will never support those atrocities you name. No sane person would. But, as far as that burning a human corpse at the stake stuff...that would be extreme, even for them! PETA really IS "burning" a cowboy, but in effigy and on a fake grill. I am not a PETA supporter so please don't liken me to them. I do admit to a bias against the Iams Co. which stems from my bias against anything that Proctor & Gamble produces. And my bias against Proctor & Gamble stems from the fact that they still maintain the right to test their products on animals and that, to me, is unethical. Lastly, I admire the ASPCA for the good that they do but I still maintain that it is naive to think that they are an unbiased source of information when it comes to the Iams Co. Another round???

Yes, you are right. P&G does still hold the right to test their products on animals, but how many and how often do they actually do that? I think they are being fairly honest when they say not that often and only when absolutely necessary. Like I said, I don't believe everything a company tells me, but P&G is able to support their statements with data. And I know the next thing I will hear is that PETA has data also and I'm sure they do, but whose more credible between PETA and P&G? P&G hands down. PETA will do anything (and I do mean ANYTHING, nothing is too extreme for an already extreme organization) to get what they want. That means they will steal, cheat, lie, and even kill- and yes, I did just say KILL because they will and have! To my recollection, P&G has not killed anything lately. Now whose the unethical one?

Also, PETA did choose those brands based on them putting "No Animal Testing" on their label- AAFCO had nothing to do with it. And like I said, that still does not do much for me. I also would have asked that CSR how they feel about having PETA's "Seal of Approval"? I bet they would ignorantly say it's great! Thus, that is still a reason for me to not purchase those brands.

No, I do not expect ASPCA to be totally unbiased. And what I mean by that is Iams is a sponser and ASPCA are going to pump their products, but it is still not naive to expect they make a true and accurate report of each visit to each Iams facility. I suspect you think they are not being truthful about Iams in the reports they make. However, if they were lying about Iams (and we would know by now), that would be an unrecoverable PR disaster for them and I don't think they would ever take that huge of a risk- even for Iams. They know they want to keep the public's attention of their goal and, in turn, keep the public's donations flowing. They do not want to end up like PETA. To do that, they know they need remain credible.

Iams existed for decades before their acquisition by P&G. It's difficult to imagine P&G looking at the company and thinking, "hey, there's a corporation based on devil worship and animal abuse, just like us - let's scoop them up!"

Seriously, I do believe it's important to remember PETA's mission statement. It's very brief, and wonderfully clear:

Quote:
PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.


It's probably safe to say there would be mighty few of us on this board who wouldn't fall afoul of that goal! Even a plastic-shoe -wearing-vegan, feeding only the Natural Balance Vegetarian formula dog food, is wrong for loving the presence of a pet in the home.

PETA is very skillful in the way they pick their battles. They know they can't fight on all fronts simultaneously. Incremental change is valuable, so they strive to plant the seed of doubt one company at a time.

VERY well put! Here, here!!! I know that's exactly what PETA is doing and that's exactly why I refuse to join their boycott against P&G- because next it will most likely be Colgate-Nestle (the company that owns Purina).

Darcy:)

Just a few recent, cold, hard facts: Purina is not owned by Colgate-Nestle, it is owned by simply Nestle. Hills Science Diet is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, Pedigree is owned by Mars, Natures Recipe is owned by Heinz , etc, etc. I almost forgot; Iams/Eukanuba is owned by our old friends at Proctor & Gamble.

I just have one word left to say...WHATEVER!

Darcy:)