List of Dog Food Companies that DON'T Test on Animals

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

This was pretty uncalled for, IMO! If it werent for animal testing, a lot of human diseases would not be understood or cured. Alot of testing is done on humans as well. This particular product that I took was not tested nor FDA tested(found that out later) and has caused damage to those who only used it under the guise that it was "natural", "homeopathic","a safe alternative" etc. If there had been one warning on what this product might do in the box in the tiniest lettering, I would not have used it. So I believe that its better to be safe, by doing testing, than sorry, by believing in the hype of "all natural", "holistic", etc and therefore doesnt need testing.
And if we, as a human race, followed your way of thinking, we would still be back in the dark ages. Sounds like you do not like modern medicine nor see the benefits from it.I hate to break it to you, but alot of modern medicine has been developed using animal testing. This has nothing to do with superiority and entitlement unless you are Hitler.

i am sorry you were offended by what i have said. i was offended by what you have said and that is why i asked you who or what should have suffered the loss of smell and taste instead?

i know that a lot of people think if it's homeopathic, natural, then it is somehow a safe alternative. this really isn't the case, and the marketers understand that's what people think. and therefore that's why they market it that way. feeding on people's lack of awareness.

just because we have benefited from something doesn't make it right. all kinds of tests used to be done on slaves, jews, orphans, etc.. it wasn't right, and it took a long time for people to realize it.

the society is very slow to learn. but one day, it will understand that it is not right to do tests on animals and that animals have rights just as we do. it is wrong to test on animals just because we can; for the sole purpose of benefiting our self-serving wants.

"And if we, as a human race, followed your way of thinking, we would still be back in the dark ages." actually, if we, as a human race, followed my way of thinking. animals would already have rights...

[BaxtersMommy]

Lifes Abundance is what I feed my pups. They ARE Holistic and have done feeding trials with cats and dogs. They are monitored very closely. However, no animal testing. Big difference.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

i am sorry you were offended by what i have said. i was offended by what you have said and that is why i asked you who or what should have suffered the loss of smell and taste instead?

i know that a lot of people think if it's homeopathic, natural, then it is somehow a safe alternative. this really isn't the case, and the marketers understand that's what people think. and therefore that's why they market it that way. feeding on people's lack of awareness.

just because we have benefited from something doesn't make it right. all kinds of tests used to be done on slaves, jews, orphans, etc.. it wasn't right, and it took a long time for people to realize it.

the society is very slow to learn. but one day, it will understand that it is not right to do tests on animals and that animals have rights just as we do. it is wrong to test on animals just because we can; for the sole purpose of benefiting our self-serving wants.

"And if we, as a human race, followed your way of thinking, we would still be back in the dark ages." actually, if we, as a human race, followed my way of thinking. animals would already have rights...

Hopefully you will not be needing any surgery, diabetes treatment or a heart transplant(to name a few) or anything else that was tested on an animal before using it on humans because if you dont refuse these treatments you would be a hypocrit.
In a perfect world nobody would need medicine and neither would animals. There would be no disease. All bodies would be perfect. What do you think that veterinary medicine is tested on before it is approved to be used on our beloved pets? It wasnt tested on humans.
I am not trying to offend you, just trying to make you think about it. Alot of human and animal suffering has been cured due to animal and human testing.
But if you what to live back in the dark ages with the plagues, disease and no surgeries or medical options, be my guest. By the way, animal didnt have rights back then either.
I think this has gotten off track from the original post. With respect to the poster, I do believe that some testing needs to be done, be it food or medicine. Its just too easy to fool the public claiming "holistic" or "all natural". Besides, who would name their company GREEN TRIPE??LOL Yuck!!

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I think this has gotten off track from the original post. With respect to the poster, I do believe that some testing needs to be done, be it food or medicine. Its just too easy to fool the public claiming "holistic" or "all natural".

The point of this thread wasn't really about "holistic or natural".

The point is this: with awareness, we can make choices; choices that might empower those interested in avoiding certain stages of animal testing. Or, avoiding certain *types* of animal testing (such as what Iams was busted performing years back). If a person is more comfortable *with* extensive animal testing - then they should make their choice accordingly.

There are ingredients which are GRAS (generally recognized as safe) for humans and animals - and these ingredients don't need to be eternally tested. Yes, part of the GRAS process *may* have involved animal testing at some point - but how thankful we should be that we now have GRAS determinations that may prevent unnecessary animal testing.

What it seems to boil down to for the pet food companies is that they fall into a few various categories:

1) Arcane, caged testing - not focused on quality of life of the animals tested
2) No feeding trials at all; but may be using ingredients tested on animals or previously tested on animals (but now GRAS)
3) No feeding trials at all and all ingredients sourced cruelty free (not sure this is actually possible)
4) Feeding trials performed, but with all efforts toward non-caged, enhanced QOL for the animals tested, who are then adopted

For me, I choose to avoid #1 entirely, if I can. And I don't see anything wrong with that choice. What surprises me during threads like this, though, are some of the responses toward just the effort to seek awareness in this matter. I don't understand why there is resistance toward finding out more about animal testing in the Pet Food industry.

