I was responding to your thread that encouraged animal testing on food and Iams is just one company who also does it.

I had a thread that "encouraged" animal testing?

I would love to see the list of companies that does responsible animal testing that is humane.

Me too! The problem is that some people think it's inhumane to ever keep an animal in a kennel or cage. By the way, people always want a list of companies that don't do any testing, but I think this is even unfair. A new company can come along and use the same ingredients as an old company that did the inhumane testing, and say "we don't test" but they took the formula from a company that did. I hope animal rights groups will inform us of the truth, but sometimes in their zeal to protect animals, they exaggerate and mislead, which makes others believe that they no longer can be trusted to keep us informed of the truth. This video is so misleading that it makes me not trust the company that put it out.

I am one of those who thinks it is inhumane to keep an animal in a kennel for its entire life. Those video's are real..one way or another...

You can elect to look the other way based on this video that is your choice but when I look at the vets they own (Banfield) the dog food they make and the Mars Wisdom Panel to justify a mixed dog then all I see is dollar signs for Mars. If you can justify these, then go for it.

:thumbup:
Very good post. They are trying to make people aware, but using exaggeration to shock and create attention can undermine their goal. I did not watch the videos but I will do my own research into the company and make my own informed decision. So thank you, OP for bringing the issue to light.

On another note, it is very easy to find websites that support any side of any argument. There are very few ".com" website that are of any educational value whatsoever. Researching journal articles and scholarly databases are the only way to ensure the information you are getting is whole, and peer reviewed.

Ok, now this is starting to sound like a Biewer controversy, isn't the Mar Wisdom Panel something to do with Biewers?

Read post 1....I said I was doing research.

Now go here and explain this...

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/bre...sts-these.html

Do you really think this is okay?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Is this okay?" Do you mean breeders who are misleading people by saying:

"TESTED FOR THE MUTATED GENES THAT CAN PRODUCE 30 GENETICALLY PASSED DISEASES AND WERE FOUND TO BE
CLEAR OF THE MUTATED GENES."

No I don't think that is okay because it is VERY misleading. I'm not against the MARS testing though, I do think in the future the DNA research could be very informative, and the tests don't hurt the dogs in any way, and it does add to our scientific knowledge. However, some people will always try to reach premature conclusions, and we have to be able to understand what the SCIENTISTS are saying not the special interest groups.

I have a real problem with people who take bits and pieces of what people say and then use it against them. If you had read the complete threads you would know a lot more then you now think you know about me.

I do not breed yorkies, never have!!! But I am working towards doing so, so I have asked some questions in regards to that. ANd I wanted to know what tests should be done on yorkies. Testing on all breeds is not always the same tests. I think it would be a good thing i asked..

How can anyone come to this forum and say they love animals yet think any kind of animal testing is o.k?

Do you really want to use a dog food that has never been tested? Your dog will be the guinea pig. I really object when people put this on a personal level and say because I believe in animal testing, I don't love animals. I'll bet there isn't a product out there that hasn't been tested in some way on animals. I think comments such as yours divide us instead of unifying us. In the past, there has been some outrageous testing on animals; I'm totally against this, and I believe we have come a long way. We now have computer models that can do much of the testing, but not in every case. I do want to know what outrageous unnecessary testing is happening now and try and end that, but I'm not so sure I can trust the groups who might report it, it's like the story of the boy who cried wolf so much, no one believed him. Also, you really have to have a stong science background to understand why some testing is necessary. Every drug we have has been tested on animals first; do you think we should test a new cancer drug on humans first? I think almost every member of yorkietalk loves animals, but I believe in humane testing, even of humans. I not only think it is ok, I believe it is necessary.

I'm not trying to divide...just trying to understand so please be careful with your choice of words.

And by the way...they do test cancer drugs on humans...they call it trials or studies.

You just said this,
"How can anyone come to this forum and say they love animals yet think any kind of animal testing is o.k?" and are telling ME to be careful with my choice of words? FYI, long before they test on humans they have tested on animals, human studies are last.

Nancy...I didn't come into this thread to divide as you say or to be chewed on by you...I simply stated something that I don't understand and wanted an explanation so please lighten up and educate instead of lecture.

