Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / March 2004
IAMS experimentation video
|
|
Thread rating:  |
kaeli - 19 Mar 2004 20:15 GMT Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html This is what happens to dogs (and one kitten) in the name of "research".
The rest of you, don't. It's not pretty. In fact, it's very, very sad.
 Signature -- ~kaeli~ Synonym: the word you use in place of a word you can't spell. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
Jon C - 20 Mar 2004 00:10 GMT Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is at an IAMS lab? Maybe it's at a lab doing research for Authority that Iams has contracted for research in the past. Or maybe it's in a PETA member's house. Who knows?
Jon
> Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. > http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html > This is what happens to dogs (and one kitten) in the name of "research". > > The rest of you, don't. It's not pretty. > In fact, it's very, very sad. Liz - 20 Mar 2004 00:24 GMT > Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. > http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -- I won´t even look. These things really get to me. Anyway, if you think Iams is the only one doing it, you´re wrong. Don´t even try to find out what they do in universities in the name of research. Here a lot of vet students steal animals from the university because they feel sorry for them and I definitively support that kind of theft. I could never go to vet school. :(
PawsForThought - 20 Mar 2004 02:09 GMT >From: kaeli tiny_one@NOSPAM.comcast.net
>Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. >http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html >This is what happens to dogs (and one kitten) in the name of "research". IAMS is disgusting. Aren't they owned by Proctor and Gamble? I've read where Colgate Palmolive (Hill's) is still involved in animal testing as well, although they are supposedly trying to get away from it.
Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm
GAUBSTER2 - 20 Mar 2004 21:49 GMT >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought)
>IAMS is disgusting. Aren't they owned by Proctor and Gamble? I've read >where >Colgate Palmolive (Hill's) is still involved in animal testing as well, >although they are supposedly trying to get away from it. For the bazillionth time--Hill's doesn't do animal testing. But of course, you knew that..<sigh>
Still on your anti-Hill's smear campaign?
PawsForThought - 21 Mar 2004 05:26 GMT >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
>>IAMS is disgusting. Aren't they owned by Proctor and Gamble? I've read >>where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >you >knew that..<sigh> Really? Check it out for yourself:
http://www.caringconsumer.com/page/CompaniesDo.pdf ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm
Steve Crane - 21 Mar 2004 16:30 GMT > >For the bazillionth time--Hill's doesn't do animal testing. But of course, > >you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.caringconsumer.com/page/CompaniesDo.pdf You know Lauren you really are a piece of work. Your uncontrollable and obsessive compulsive hatred for one company bleeds through with everything you do.
Your "facts" above are a joke. First of all they come from PETA who is unquestionably a disgusting organization. Considering they would ban your ability to even own a pet, I cannot fathom your support of them. Considering thier cash support for convicted terrorists, considering thier disgusting comparison of chickens to Jewish Holocaust victims, considering the fact that they spend less that 1/10th of 1% on animals and the rest goes to salaries and the list goes on and on. View this web site for further information about the amazing Peta organization.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
Now as to your allegations, you know exactly what you've done. You have deliberately inferred that Hill's conducts testing similar to the Peta purported IAMS video which is BS and you know it. Hill's does do testing on animals to satisfy AAFCO feeding requirments. Hill's does do _NON_ invasive testing to learn new advances in nutrition. Hill's continues to do testing on nutritional products which have saved literally hundreds of thousands of animals over the past fifty years. That very testing which delivered the ability to correct most canine victims of canine Alzheimer's and is now being applied to humans with this ghastly disease. That testing which provided the very basis for understanding cat and dog nutrition over the past fifty years. In case Lauren misses it non-invasive means no surgical procedures of any kind.
But then Lauren knew all this all along, she just couldn't resist taking deliberate and deceptive pot shots at a company she has an obsessive hatred for.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been described as "by far the most successful radical organization in America." The key word is radical. PETA seeks "total animal liberation," according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs. Amidst the dozens of animal rights organizations, PETA occupies the niche of -- in Newkirk's own words -- "complete press sluts." Endlessly seeking media exposure, PETA sends out dozens of press releases every week.
In the past, PETA has handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a violent, underground group of fanatics who plant firebombs in restaurants, destroy butcher shops, and torch research labs. The FBI considers ALF among America's most active and prolific terrorist groups, but PETA compares it to the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson. PETA has even begun to adopt the tactics of an ALF offshoot known as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). This group is notorious for taking protests outside the boardroom and into the living room, attacking their targets at their homes.