*IF* animal testing in this industry can be decreased or even avoided entirely sometimes, how is that not a good thing for animals? Why the resistance?

It makes me think this subject is triggering emotions that might actually be about something else entirely . Hey, I too am guilty of transference at times...so I can understand how that happens. Anyway, I'm enjoying this thread and think it's been informative on all sides and I appreciate all of the varying opinions - it's generated a lot of thought for me, so thanks to all who jumped into the frying pan with me.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

The point of this thread wasn't really about "holistic or natural".

The point is this: with awareness, we can make choices; choices that might empower those interested in avoiding certain stages of animal testing. Or, avoiding certain *types* of animal testing (such as what Iams was busted performing years back). If a person is more comfortable *with* extensive animal testing - then they should make their choice accordingly.

There are ingredients which are GRAS (generally recognized as safe) for humans and animals - and these ingredients don't need to be eternally tested. Yes, part of the GRAS process *may* have involved animal testing at some point - but how thankful we should be that we now have GRAS determinations that may prevent unnecessary animal testing.

What it seems to boil down to for the pet food companies is that they fall into a few various categories:

1) Arcane, caged testing - not focused on quality of life of the animals tested
2) No feeding trials at all; but may be using ingredients tested on animals or previously tested on animals (but now GRAS)
3) No feeding trials at all and all ingredients sourced cruelty free (not sure this is actually possible)
4) Feeding trials performed, but with all efforts toward non-caged, enhanced QOL for the animals tested, who are then adopted

For me, I choose to avoid #1 entirely, if I can. And I don't see anything wrong with that choice. What surprises me during threads like this, though, are some of the responses toward just the effort to seek awareness in this matter. I don't understand why there is resistance toward finding out more about animal testing in the Pet Food industry.

*IF* animal testing in this industry can be decreased or even avoided entirely sometimes, how is that not a good thing for animals? Why the resistance?

It makes me think this subject is triggering emotions that might actually be about something else entirely . Hey, I too am guilty of transference at times...so I can understand how that happens. Anyway, I'm enjoying this thread and think it's been informative on all sides and I appreciate all of the varying opinions - it's generated a lot of thought for me, so thanks to all who jumped into the frying pan with me.

I dont believe in animal testing to the point of complete "stupidity". And I dont care for inhumane testing, although in the case of medicine, it is sometimes unavoidable. I do think that new dog foods and new formulas/ingrediants need to be tested. And that doesnt need to be done in a cruel way. I like #4, idealy.

[Wylie's Mom]

This thread has also made me wonder, why do we need to test pet food on animals....when our own human food is not tested on animals? If both foods use mostly FDA's GRAS ingredients, why is it necessary to test pet food and not human food? I mean, if we feel empowered enough to make healthy choices for ourselves, why can't we feel that for our pets, especially when AAFCO has the nutritional guidelines defined, similar to, say, our food pyramid and RDAs and metabolic needs for life stages etcetera. Just wondering outloud here. This is what I woke up thinking about at 4:30am today, ugh.

In a nutshell, the more I think about it - it just seems like if a company is making a food w/ GRAS ingredients, and not introducing any novel ingredients, but is following AAFCO Nutritional Guidelines, there really doesn't seem a valid, reasonable need to test it on animals. Maybe it's too early in the morning for me to try to form opinions, lol.

[BaxtersMommy]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This thread has also made me wonder, why do we need to test pet food on animals....when our own human food is not tested on animals? If both foods use mostly FDA's GRAS ingredients, why is it necessary to test pet food and not human food? I mean, if we feel empowered enough to make healthy choices for ourselves, why can't we feel that for our pets, especially when AAFCO has the nutritional guidelines defined, similar to, say, our food pyramid and RDAs and metabolic needs for life stages etcetera. Just wondering outloud here. This is what I woke up thinking about at 4:30am today, ugh.

In a nutshell, the more I think about it - it just seems like if a company is making a food w/ GRAS ingredients, and not introducing any novel ingredients, but is following AAFCO Nutritional Guidelines, there really doesn't seem a valid, reasonable need to test it on animals. Maybe it's too early in the morning for me to try to form opinions, lol.

Food Trials are NOT meant to see if the foods make them sick, it is to see if they like it! Also, in these trials they see skin allergies and coats change. Our foods as humans are not dehydrated, mixed together so they can be bagged up. Many of the pet foods in the grocery store & pet store stay in hot warehouses for a year before they are delivered.

When choosing a company like Life's Abundance, fresh meats and veggies are taken and formulated for our pets. They are also made fresh, so you know your bag of food is no longer than 6 months old. I would love to have the time to prepare meals for my pets, since I can't--I do the next best thing. AND for the record, you should choose a food that YOU are not afraid of trying. Me and my husband have tasted everything we give our babies & it's not bad! NOTE: Nothing with By Products (includes fish & chicken heads, bones, etc--even deboned is bad) Would you want to eat that? YUCK!!

