Blue Buffalo~Not good news!

[aproctor]

I do understand but I don't think you watched the video!!

There is no justification for what happened/s to these poor animals. There have to be other ways to test things...there are A LOT of products on the shelves that declare right on the packaging "NOT animal tested" so how do these companies test their product?

[Ellie May]

I'm really shocked to see some of this. Never knew so many YT members were so against animal testing/animal cruelty. How about the abuse that farm animals go through..those videos are nothing compared to that. Why are people still buying factory farmed products?

Whether or not people want their dogs' food or drugs tested on other animals is a personal choice. However, just remember it is being tested one way or another. If it isn't by the company, it is by you and your dog. And if we don't think that dogs should be isolated in kennels while drugs are being tested on them, then I encourage everyone to stand in line for an in-home new drug trial done on your own dog. I somehow doubt anybody from YT would jump at that chance.

BTW, I'm always an advocate of testing in the most humane way possible. I watched the supposed Iams videos awhile back and was appalled. I do not use their products at this time. However, I still don't think we know the whole story there and I also don't think we can just assume that other dog food companies do the same thing. Some have a promise to not do anything even close to what was on those videos. Whether or not they keep that promise, I don't know. But I sure as heck will not allow my dogs to be the guinea pigs for a dog food company unless the companies that do test don't work for my kids.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by aproctor

I do understand but I don't think you watched the video!!

There is no justification for what happened/s to these poor animals. There have to be other ways to test things...there are A LOT of products on the shelves that declare right on the packaging "NOT animal tested" so how do these companies test their product?

If you mean a dog food or shampoo and it says not tested on animals, then your dogs are the testers. They are taking the cheap way out and letting your dogs be their subjects.

[Taryn0405]

Originally Posted by aproctor

I do understand but I don't think you watched the video!!

There is no justification for what happened/s to these poor animals. There have to be other ways to test things...there are A LOT of products on the shelves that declare right on the packaging "NOT animal tested" so how do these products test their product?

I did watch the video. And I've seen many more in my psychology classes back in college where they test drugs on animals as well. But what else do you suggest that we use for testing?? It's the same question that I'd like to ask PETA about many things. You may not like it, you may protest it, but you'd (meaining PETA) would be the first up in arms if those same companies released a product that they didn't do testing on and it killed millions of animals.

There are products on the shelves that say no animal testing, but that also makes me think, "Well then, alright, am I the test subject?"

Once again, it's a sticky subject.

[roseylovestosho]

Humans are paid to test certain drugs. Sure, you might say 'well at least they're consenting to it,' but in reality, it's really easy to take advantage of those who live in poverty and are willing to take a drug whose side effects are not yet clear in order to get $50 and buy food for his/her family. I don't like that animals are subject to testing, but I also don't like that the poor are used as guinea pigs for clinical trials...but there's no way around it.

[aproctor]

I believe there has to be a way around it because I can't justify the sacrifice of one animal for another....
I don't believe poor people should be used either.

I am sure there are ways to get around it but it is a money issue...everything seems to be about the almighty dollar and that is just wrong.

I also believe there is probably a cure for most cancers but if there was then the drug companies would go out of business....so the quest for the cure is still on....it's a vicious cycle.

Dogs should not be bred for testing and dogs from the humane society should not go from one cruel and inhumane setting to a testing lab to endure more cruelty. It is wrong in my opinion.

Honestly if they were testing yorkies and not beagles would you think it's okay then? Maybe the tests would be more accurate if they would test yorkies.....

If they are actually just testing in a HUMANE way then it wouldn't be so controversial but to cut out chunks of their legs and have their only existence be a tiny kennel and have little to no interaction with humans is wrong.....

Many people say that they "think there is more to the story" or they think "this doesn't really happen anymore"....but IMO it really means those people think it's easier not to know the truth.

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

If you mean a dog food or shampoo and it says not tested on animals, then your dogs are the testers. They are taking the cheap way out and letting your dogs be their subjects.

Not just that...there are human products that say that too - one that comes to mind right now is Aveda.

[Ellie May]

Actually, I believe at least one company did use Yorkies to test one of their foods. And no, I don't have a problem with it. Comes down to this. I'm selfish and I want MY dogs to be okay. So I will accept that a company tests on dogs that are not MINE. MY dogs have enough problems and don't need to be guinea pigs.

So it would be okay if your pup desperately needed a new drug and it wasn't tested on other animals? You'd be okay giving it? I certainly would not. The problem is an animal has to try the product. There is no way around that. Macines and cadavers don't work for that sort of thing, unfortunately.

