Pet
Food
Choice

 

Because you have a choice! An Insider's Guide to Choosing the Right Food for Your Pet

Pet Food Companies and Animal Testing

Always an emotive subject, and a few companies such as Iams, Waltham (Pedigree) and Hills have been accused by several investigators of conducting what to most pet owners appear to be cruel practices whilst developing foods - particularly for the Veterinary Market.

In May 2001 the Daily Express published an article, based upon evidence given to them by animal rights organisation Uncaged and which included descriptions of the kind of experiments being conducted by pet food companies such as Iams.

daily express

To quote the article, which was written by Lucy Johnson

'In one experiment, 24 young dogs had their right kidneys removed and the left partly damaged to investigate how protein affects dogs with kidney failure. Eight dogs were killed to analyse the kidney tissue. Dogs which became sick were not treated because it would have undermined the test results.
In another test, the stomachs of 28 cats were exposed so scientists could analyse the effects of feeding them fibre. The animals were operated on for at least two hours and then killed.'

If you are not up to speed on the whole story then have a look at the following websites.

Uncaged - www.uncaged.co.uk/petfood.htm who also have a list of companies who state that they do not conduct experiments, other than trying out new foods with the pets of staff and friends. Indeed, it has to be added that most pet food brands do not have the facilities to undertake testing even if they wanted to. The formulation of standard pet food recipes is well established now, and based upon AAFCO nutritional guidlines (which presumably were obtained through feeding trials!) such that a new company coming into the market can find all theinformation they require in the public domain.

However, when we look at prescription diets for chronic conditions, then formulation can become more difficult (pet lives are at risk!) which is why, presumably these foods are mainly produced by the major suppliers who have the faciities to undertake scientific research. The question, as ever, is 'Are these experiments valid?'

To show the degree of anger that is felt about experimentation, then www.iamscruelty.com/ or www.boycottpandg.co.uk/testing.asp are examples of what can happen to a large company who don't have a very good public face

This goes back some time. The Uncaged report states 'In May 2001 Uncaged exposed horrific accounts of cats and dogs used and killed in experiments for IAMS/Eukanuba with a front page story in the national press. Our research uncovered scientific papers that describe IAMS funded experiments on hundreds of previously healthy animals that caused: kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, liver damage, severe allergic reactions, stomach inflammation, diarrhoea, skin disorders, lesions and other painful conditions. Many of the animals died as a result of the experiments or were killed and dismembered for tissue analysis.'

There has been some evidence that Iams, at least are thinking more carefully about the kinds of research that they undertake with animals. To quote from their website

'Our research is governed by the following principles.

1. The results must help veterinarians and pet owners worldwide nutritionally enhance the well-being of cats and dogs, and manage important pet health conditions.

2. Studies will only be conducted if alternative, non-animal methods or existing research cannot answer the questions raised.

3. We will ensure the humane treatment of cats and dogs, and provide for animal well-being, socialization and husbandry in a manner compatible with the company's philosophy, creating a total culture of care. We will also meet or exceed standards established by the Animal Welfare Act of the US, the US Department of Agriculture and Directive 86/609/EEC of the European Union.

4. We will not fund or participate in any study requiring or resulting in the euthanasia of cats or dogs. We will only conduct research that is equivalent to nutritional or medical studies acceptable on people, including: urine, feces, blood and immune cell analysis, allergy tests, and skin and muscle biopsies, for which adequate anesthesia and analgesics will be provided whenever necessary.'

More tellingly, perhaps they add 'we will not contract for, nor conduct, any study involving surgeries to create or mimic diseases such as diabetes, stroke, heart disease, kidney disease, or intentional damage to other organs; nor will the company use non-surgical methods to induce or simulate diseases that are not acceptable in nutritional or medical research on humans; nor will the company fund any university positions that may be involved in such activities for the study of cat and dog nutrition.'

Hills seem to have given the question some thought, particularly looking at alternative methods, and this sounds encouraging.

'We continually strive to find ways to reduce dependence on animal research. A substantial number of dogs and cats participating in our feeding studies are involved in in-home tests. Our veterinarians and nutritionists are skilled at developing models simulating animal systems. For example, for oral care testing we have pioneered use of an “artificial mouth” which measures the effectiveness of new technologies. Another example is our development and use of a mathematical formula, based on the nutrient profile of the food, which accurately predicts the pH of feline urine without animal testing.'

The arguement would seem to mirror that of animal experiments for the benefit of human health - are they necessary or are there other ways of achieving the same end? Companies which produce specific prescription foods for chronic health problems would no doubt insist that there is a need. The statement from Iams would seem to indicate that the need is not so great as it was before the practice was exposed!

For a moral and ethical look at the whole problem, there's an interesting paper written by the Christian Medical Fellowship (available as pdf) on animal experimentation which tries to take a balanced view of the ethical dilemma.

Also check out the BBC Website which looks at the pros and cons of the subject.

For the arguement strictly against animal experiments then check out the Animal Aid publication on the subject (pdf) which has some disturbing images in it.

 

 

Essentials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

©2008Pet Food Choice - All information on this website is given in good faith, but decisions about the feeding requirements of your pets are entirely up to you, or if necessary should be taken with the help and advice of your veterinary surgeon... Site map