I don't even want to get into a cancer drug discussion with anyone right now so lets drop that one please.

Forgive me if I took your statement wrong, but it didn't seem much of an opening for discussion. My background is in behavioral science; I can give you millions of reasons why animal testing is important. Every theory we have on learning and behavior is based on animal studies. Scientists believe in testing the hypothesis using the simplest organism there is and going up the scale that way you can rule out complicating factors. I think we had several threads to discuss this, and I'm sure you can find lots of information on why testing is important. I see you too have a Biewer, and I'm beginning to think this is more about the DNA testing that some Biewer groups do, and some groups who are against it. DNA testing is in no way painful to the animal.

I agree with Nancy1999. It is called Veterinary "practice", because it is not an exact science. Every procedure your vet does in his/her office was tested on an animal at some point. And, if your vet does not know what is wrong, he may try a couple of options to see which works. Universities are testing new procedures all the time on animals. Humanely. I also agree, it is not a matter of no animal testing, it is a matter of humane practices vs. inhumane practices. I do believe that what we see in those videos did happen at some point. Can they prove that Mars is behind them, no, and they are obviously old video that has been spliced together to make a point. That is what I base my judgement of the video on. I am not trying to insult anyone here, I think we all agree that we are against abuse, cruelty, inhumane treatment of any kind.

But you brought it up. And I agree totally with Nancy, she just says it a lot better then me.

Humane animal testing necessary and animal testing is part of life, it has to be done.

The stuff in that video was very old. Even IAMS quit testing in the way described, but nobody seems to know this and still accuse them of inhumane testing.

Testing drugs on humans cannot be legally done until it has been tested on animals first.

This is such a touchy subject ! I have to agree with the above post...some of those clips were old and spliced - I remember seeing a few back when I was trying to educate myself on what goes on out there.....some were just horrific.....

As far as PETA - many people think they're fanatics (and they CAN BE that's for sure) but - in defense of them - they bring many things to light that people may never have been aware of....

It's my understanding that animal testing has come a long way - I know it's still done :(- but I believe many companies have changed policies and some even advertise they do NOT do animal testing. I don't want to be in a debate about this but do feel there is an upward trend towards NON testing and some companies are finding alternatives.

We can hope this is true right ?

We all have to realize - many products that come to market must be tested - that probably will never stop - but it's HOW they do the testing that's important.....I don't know if there ever will be a good way to test products....but I do know that in all the years it's been done - much of it is very very inhumane.

I agree with this, and I believe that certain animal rights groups have helped tremendously in getting these practices known to the general public, and I applaud them for this. However, it seems like the ball has swung the other way, and they are having such a problem with creditability that I fear that people will ignore them when there is a real problem. I no longer believe what they say. I need other reliable sources, but it's getting very difficult to find the reliable sources. An informer can't "taint" the evidence to make his story look good, trust the story untainted.

Personally I believe that when a company says "no animal testing", it's a lot of hype. First of all animal testing is extremely expensive, so no small company will ever do it. Products can only be protected for a certain number of years under copywrite (that may not be the word) laws, so after a certain period of time anyone can use the recipe. So if the Acme company uses L'Oreal's formula for hair dye, they can say that they have never animal tested, but are using the same formula that was tested an animals. Some companies, just put a private label on major companies ingredients, and again can say no animal testing. For example, I've seen Target's brand of certain things on PETA's list that says "these companies do no animal testing."

We can do lot of preliminary testing using computer model, and there is so much past research that can show certain ingredients are safe and others aren't, but this changes too as new ingredients are added to a formula. I can't see a day when there would never be a need for animal testing with new drugs. Without animal testing our advances in pharmaceuticals would come to a standstill. Would anyone want to give their dog a vaccination, if it had never been tested on any animal? We are always looking for better safer ways to do things, and we should never forget how much animals have helped us progress so much in every area, and we do owe them our respect, but I believe we can do this by letting companies know we are against inhumane animal testing, not just animal testing. If everyone who loves animal's stops buying from companies that do animal testing, what clout will we have if the company does inhumane testing?

