Vicky Hall and IAMS

[Hannikat]

I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads 'Cats not Kids' as you can tell I'm not a fan! although I respect other peoples right to populate......within reason!!! 

[hOrZa]

I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.

you may not be a lover of children but without them where would the human race be? and we need to educate tomorrows children because this generation is lost as a whole

I also believe humans are just another animal but by being at the top of the pyramid there comes a level of responseability

[bunglycat]

I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.

Snap - or all the stuff about people/kids in Africa ??
Thats nothing to do with me either and i personally think the UK has pumped millions into Africa on this subject and the situation is still the same !
Dont understand this "children in need " thing they do every year - Why don''t they ever do a Animals in need ???

[LeighK]

As the late and great Groucho Marx once said : "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."   

Another couple of my favourite Groucho quotes :

“Q: What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
A: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.”

and, perhaps, my favourite:

“I intend to live forever, or die trying.” 

Cheers

Leigh

[Mark]

I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.

Start testing drugs on children.

Interesting. Does the human animal not have the same rights as the other animals you wish to protect ?

[Mark]

I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.

Start testing drugs on children 

Seriously, I think Debsy had the right idea when she said we should agree to disagree. You have your opinion and I have mine and that is that.

[Gillian Harvey]

As for alternative remedies and homeopathy, I agree that many alternative remedies (e.g. herbal remedies, acupunture) work but nothing will ever convinve me that homeopathy is more than a placebo affect (or in the eyes of beholder if the 'patient' is an animal).

I'm sorry, but have you ever used homeopathic remedies? Most people that slate it have never tried it so how can you comment? Many people who have tried it have picked a remedy out of the air - thinking this sounds like it will treat my cat - without consulting a homeopathic vet - and when it doesnt work they decide homeopathy per se doesnt work. If all the veterinary convential drugs were available without a prescription, you wouldnt just go an pick one that you think might do the trick would you? No, of course not - you would consult a vet, the same goes for homeopathic remedies.

 

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

I assume that you won't accept any medication or treatment then? (for anything as any medicine prescribed to the public will ahve been tested at some point) I really don't want to be personal but I think that there's a bigger picture to look at. Saying that cancer reasearch and amazing charities that save lives every day are wrong is not really a fair or true statement. I love animals and their welfare is incredibly important to me BUT I honestly think that there is a need for prospective.

There is less need now than ever before to test on animals but they will continue to do it as long people support them. My conscience will not allow me to support them. As for accepting treatment. I am currently on two drugs that were probably tested on animals at some point. If I refuse to take them, it won't save the animals that died but I certainly wouldn't support any more drugs being tested this way. Maybe I prefer animals to people and I don't have any empathy with children so none of that stuff washes with me.There are other cancer charities that don't test and I would happily support them. There has to be a cut off point but whilst it is given the false respectability, it will continue.

As they say "Not in my name"

I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.


Moiramassey - Great post. I absolutely agree with you on the point of homeopathy too btw.
However, I do not see us as necessarily as more important than others animals, I see us all as animals.

[Hannikat]

To me a human life is more important that that of an animal. I'm not a fan on animal testing but if it's for a medical reason that cannot be avoided - say testing life saving cancer drugs etc then I dont have a problem. Testing on animals for say cosmetics is a different matter though!

In an ideal world I would buy organic food, live on green energy and only use products that are not tested on animals - however my bank balance doesn't agree

[moiramassey]

Yes, there will be many different opinions on this one.

I eat meat, so saying that it is OK to kill animals to feed me but not to save lives by testing drugs would be hypocritical of me. I am sure that animals reared for food, transported to abattoir and killed there suffer as much (or more) than many animals in labs (depending on the experiment). I do know that farmers, abbattoir operators and scientists have legally imposed reponsibilities to minimise cruelty to animals; I am sure some carry that responsibily through more than others.

Having studied biological sciences at degree and PhD level I can tell you that other mammals (and even other non mammalian animals') biochemistry and physiology is very, very like a human's. The argument that they are 'too different to be useful' is just not valid.