In 2001, three masked SHAC members brutally bludgeoned a medical researcher outside his home in England. The lead attacker was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. A few months later, SHAC attacked another research industry employee on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes, leaving him temporarily blinded and writhing in pain. The following year, Newkirk was asked her opinion of SHAC in the Boston Herald. Her response? "More power to SHAC if they can get someone's attention."
By 2003, PETA activists had adopted SHAC's protest techniques, stalking and harassing fast-food restaurant executives. Not content to write letters and picket the chain restaurant's offices, PETA's leaders met with the CEO's pastor, and visited his country club and the manager of one of his favorite restaurants. PETA activists, one dressed in a chicken suit, even protested at the church of two executives, annoying worshipers by driving a truck with giant screens of slaughterhouse video back and forth along the street.
In an effort to win more media exposure, PETA has adopted the counter-intuitive tactic of buying stock in restaurant and food companies that serve and sell meat. After buying just enough shares to qualify, PETA's pattern is to introduce shareholder resolutions that would require animal-rights-oriented practices in the way animals are handled and slaughtered.
PETA's goal as a shareholder, of course, is not to turn a profit. Its resolutions, if passed, would increase the cost of doing business and lower the value of everyone's investment. The group has claimed that it's "not trying to remove meat from the menu." But with a stated long-term goal of "total animal liberation," pushing for animal-welfare changes is just a first step. PETA's short-term goals are to economically cripple these companies, force them to increase the retail price of meat, and nudge consumers toward eating less of it.
PETA collected more than $16 million in donations in 2002 alone, but few donors understand exactly where their money is going. During the past ten years, PETA has spent four times as much on criminals and their legal defense than it has on shelters, spay-neuter programs, and other efforts that actually help animals. From both a moral and a legal standpoint, there are far too many objectionable things about PETA to list here in detail. But the following "top ten list" is a good start:
PETA is not an animal welfare organization.
PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,300 cats and dogs in 1999 alone, preferring to spend its money on cheap publicity stunts and criminal defense, rather than finding the animals suitable homes.
PETA assaults common decency.
PETA's leadership has compared animal farmers to serial killer (and cannibal) Jeffrey Dahmer. They proclaimed in a 2003 exhibit that chickens are as valuable as Jewish Holocaust victims. They announced with a 2001 billboard that a shark attack on a little boy was "revenge" against humans who had it coming anyway. They have branded parents who feed their kids meat and milk "child abusers." In 2002 PETA organized a campaign to sabotage a popular Thanksgiving hotline, which provides free advice about cooking turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks.
PETA receives rock-bottom ratings from charity watchdogs. Charity Navigator, the nation's largest nonpartisan evaluator of non-profit organizations, gives PETA a rating of one-star ("poor"). It says PETA "fails to meet industry standards and performs well below most charities in its cause." PETA's "Foundation to Support Animal Protection" -- now doing business as "The PETA Foundation" -- was one of just 23 organizations nationwide to receive zero stars ("exceptionally poor").
PETA peddles its "animal liberation" food agenda through a medical front group that pretends to offer objective nutritional advice. A group misleadingly named the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has duped the press into believing that it is an association of conscientious doctors promoting good nutrition. In fact, it is a PETA front group. PCRM and PETA share money, offices, and staff. The American Medical Association calls PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group," has demanded that PCRM stop its "inappropriate and unethical tactics used to manipulate public opinion," and argues that PCRM has been "blatantly misleading Americans" and "concealing its true purpose as an animal 'rights' organization."
Taking a page out of PETA's press book, PCRM has labeled U.S. school lunches "weapons of mass destruction" because they include meat and milk. PCRM's president, a psychiatrist named Neal Barnard, recently duped Newsweek into covering his "study" (of seven people) supposedly demonstrating that a vegan diet helped prevent type-2 diabetes. In 2002, PCRM was cited in major newspapers more than 550 times. It was identified as an animal-rights organization in only a handful of those cases.
PETA exploits sick people. PETA famously suggested that drinking milk causes cancer, in an advertisement mocking then-NYC Mayor Rudy Guliani with the words "Got Prostate Cancer?" PETA has also erected a billboard reading: "Got Sick Kids? Drinking milk contributes to colic, ear infections, allergies, diabetes, obesity, and many other illnesses." In 2003 the group held a demonstration in front of a Toronto-area hospital that was under a SARS-related quarantine, spuriously alleging that animal husbandry has something to do with the epidemic's spread. Upon hearing that Charlton Heston had fallen ill with Alzheimer's Disease, Ingrid Newkirk suggested that PETA would "toy with the idea that both Alzheimer's and CJD [Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease] are related to meat consumption." According to a profile in The New Yorker, she considered "renting billboards that would display a large picture of a gaunt Charlton Heston foaming at the mouth."