The problem is No one knows who is really humane with the animal testing.
11 Facts about Animal Testing
1. It's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research because U.S. laws do not require scientists to report how many mice, rats, or birds they use, but it’s estimated that 90% of lab animals are mice and rats.
2. The animals that scientists do have to report using in experiments include dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates. Of the animals that the USDA collects numbers on, 1,438,553 were used in research in 2002.
3. Since more than 1.4 million mammals other than rats and mice were used in research, and since mice and rats probably make up 90% of the animals in labs, we can guess that about 14 million rats and mice were used in research in 2002.
4. In labs, small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are usually kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox. Usually, more than one animal lives in a box.
5. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments.
6. Living in cages can be a big problem for intelligent animals like dogs, cats, pigs, and primates who become tremendously lonely and bored unless they have things to play with or ways to get more exercise.
7. More than half of the 1.4 million animals counted by the USDA that are used in research were not involved in experiments that caused pain. There is no way of knowing how many rats and mice were involved in studies that were not designed to cause pain.
8. 489,262 animals that were used in research in 2002 (not including mice, rats, and birds—no one knows how many of these animals are used in research) were used in research that was either painful, distressful, or both.
9. 103,764 of the animals made to feel pain were not given anything to reduce their pain and suffering. Although some of this pain was slight—like getting an injection with a needle—some of it was extremely severe.
10. Most of these animals are only used in one experiment, but sometimes the same animal will be used in more than one experiment. Most are euthanized shortly after being used in an experiment.
11. Some lucky chimps will be able to retire from being used in research to the Chimp Haven sanctuary, built in Shreveport, Louisiana, thanks to a law signed by President Clinton in 2000.



The Hidden Ingredient in Cosmetic Testing: Animal Suffering

Every year, cosmetics companies kill millions of animals to test their products. These companies claim they test on animals to establish the safety of their products and ingredients for consumers. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and alternative testing methods are widely available and lead to more reliable results. Hundreds of companies – including Avon, The Body Shop and Mary Kay – already use humane non-animal testing methods to ensure the safety of their cosmetics.

Painful and Deadly Tests

Product testing is commonly performed on animals to measure the levels of skin irritancy, eye tissue damage, and toxicity caused by various substances used in the manufacture of cosmetics. In the Draize test, caustic substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to evaluate damage to sensitive eye tissues. This is extremely painful for the rabbits, who often scream when the substances are applied and sometimes break their necks or backs trying to escape the restraints.

Lethal Dosage (LD) tests are used to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a predetermined ratio of animals. For example, in the LD50 test, subjects are forced to ingest poisonous substances (through stomach tubes, vapor spray inhalers or injection) until half of them die. Common reactions to LD tests include convulsions, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth or rectum.

The Failure of Animal Testing

Not only is animal testing inhumane; it is inherently inaccurate. For example, LD tests do not measure human health hazards, but only determine how toxic the product is to the type of animal it was tested on. Test results cannot be extrapolated from a mouse to a rat, let alone from a rat to a human. Each species reacts differently to various substances. Moreover, LD test results can be affected by the age and sex of the animals tested, their housing and nutritional conditions and how the compound is administered.

Humane and Effective Alternatives

Non-animal testing methods that are more reliable and less expensive have been developed. These make use of cell and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Some companies avoid testing altogether by using non-toxic natural ingredients or those that have already been safety-approved by the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories, which uses only computers and human tissues to create and test drugs once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”

Why Test On Animals?

Regulatory agencies don’t require animal testing of cosmetics, and the effectiveness of non-animal product testing methods has been thoroughly demonstrated. In 2003, the European Union passed a ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing starting in 2009, and a complete sales ban effective in 2013. So why do some American companies still insist on conducting these barbaric and obsolete tests?

The resistance of industry technicians and researchers trying to protect their jobs accounts for some of the reason. In addition, corporate legal departments typically use animal testing as a way to evade liability in the event of a lawsuit. However, consumers who purchase products from companies that test on animals are also partly responsible. Compassionate consumers must use their purchasing power to send a strong message to cosmetics manufacturers that testing on animals is cruel and unacceptable.