Tissue culture (cells grown in bottles) has meant that a lot of scientific research no longer uses animals. However, there is a legal requirement to test drugs that will be used in humans. As the notion of using untested drugs is not a runner, animal testing will be used until we have either human organs grown in vitro (probably even more ethical problems with that one) or we have a detailed computer model of a human (a long way off).

As for no drugs and no modern medicine, I am not willing to take society in that direction. It is bad enough that enough children are no receiving the measles vaccination that we are risking a measles epidemic which means that some children will end up with their sight reduced or other neuralogical damage. If they found a vaccine for HIV or malaria that would stop millions of Africans dying in the future I will accept animal testing to get it.

As for alternative remedies and homeopathy, I agree that many alternative remedies (e.g. herbal remedies, acupunture) work but nothing will ever convinve me that homeopathy is more than a placebo affect (or in the eyes of beholder if the 'patient' is an animal).

For me a human life is worth more than an animal life. (I think that is pretty obvious as I eat meat!) However, I know that a minority of people do not share that belief.

[bunglycat]

I

Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?

Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.

I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.

I hope you don't take recreational drugs or drink alcohol then because they are regularly tested on animals in cruel ways.
I am not having a dig, just pointing it out.
also -  I am not implying that you may take drugs, or that if you did that would be a bad thing in itself.  .
No judgements here. Just questioning your logic in a very friendly non-confrontational sort of way.

I don't take drugs and yes I do drink a bit of wine but there is no need to test it on animals. What I am saying is animal testing should be outlawed. I am certainly not going to contribute towards experiments as some do by going on "fun runs" etc.

do believe in extremism depending on the circumstances. I would like to chop off the hands that experiment on animals. "Scientists" that harm animals deserve severe punishment.


.

Have to say - i agree entirely with Mark on this !
I will also refuse HRT when the time comes too ( not too long off i imagine !) as i know there are natural and homopathic remedies .
I do not think that animals bodies are in any way the same as ours regarding testing human drugs on -its pointless and just cruel .
If i had to choose between losing someone and the offchance that killing a cat by testing drugs on them just might help ( and might not either - which would most likely be the case ) i would say no to the treatment !
Sorry to also say -that Cancer research is one of the worst for doing these experiments and i would Never help or contribute to them in any way  and yes i have lost a friend at 29 to cancer a good few years back .
I do not support or give to any charity thay agrees with animal testing and i think some animal activists have a good point in a lot what they do !
Anyone remember Hillgrove farm !? and the  that ran that - he deserved everything he got !

[Debsymiller (Rufus' mum)]

I am not here for a slanging match, we need to agree to disagree. Everyone has the right to their opinion.

[Debsymiller (Rufus' mum)]

A collegue and good friend of mine is battling breast cancer at the moment and would probably be dead (along with thousands/millions of other people) if it were not for the great work that has been done. I can only assume that anyone who thinks it's wrong to enhance treatment for people through research will not be accepting treatment if they ever develop a life threatening disease because that would be reather hypocritical. I completely understand why people feel the way they do BUT as I said earlier, there is a much bigger picture. I also urge people to actually find out a lot more information before they make such 'set in stone' judgements.

[Jasmine]

I agree 100%

My niece walked part of the Great Wall of China last year for Breast Cancer Research - she knew better than to ask Auntie for sponsorship!!!

[Mark]

Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?

Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.

I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.

I hope you don't take recreational drugs or drink alcohol then because they are regularly tested on animals in cruel ways.
I am not having a dig, just pointing it out.
also -  I am not implying that you may take drugs, or that if you did that would be a bad thing in itself.  .
No judgements here. Just questioning your logic in a very friendly non-confrontational sort of way.

I don't take drugs and yes I do drink a bit of wine but there is no need to test it on animals. What I am saying is animal testing should be outlawed. I am certainly not going to contribute towards experiments as some do by going on "fun runs" etc.