PETA propagandizes children. PETA's website for kids puts a skull and crossbones next to the logo of Disney's Animal Kingdom and tells the horror story of a fast food restaurant employee who "had taken a patty into the potty with her, then returned and said she had peed on it." It hands out trading cards to kids that allege drinking milk will make them fat, pimply, flatulent, and phlegm-ridden. PETA also has a child-themed website, and a kiddie-oriented magazine, called GRRR! Kids Bite Back. The name is significant, as it is intended to prep children to identify with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has long-used the phrase "bite back" in its promotional materials. In fact, as early as 1991, convicted ALF arsonist and PETA grantee Rodney Coronado was calling his own crime spree "Operation Bite Back." PETA also sends "humane education lecturer" Gary Yourofsky into high schools -- and even middle schools -- to promote the "animal liberation" agenda. Yourofsky is a convicted ALF criminal who has said he would support burning down medical research labs even if humans were trapped in the flames.
PETA distorts religious teachings. Not only does PETA oppose the age-old Jewish tradition of Kosher slaughter, but the group's leaders maintain that Jews have misinterpreted their own sacred texts on the subject. They also claim, ignoring mountains of scripture to the contrary, that Jesus was a vegetarian. PETA celebrated Easter in 2003 with a billboard depicting a pig, reading "he died for your sins." PETA also insists (again, selectively ignoring contradictory evidence) that Muhammad "was not a meat-eater." In his speeches to adolescents, Gary Yourofsky regularly compares himself to Gandhi and Jesus Christ. PETA's in-school presentations include the application of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to birds and turtles -- not people.
PETA opposes life-saving medical research. PETA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. When asked if she would oppose an experiment on five thousand rats if it would result in a cure for AIDS, Newkirk responded: "Would you be opposed to experiments on your daughter if you knew it would save fifty million people?" In addition to opposing any and all medical research that uses animals, PETA also insults medical professionals by arguing, with a straight face, that animal testing is a counterproductive means of finding cures for human diseases.
PETA devalues human life. PETA's efforts to treasure every mosquito and cockroach invariably lead them to hate human beings for using bug spray and RAID. Ingrid Newkirk argues that as human beings, "we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." For more on how PETA devalues human life, click on "Motivation."
PETA openly supports violence and terrorist activity. PETA has long-standing ties to militant groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The FBI calls these criminal groups a "serious terrorist threat." For specifics on how PETA supports violence, click on "Black Eye."
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=21
Karen M. - 22 Mar 2004 19:01 GMT > > >For the bazillionth time--Hill's doesn't do animal testing. But of > course, [quoted text clipped - 220 lines] > > http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=21 Hill's is still owned by Colgate-Palmolive, which does do animal testing and receives profits from Hill's, so regardless of what Hill's does, by buying it you're still supporting CP, I think that's the main point here.
-L. : - 25 Mar 2004 06:31 GMT > testing and receives profits from Hill's, so regardless of what Hill's > does, by buying it you're still supporting CP, I think that's the main > point here. Interesting how Crane - Hill's resident "press slut" changes the subject and tries to pass off the post as his own - and then posts the link, from whence it came, at the bottom. Dribble, dribble, dribble...just like slime....
-L.
GAUBSTER2 - 25 Mar 2004 16:06 GMT >From: usenetlyn@yahoo.com (-L. :)
>Interesting how Crane - Hill's resident "press slut" changes the >subject and tries to pass off the post as his own - and then posts >the link, from whence it came, at the bottom. Dribble, dribble, >dribble...just like slime.... You're the slime, "L". What is your major malfunction, anyway? How many times does Steve have to tell you and others, that his posts here are his own personal opinions? He's stated time and time again that Hill's doesn't "put him here". You just don't like anything he posts since he uses facts and logic to support his arguments and opinions. And yet, here you are (again) calling him names. Grow up.
Steve Crane - 27 Mar 2004 02:55 GMT > Interesting how Crane - Hill's resident "press slut" changes the > subject and tries to pass off the post as his own - and then posts > the link, from whence it came, at the bottom. Dribble, dribble, > dribble...just like slime.... > > -L. Clearly you have forgotten what this original post was about - IAMS dogs in testing. Then one person with a pathological hatred of Hill's tried to claim Hill's did the same type of testing. This was a not a post about Proctor and Gamble or Colgate or Santa Claus for that matter, it was specific to the use of dogs by a pet food company for experimental purposes. One individual in her pathological hatred tried to infer Hill's did the same thing as IAMS - which is patently untrue and of course she knows it. It was a typical cheap shot without foundation as usual.
Steve G - 22 Mar 2004 21:36 GMT (...)