That is Iams and may not represent what other food companies are doing. You can look at the studies done by these companies and that will give you a good idea about if they are using only non-invasive techniques.

Because of the extremely cruel treatment of farm animals, I no longer choose to support the industry. I think it's incredibly cruel. And I think people choose to look away because they like meat. IMO, that is a much bigger issue than making sure a food product is safe for the nation's dogs.

Some dogs, somewhere test every product. Unless I think that doesn't pose any thread to my babies, then I choose to let some other dog do the trial just as I would choose to pick a heartworm drug partially based off of studies that involved injecting drugs with heartworms and then euthanizing them. For ME, I have to keep MY dogs safe first. And if I want good drugs to be available to them that are actually tried and if I want a food available for them that I know isn't going to kill them within six months, then I don't believe there is any choice but to accept animal testing.

[Ellie May]

Yes, when possible I avoid products that were unnecessarily tested on animals. Human shampoo I have no problem "testing" on myself.

And I certainly don't believe in needless cruelty (i.e. Minksheen, etc.) or any cruelty for that matter.

[Taryn0405]

Originally Posted by aproctor

I believe there has to be a way around it because I can't justify the sacrifice of one animal for another....
I don't believe poor people should be used either.

I am sure there are ways to get around it but it is a money issue...everything seems to be about the almighty dollar and that is just wrong.

I also believe there is probably a cure for most cancers but if there was then the drug companies would go out of business....so the quest for the cure is still on....it's a vicious cycle.

Dogs should not be bred for testing and dogs from the humane society should not go from one cruel and inhumane setting to a testing lab to endure more cruelty. It is wrong in my opinion.

Honestly if they were testing yorkies and not beagles would you think it's okay then? Maybe the tests would be more accurate if they would test yorkies.....

If they are actually just testing in a HUMANE way then it wouldn't be so controversial but to cut out chunks of their legs and have their only existence be a tiny kennel and have little to no interaction with humans is wrong.....
Many people say that they "think there is more to the story" or they think "this doesn't really happen anymore"....but IMO it really means those people think it's easier not to know the truth.

Not once did I think it's "okay" in fact I think I sated many times that I don't like animal testing. But like Crystal said in her above post. It's either that dog, or your dog that it gets tested on.

And with regards to human intereaction, wouldn't it be more cruel to subject a dog to constant human interaction and then basically take it away to become a test dog? It's the reason dogs are bread for testing, so that they have as little interaction as possible with humans so that bascailly they don't know any better.

I think everyone isn't blind to what happens with regards to animal testing. But heck, companies like Nike basically do the same things to humans in thrid world countries but I'm pretty sure I don't see any groups like PETA standing outside my local footlocker. In fact, I be sure and bet alot of the PETA advocates are wearing NIKE shoes when they're out with their picket signs. Oh the irony. But that's getting off topic.

Once again I stress, yes animal testing in itself is a nasty, controversial subject. But what else do you suggests happens that could would be better? Would you pefer straight out human testing? Because when push comes to shove, like Crystal said, I chose my dog over the one that was produced for testing.

[Maximo]

I agree with Ellie May and others....there is no way around testing the safety of new products: either the dogs in the lab are the test subjects, or our pets are.

For a new food, the manufacturer must test it on dogs. The choice has to be made:

1) dogs in a lab
2) dogs at breeders' homes/facilities
3) put the product on the shelf and let our pets' health determine if it is safe

Developing heartworm preventatives and other medications make the reality even harder to bear, because as Ellie May pointed out, the test dogs must be given heartworms. The alternative is for a manufacturer to sell the preventative to the general public and hope it works and doesn't have any side effects.

It hurts to think about. But this is reality.

[yorkietalkjilly]

All products are either tested on lab animals or directly on our infants and children, our dogs, our elderly family members and us. It is a sad fact of life in a world where money is king that without testing, who knows what horrors would be unleashed on the public?

[hugz4all4]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Really? I can't think of anything sadder than being stuck in a cage being tested on so someone else's pet doesn't get sick.

Medical beagles are also used for testing human medicine's. My sister in law works at a huge pharamacutiacal lab (cant remember the name off the top of my head) and she is telling me all the time on what animals they use and how much she hates it but they need to test thier new meds on something.

[amelie20]

Oh my I hope this isn't true! We just switched to BB and amelie loves it!

[sallyann]

I guess you didn't watch the video that I saw. It broke my heart, I can't stand any human or animal to suffer. They debarked them and tied them down! Force fed, it was awful what I saw! Not to mention the treatment, like things that had no feelings. No interaction what soever.