[Mark]

I assume that you won't accept any medication or treatment then? (for anything as any medicine prescribed to the public will ahve been tested at some point) I really don't want to be personal but I think that there's a bigger picture to look at. Saying that cancer reasearch and amazing charities that save lives every day are wrong is not really a fair or true statement. I love animals and their welfare is incredibly important to me BUT I honestly think that there is a need for prospective.

There is less need now than ever before to test on animals but they will continue to do it as long people support them. My conscience will not allow me to support them. As for accepting treatment. I am currently on two drugs that were probably tested on animals at some point. If I refuse to take them, it won't save the animals that died but I certainly wouldn't support any more drugs being tested this way. Maybe I prefer animals to people and I don't have any empathy with children so none of that stuff washes with me.There are other cancer charities that don't test and I would happily support them. There has to be a cut off point but whilst it is given the false respectability, it will continue.

As they say "Not in my name"

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?

Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.

I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.

I hope you don't take recreational drugs or drink alcohol then because they are regularly tested on animals in cruel ways.
I am not having a dig, just pointing it out.
also -  I am not implying that you may take drugs, or that if you did that would be a bad thing in itself.  .
No judgements here. Just questioning your logic in a very friendly non-confrontational sort of way.

[Debsymiller (Rufus' mum)]

I assume that you won't accept any medication or treatment then? (for anything as any medicine prescribed to the public will ahve been tested at some point) I really don't want to be personal but I think that there's a bigger picture to look at. Saying that cancer reasearch and amazing charities that save lives every day are wrong is not really a fair or true statement. I love animals and their welfare is incredibly important to me BUT I honestly think that there is a need for prospective.

[Mark]

Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?

Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.

I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.

[Debsymiller (Rufus' mum)]

I have been monitoring this thread for the last few days and trying not to post TBH. I think that everyone deserves to be able to have their say and not be slapped down for it. There are a lot of judgemental comments in this thread which is actually detracting from the issue. Rather than insulting people I think it would be fairer to just discuss the issue at hand and accept that not everyone has the same view.
Extreemism only breeds hate and doesn't solve anything, it just makes the problem bigger and often, innocents get hurt. Personally, I don't buy Iams as I don't think it's a good quality food and also because I try not to buy anything that has been tested on animals but would be lying if I said I had never done that because I'm sure I have accidentally, without realising. I don't personally believe (quite passionately in fact) that anything should be tested on innocent animals for non-medical purposes but can understand why testing is in place for medical products whether I like it or not. I certainly don't condone anyone using violence to prove a point. The problem with people getting irate about something is that they don't usually know all the facts and latch onto something that they do not in fact understand. Extreem activists are as bad as the people doing the testing and should not be condoned or encouraged. This is my opinion and while I believe what I think is right, I accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I do believe in extremism depending on the circumstances. I would like to chop off the hands that experiment on animals. "Scientists" that harm animals deserve severe punishment.

Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?

I think all these things need to be put in perspective. I spend everyday of my life dealing with mixed up children who are so angry because of the hand that society has delath them, I come home to my CP role and speak to people who see animals as a commodity and this is all because of the hateful society which we have created. Extreemism is NOT going to solve this, just make it worse.

[Mark]

I think there is an argument for rewarding good behaviour as otherwise they have no incentive to change their ways. What annoys me is they want to rewrite history and pretend it never happened. There is documentary evidence to prove otherwise.

I do believe in extremism depending on the circumstances. I would like to chop off the hands that experiment on animals. "Scientists" that harm animals deserve severe punishment.

I see Aberdeen University have been in trouble - I hope they are being watched  http://ethxblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/aberdeen-university-promises-to-reduce.html

Before I started my course, I checked that no animal experiements are done at the uni. They assured me that the only creatures that are cut up are dead crabs that are caught in the nets in scotland. They are preserved and sent down. She told me they could throw them back but they would be dead anyway.