Cosmetic Animal Testing

The cosmetic animal testing is done for eye shadows and soaps. Majority of these eye shadow tests are done on rabbits in order to assess the level of damage or irritation caused to the rabbits. The sunscreen products are also tested on guinea pigs to assess the level of allergic reaction and irritation. These cosmetic testing could cause bleeding problems to the animals. Many reputed companies employ the outside companies so as to avoid criticism from the society and the activists. Statistics points out that 50% of the animals die two or three weeks after the experimentation.

Statistics also points out the fact that 75% of the Americans are against cosmetic testing on animals and many companies have adopted more human ways of cosmetic testing due to the popular public demand.

"Humane" animal testing is rarely, if ever, done. 1) The word "humane" is subjective, of course, so maybe that needs to be discussed; I think one of Cindy's main points in this thread (and I probably shouldn't speak for her, but...) was that "humane" testing is almost never in the same ballpark as "animal testing". Rather, they are usually polar. 2) This is more of a rhetorical question, but - where is it written that "animal testing is part of life and has to be done" - - I don't believe that is a fact, rather, it's an opinion.

If you look in our Health/Diet section, it's actually been stated for years here that people are well aware here of how IAMS has changed their testing. Regardless, that doesn't mean people don't still have issues as to why a DOG FOOD company would engage in CRUEL food testing, USING DOGS as their subjects, in the first place. For some of us, that equates with a Value problem in the first place - no matter how they choose to change their spots going forward. I commend them for changing their methods, that doesn't mean I will give them money for their food. :)

I had to get up and go to the bathroom so my mom wouldn't hear my sobbing myself sick.

That is so terrible. So glad I deal with Hershey's.

If I ever become rich and famous, animal testing will be a thing of the past. These poor animals.

I plan to write them TODAY. THIS is Unacceptable and should NOT be tolerated!

I know that the MARS company has done testing with foods that reduce the incidence of bladder stones. Lets say you dog has bladder stones which a very painful condition. Dogs that have stones are at an extremely high risk to develop stones again. So let say that your vet asks you if you would like your dog to participate in an experiment. You are to feed your dog a certain food. You have the option to say no. Half those that said yes would be given the experimental food, and half would be in a control group, and given either their normal food, or a food just like the prescription food, but without the ingredient that was thought to be reducing the stone formation. Your food would be given to you free; vet checks and surgeries to remove new stones would be free. How is this a bad thing? Participation in these types of experiments is very humane. A person should always be aware that his dog might not be given the prescription food, but how is this hurting the dogs? We are always experimenting on our dogs, giving this or that and seeing what works, these experiments are on a wider level, and if done properly can rule out variables that could affect the outcome. In other words, the results are much more reliable than antidotal evidence, as in, "Try this, it worked for me." We must not forget that a company cannot claim any health benifits if they haven't done many tests to show that this is true. Smaller companies get away with making health claims because they slide right by the governments laws, and often come back as a new company by the time the government catches them.

The type of animal experimentation that I can't handle is a breeder's experimentally breeding dog together without any type of real knowledge. Puppies are born that that suffer miserly because of genetic illnesses. Let stop supporting that!

This is a great example and one I try to make. I sometimes think that the people who are advocating "NO" animal testing sometimes assumes we are not including or talking about this type of test or those done in universtities that have obviously helped our pets to live longer healthier lives. However, how are we so sure that when they say "NO" testing that they really don't mean absolutely none. I do think some groups are that radical. I just cannot imagine how advancements in technology and procedures would come to a stand still without it. On the otherhand, people on this side of the argument, assumes we are all obviously saying "NO" to the types of tests and experiments that used to be done long ago, or the ones used by the cosmetic companies, or perhaps any that may still be happening such as what was in the videos posted. Just for one minute, we may be saying the same thing just coming at it from different sides of the spectrum. At least, maybe some of us.

This is what I believe, and I think we can accomplish so much more if we stress our sameness, instead of pointing at our differences.

Wow...after reading these 4 pages of this thread all I can say is...wow.

If it weren't for people like Nancy1999 who can convey the facts so eloquently with as much tact as she has, this whole board would be completely 1 sided.

I dont have a fraction of the patience or tact that Nancy has so I am not going to get into the subject.

I will say, however, I am extremely disappointed to see the OP mudsligng in an attempt to discredit someone who disagreed with her. Not acceptable behavior by any standard.