Iams: Exposing the Lies

PETA hates Proctor and Gamble. PETA hates Proctor and Gamble so much that they will stop at nothing to see that company destroyed. Why do they hate Proctor and Gamble? Because in an effort to bring us new and more effective products, Proctor and Gamble has to test on animals.

PETA has launched a propaganda campaign against Iams specifically. Now, I for one, would never buy Iams for my pets. But that's because it sucks as a pet food. It's overpriced for what you're getting. My pets get quality food.

If you believe what PETA says about Iams, then you believe that Iams has a very serious problem. Well, that's not entirely true. PETA did uncover problems at two labs that Iams had outsourced work to, but, by the time this campaign was launched, they weren't even using the first one. They fired the second lab after PETA had uncovered that the lab was not fulfilling Iams' animal care policy. However, he video taken at the third lab is a problem. First of all, PETA decries the conditions that the animals used in this lab live in, not taking into account that the animals at local animal shelters all live in the same conditions.

Here is one of PETA's misleading statements:

Another dog, referred to only as HJBMCN, had no resting board and was not removed from her cage during cleaning time, so she often had to sit or lie on wet concrete. Like so many other animals, HJBMCN was given no exercise, socialization, or psychological enrichment.

You want the truth? The woman who got that "undercover" video footage was hired in order to develop and implement programs to make sure that these animals' welfare was being taken into account. She had the responsibility for socialization and enrichment of dogs at that facility. If they were not being given exercise, socialization, or enrichment, could it be because PETA didn't want them given any? This wouldn't be the first time PETA has tried to engage in cruelty to animals in order to further their radical cause...

Here's another gem from PETA's IamsCruelty.com site:

Many Iams dogs suffered cruel and painful muscle biopsies, and Iams even allowed its dogs to be surgically debarked to silence the their tormented cries.

And now here is the truth that PETA doesn't want you to know:

Yes,some dogs were debarked. However, it wasn't because Iams wanted it done. In fact, according to an article on Iams' webpage, debarking has been against Iams company policy since 1960. The PETA operative authorized these animals to be debarked without Iams' consent. What does that tell you about PETA?

Here are some other things that PETA doesn't want you to know:

Iams adopts out all the animals they use in tests after the tests are done or after the animals are retired, as of July 2003.

Iams is committed to working toward eliminating animal experimentation as a scientifically valid procedure. They are actively using, seeking, and developing alternatives.

Killing dogs and cats is against Iams research policy, and has been for years.

The "undercover" operative who obtained the video footage was paid to be the animal welfare specialist for that facility. Getting paid to ensure that the animals are well cared for while working with an extremist activist organization that seeks to eliminate all laboratory tests on animals is most definitely a conflict of interests, and one cannot consider this "investigation" to be objective and expect to be taken seriously.

And, finally, the ASPCA sheds some light on the issue:

The ASPCA participates on the Iams International Animal Care Advisory Board. This board provides input to the Iams Company on animal research issues.

The Iams Company has requested that members of the board conduct unannounced site visits to Iams' research facilities. The ASPCA provides site visit reports for each of the visits our team participates in. These reports represent a snapshot in time based on what was seen during the visit period only.

Here are the ASPCA's stated objectives when they visit an Iams facility:

• To evaluate the care of the animals
• To assess the condition of the animals
• To evaluate socialization and enrichment for the animals
• To evaluate housing and play areas
• To ensure that animals are not exposed to inappropriate stress or hardship
• To interview staff directly involved with the care of the animals
• To review study protocols and other study related documentation
• To evaluate whether or not the research being conducted falls within the guidelines of the Iams Company Research Policy

Also, according to a statement on the ASPCA's website, the ASPCA has had a relationship with Iams for five years. That relationship definitely predates any of these allegations that PETA is making.

So, once again PETA makes false allegations against an innocent entity (in this case, a company) just because they don't agree with the methods this company uses.

Feral Cats

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

Usually when someone references Animal Farm, they are talking about politics. After all, Animal Farm was a political work first and foremost. However, in this case, like with my entry about pit bulls, I am meaning that quote to be taken literally.