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

Moira,

I agree with both of your posts, first impressions are rarely totally accurate.  For objections to be taken seriously, it's necessary to present opinons in a reasonable and well-informed way.  I too would never support the various animal rights organisations - if they want mass support, they will need to moderate their approach (big-time), which is what I mean by the previous sentence.  I haven't read Vicky Hall's response but am PMing now.

What would be the response in the event that Iams appears to have learnt its lesson and no longer uses animal testing?  Would they be OK then (ie they've learnt their lesson)?  I ask because it has often been said that this forum can be used to educate people - this is quite justified and I think it is a great resource for this purpose.  Presumably if a person thus educated sticks around, they are forgiven their old uneducated ways, BUT would this attitude be extended to a corporation such as Iams?  I am genuinely interested in this question - does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?

C.

( Am not blind, am plain, am not stoopid)

An interesting question Catbird isn't it !

Personally, while I would apply this to people as a general principle, I am more reluctant to apply it to corporate organisations, the ethos matters to me also. Would IAMS police their external contractors more as a result of a sense of corporate responsibility ( what us humans call being humane ) or would they do it for marketing and sales purposes. The cynic in me thinks the latter is the case. While individuals within the company may care passionately about ( in our case ) cats, I cannot support a company that evidence has suggested has auditing practices I consider wanting. I would rather use a company that has not been shown to have such failings. If other companies are to discovered to have similiar previous failings I would not support them. It is not a risk my conscience can sit happily with.

As someone who has very strict personal policies with regard to purchasing vanity and cleaning products, I am very appreciative of the work and research of some animal rights organisations, such as BUAV. I am very grateful for their work in this area for the consumer, and of the work they do with large external organisations to promote a cruelty free stance on non-medical related products.

[Catbird]

Moira,

I agree with both of your posts, first impressions are rarely totally accurate.  For objections to be taken seriously, it's necessary to present opinons in a reasonable and well-informed way.  I too would never support the various animal rights organisations - if they want mass support, they will need to moderate their approach (big-time), which is what I mean by the previous sentence.  I haven't read Vicky Hall's response but am PMing now.

What would be the response in the event that Iams appears to have learnt its lesson and no longer uses animal testing?  Would they be OK then (ie they've learnt their lesson)?  I ask because it has often been said that this forum can be used to educate people - this is quite justified and I think it is a great resource for this purpose.  Presumably if a person thus educated sticks around, they are forgiven their old uneducated ways, BUT would this attitude be extended to a corporation such as Iams?  I am genuinely interested in this question - does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?

C.

( Am not blind, am plain, am not stoopid)

[moiramassey]

Just because something is on website does not make it true.

I am sure that the response to the accusations on the Iams website is spun to be favourable to them. They are a company and companies do that. I am sure that the information on the Uncaged website paints the worst possible picture it can manage, not worrying too much if some of the experiments it described weren't actually commissioned by Iams. Uncaged is a pressure group and pressure groups do that.

And, no, Mark, I am neither blind or stupid.

I think that Iams is a company that cares much more about money than about cats. It decided that getting its products scientific (or pseudoscientific) credibility was important, so that it could get vets to recommend and sell its products, therefore justifying the high prices it wished to charge. I have no doubt that they will have reversed their policy now that they think they are danger of losing their customers.

I do not know the detail of the campaigns that Uncaged has run over the years, so I cannot comment on its record.

I disagree strongly with animal rights activists that break the law, particularly the ones that think that it is OK to terrorise people and release animals like mink into the environment to wipe out our native wildlife, for example water voles. I therefore never give money to any animal rights organisation because some of those organisations harbour such activists.

I do give to cat and other animal rescure organisations. I would give to the RSPCA.

I do not buy Iams.

[Desley (booktigger)]

But that could be happening with other companies Gillian, and it just hasnt' been discovered.

I do agree re the Buddy packs though, I still wouldnt like RC ones, but slightly better than this years, which are IAms - last years were good, you got 4 packs of Whiskas wet and a bag of Whiskas dry, now you just get two small bags of Iams.