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by BaxtersMommy

Food Trials are NOT meant to see if the foods make them sick, it is to see if they like it! Also, in these trials they see skin allergies and coats change.

If trials are mainly for taste, then that makes them seem even more unnecessary, bc taste is subjective - and info like that could be obtained from voluntary home-trials, like some companies do. As for allergies - the only way to quantify/qualify and validate that info would be if the dogs were allergy-skin tested w/ shots before and after the trials. Allergies are very difficult to diagnose.

[Woogie Man]

I found an e-book that explains some of what the AAFCO is looking for in feeding trials. It seems to center mostly around nutrient density, digestibility and the amount of nutrients consumed.

What's odd to me is that labels generally only list crude fiber, fat and protein and don't address bio-availability of the nutrients. I guess the consumer needs to look at the suggested feeding amounts for a given weight, the idea being the less food needed for a given weight would be a more nutrient dense food. This can be confusing, too, due to variances in kibble density and shape. A cup of food 'A' may weigh more or less than a cup of food 'B' so it's easy to get confused. Dogfoodanalysis offers some more info but it's still hard to get a complete picture. I think it's important to remember that AAFCO certification only means the food is meeting the MINIMUM nutrient requirement for the food and optimum nutrient levels are often much higher.

My gut feeling is that most companies don't use inhumane lab testing these days. I do remember seeing commercials, though, where companies would say things like"feeding our food results in an average X% more muscle mass" or "X% stronger bones". These types of claims you can be sure resulted from disgusting lab tests.

Here's the link to the e-book that explains some of the AAFCO's methodology.
Nutrition for Veterinary Technicians ... - Google Books

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Hopefully you will not be needing any surgery, diabetes treatment or a heart transplant(to name a few) or anything else that was tested on an animal before using it on humans because if you dont refuse these treatments you would be a hypocrit.
In a perfect world nobody would need medicine and neither would animals. There would be no disease. All bodies would be perfect. What do you think that veterinary medicine is tested on before it is approved to be used on our beloved pets? It wasnt tested on humans.
I am not trying to offend you, just trying to make you think about it. Alot of human and animal suffering has been cured due to animal and human testing.
But if you what to live back in the dark ages with the plagues, disease and no surgeries or medical options, be my guest. By the way, animal didnt have rights back then either.
I think this has gotten off track from the original post. With respect to the poster, I do believe that some testing needs to be done, be it food or medicine. Its just too easy to fool the public claiming "holistic" or "all natural". Besides, who would name their company GREEN TRIPE??LOL Yuck!!

...yes, hopefully i won't be needing "any surgery, diabetes treatment or a heart transplant(to name a few) or anything else" so I don't have to be left with the option of getting treatment or be a hypocrite... save those surgeries/procedures for you who won't have to be a hypocrite to receive them!?!?!?!?

we have indeed gotten off track, this thread is supposed to be supporting dog food companies who do not do testing/trials on animals not about you or me and our possible health issues.

i don't know why you keep telling me that i should live in the dark ages because i am trying to support animal welfare. uh, maybe you should live in a laboratory and help advance science and medicine? in line with not being a hypocrite and all? oh wait, as long as it is not us who have to go through these things, it's ok. but if we are the test subjects, we have a problem?

i don't understand your point? you want these tests/trials to be done because you think they are important. you just don't want any of it to be done on you or your pets? is that what you are saying?

[chachi]

If anyone wants a nice pocket size list of companies for human products that do animal testing all you have to do is email Peta and they will send you one

[MaddiesMommie]

I would like to personally thank Ann for this thread. "Thank You Ann!"
It really got me to thinking. I spend sooooo much time reading and researching everything I buy for Maddie, from food, shampoo, treats, toys, even her bed! However, I hadn't really thought about what happens before these products are declared safe.
I guess I want to know everything about her products because she cannot tell me if something is bothering ot irritating her as a human could.
I think the issue for me was I wanted to make sure I knew and was comfortable with the type of testing my food company did, since I am in a way supporting thier actions.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

I would like to personally thank Ann for this thread. "Thank You Ann!"
It really got me to thinking. I spend sooooo much time reading and researching everything I buy for Maddie, from food, shampoo, treats, toys, even her bed! However, I hadn't really thought about what happens before these products are declared safe.
I guess I want to know everything about her products because she cannot tell me if something is bothering ot irritating her as a human could.
I think the issue for me was I wanted to make sure I knew and was comfortable with the type of testing my food company did, since I am in a way supporting thier actions.

Aw, thank you so much, you made my day . It got me to thinking about something I'd never really considered much before either. And even though I felt bad that some people might have been upset by this thread, which I never intended, I am glad that I looked into this as it was educational for me.