One of PETA's arguments against eating meat and using animals in experiments is to remind us that we wouldn't treat our pets that way. Well, would we euthanize our pets for no reason? Well, PETA seems to think that we should be euthanizing feral cats. Here is what AskCarla.com says about the issue:

We believe that trap, vaccinate, spay/neuter, and release programs are acceptable when the cats are isolated from roads, people, and other animals who could harm them; regularly attended to by people who not only feed them but care for their medical needs; and situated in an area where they do not have access to wildlife and where the weather is temperate.

Here is AskCarla.com's arument for euthanizing feral cats:

Sadly, our experience with trap, spay-and-neuter, and release programs and "managed" feral cat colonies has led us to question whether or not these programs are truly in the cats’ best interests. We receive countless reports of incidents in which cats—"managed" or not—suffer and die horrible deaths because they must fend for themselves outdoors. Having witnessed firsthand the gruesome things that can happen to feral cats, we cannot in good conscience advocate trapping and releasing as a humane way to deal with overpopulation.

Advocates argue that feral cats are just as deserving as other felines and that it is our responsibility to alleviate their suffering and assure their safety. We absolutely agree. It is precisely because we would never encourage anyone to let their own cats outdoors to roam that we do not encourage the same for feral cats. In fact, the act of releasing a feral cat is, in the eyes of the law, abandonment and is illegal in many areas.

We believe that although altering feral cats prevents the suffering of future generations, it does little to improve the quality of life for the cats who are left outdoors and that allowing feral cats to continue their daily struggle for survival in a hostile environment is not usually a humane option.

So, because feral cats have to fend for themselves outdoors and they can get run over by cars, we should euthanize them? Well, let's euthanize raccoons, then. Of all the animals I've seen dead or dying in the road, I've seen more raccoons than anything else. Plus, they are notorious for carrying rabies. So let's kill them. Oh, and let's likk all the deer, too. They can get hit by cars, too.

As for their problem with Trap-Neuter-Return programs, the Feral Cat Network tells a different story:

The empirical evidence is indisputable that TNR is the most effective way to help reduce the number of homeless feral cats in both urban and suburban areas. For example, in Hamilton, New Jersey, TNR has resulted in Township health department statistics showing that the number of homeless cats killed last year is less than 20 percent of the 571 cats put to death in Hamilton five years ago. Numbers also indicate that fewer strays are brought to the shelter each year. Township spokesperson Rich McClellan attributed the decreasing number of cats killed in shelters to the work of TNR caregivers. Gwyn Sondike, who for the past year has served on a NJ state task force appointed by Gov. James E. McGreevey to examine animal welfare, stated: "It's actually more expensive to have animal control officers go out and find these cats and have them euthanized than it is to have members of these (cat welfare) groups trap, neuter and release them." According to Lucinda Tucker, who operates the TNR plan, trapping and killing a cat can cost a township between $75 and $125, while TNR costs about $50 and is paid for by volunteer organizations.

Hmm... TNR is more cost-effective and it actually works. Here is what the Feral Cat Network had to say about trapping and killing:

Traditional, agency-run attempts to trap and kill cats have historically resulted in greater numbers -- and greater suffering for that reason alone -- of stray animals, than have well-planned systems to trap, neuter, and return cats. TNR, in conjunction with public education and low-cost spay/neuter clinics, stabilizes numbers and facilitates the eventual elimination of colonies of homeless cats.

The Feral Cat Network also lists the erroneous arguments supporting euthanization and presents the facts on their webpage. It's worth a look.

Anyhow, back to PETA. I would like to know how the same group that decries the fact that we kill animals in an attempt to control their populations and their effect on local ecosystems could possibly advocate ki
lling animals that pose no real threat to the ecosystem. If it's okay to euthanize feral cats, then shouldn't it be okay to hunt seals in Canada? They aren't threatened, and they pose a threat to the ecosystem there. They are competing with polar bears for resources, and, without human intervention, the bears would lose. How about deer hunting? In my area, the deer are reproducing out of control. Should we not hunt these deer, even though they will destroy the ecosystem? Of course, PETA will say that they shouldn't be hunted, but, after knowing about their policy concerning feral cats, how could anyone really believe that they honestly care about animals? How the fuck could anyone take these douchebags serously?