[Gillian Harvey]

I would be good if CP arranged RC buddy packs or something like that?

Be even better if it was packs of appropriate wet food don't ya think? 

IAMS DID use a company that was cited for many alleged violations under the Animal Welfare Act in 2006, and it was PETAs research that uncovered it. IAMS cut ties with the company afterwards. The company paid a fine.

There is no excuse for Iams not keeping tabs on their suppliers - its a very worrying situation if they had no knowledge - I mean you don't just hire a supplier and then leave them to get on with it do you? Iams must have quality control inspectors or suchlike - so what they hell were they doing? Who's to say that the same thing isnt happening all over again with other companies/suppliers they use?

[Mark]

Out of interest Mark, does your CP branch give out the Buddy packs?

No - probably just as well as when I got Kylie from CP, they gave me a box of Go-cat but made it clear they didn't recommend it but only fed it because it was supplied free. These days Purina just give a discount on Felix pouches which is OK but not as good as the supermarket offers really.

They do donate boxes of pouches to CP headquarters that are close to sell-by.

It would be good if CP arranged RC buddy packs or something like that?

[Desley (booktigger)]

I wonder if Iams still do test after all the controversy and reports on them, especially as the uncaged report was 7 years ago - but I dont buy it cos I think it is too expensive for what it is, there are better dry foods out there for a better price.
Out of interest Mark, does your CP branch give out the Buddy packs?
MM, can you pm me the response please?

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

It is interesting how spin can be used on both sides.
I am absolutely no fan of PETA, however IAMS DID use a company that was cited for many alleged violations under the Animal Welfare Act in 2006, and it was PETAs research that uncovered it. IAMS cut ties with the company afterwards. The company paid a fine.

USDA fines Sinclair Research:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/mar/20070324News023.asp

The RSPCA has never acknowledged they ever cut ties with the company btw, they had some kind of temporary joint promotion thing going on that ended. But that doesn't come as a surprise to many here eh.  .

[Mark]

From Uncaged website

"Uncaged first exposed IAMS/Eukanuba's painful, invasive and lethal tests on cats, dogs and other animals to the world in 2001 after extensive research through dozens of scientific journals."


What is happening here - this isn't a difference of opinion - maybe some people choose to be blind to it or are plain stupid!! 

I refuse to sit back and read all this soppy nonsense about different opinions etc when cats have died and been tortured just to test cat food.

The cats are what is important and that is that.

If it was just PETA that made the allegations, I think there would be room to argue but Uncaged and the Sunday Express did their own research. At the time, the RSPCA severed ties with the company.

I'm sure if people had made false claims, they would have been taken to court.

[JackSpratt]

Well said, Moira.

The response actually indicates that although Vicky has said she has worked with Iams from time to time, the information regarding testing was inaccurate - she looked into it before voicing her opinions on their product.

[moiramassey]

I do not condemn people for having opinions different to mine or making decisions I would not make. I disagree with them but I do not condemn them.

I endeavour not to be swift to judge and try to look at evidence from all sources. I do not only value information that supports my point of view. I do not dismiss information that supports an alternative position.

Lack of tolerance is a major problem in our society.

Those are my principles.

[Maddiesmum]

It's a long response so I am suggesting if you want to see it you PM me your email addy and I will forward it

[Cheesecat]

Me too please MM, I've been peeping in here today 

[Kittybabe (Ruth)]

MM could you pls PM me the response? I'd be interested to know. Thanks

[Tiggy's Mum]

Done 

[Maddiesmum]

You know what, I wondered that myself.  Can it be removed and I will let anyone who is interested see it?

[Tiggy's Mum]

Maddiesmum - I'm not sure you should publish her full response on Purrs, maybe if you could PM anyone that is interested.  I'm just worried about the legal implications especially as this part of the site is accesible to non members.

[Dawn F]

she should contact your cat magazine, it definately said she was spokes person so they are misrepresenting her