> Your "facts" above are a joke. First of all they come from PETA who is > unquestionably a disgusting organization. Considering they would ban your > ability to even own a pet, Looking on their website, this does not seem to be true (any more).
http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp
However, note that in the above FAQ, they do not actually answer the question 'Does PETA believe that people shouldn't have pets?'...! Hedging, perhaps?
> I cannot fathom your support of them. Considering > thier cash support for convicted terrorists, Well, I suppose they would argue that ALF activists and their ilk are all serving a Higher Purpose and Greater Good. Shades of Israel vs. Palestine...
(...)
> considering the fact > that they spend less that 1/10th of 1% on animals and the rest goes to > salaries and the list goes on and on. Haven't seen any proof of that?
> Hill's does do testing on > animals to satisfy AAFCO feeding requirments. Hill's does do _NON_ invasive > testing to learn new advances in nutrition. Only non-invasive testing? So, even the development of innovative diets is entirely via non-invasive means?
Or is any desired invasive testing simply farmed out off site?
Or is the info simply gained from university research which is unfunded and unaffiliated with Hills?
If the latter, I wonder if the animal rights supporters would allow the feeding of such food?
> Hill's continues to do testing > on nutritional products which have saved literally hundreds of thousands of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > provided the very basis for understanding cat and dog nutrition over the > past fifty years. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, Steve. I doubt that the knowledge you refer to above was obtained without the deaths of many animals.
But, I think you get to the crux of the matter above - one either believes that the death of some animals is acceptable in order to (hopefully) save many more, or one does not. There are more emotive situations than the pet food industry, too; there is much research out there looking at pain (and its prevention), and this research involves - surprise - making animals hurt! But fewer animals (and humans) with hurt in future, because of such work.
In any case, I trust that those who object to animal testing will stop treating their animals with ... hmm ... almost anything. Frontline and Revolution would be right out to begin with. And any pain meds.
Incidentally, Wellness seems to be a favoured food in these parts. It is not on the PETA list of acceptable foods / companies.
(...)
> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been described as > "by far the most successful radical organization in America." The key word [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > leather, and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the > use of seeing-eye dogs. This isn't entirely what is expressed on their website. They advocate keeping cats indoors. They advocate killing ferals. They allow for non-invasive animal studies.
Of course, the website is probably just the acceptable side of things - the advert, if you will.
(...)
> PETA is not an animal welfare organization. Well, they say this themselves - they are an 'animal welfare' organisation.
(...)
> turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of > Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid > Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals > are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks. I guess suicide sheep-bombings are right out, then.
(...)
> with the epidemic's spread. Upon hearing that Charlton Heston had fallen ill > with Alzheimer's Disease, How would you know?
Steve.
Steve Crane - 23 Mar 2004 03:36 GMT > Looking on their website, this does not seem to be true (any more). > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > question 'Does PETA believe that people shouldn't have pets?'...! > Hedging, perhaps? According to statements made by Newkirk the leader that is the ultimate goal.
> (...) > > considering the fact > > that they spend less that 1/10th of 1% on animals and the rest goes to > > salaries and the list goes on and on. > > Haven't seen any proof of that? http://www.charitynavigator.org/
> > Hill's does do testing on > > animals to satisfy AAFCO feeding requirments. Hill's does do _NON_ invasive > > testing to learn new advances in nutrition. > > Only non-invasive testing? So, even the development of innovative > diets is entirely via non-invasive means? Entirely, unless you consider bi-annual teeth cleaning invasive.
> Or is any desired invasive testing simply farmed out off site? Nope, Hill's will not fund such a study.
> Or is the info simply gained from university research which is > unfunded and unaffiliated with Hills? To some degree that is always the case. We may utilize published studies from all over the world to determine the best solutions to problems. There isn't a drug or surgical procedure or any medical product that cannot be traced back to some animal study somewhere.
> If the latter, I wonder if the animal rights supporters would allow > the feeding of such food? If not then they are going to be out of luck. There is no food that wasn't developed based on some nutrition work done somewhere. If you take NRC values for pet food, those were all developed as a result of research done someplace by someone. So even if a new "World's Best" pet food company comes along and formulates the food based on current knowledge that company is using the results of such clinical studies.
> > Hill's continues to do testing > > on nutritional products which have saved literally hundreds of thousands of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the knowledge you refer to above was obtained without the deaths of > many animals. Certainly there was a time in the 50's and even the 60's when such research was funded at various universities around the world. That has not been the case for over 20 years. There is a strong reason for such activity, besides the animal rights whackos. The last major study Hill's funded is a good example. Polzin et all did a long term study in renal failure dogs. In the past such studies had been done on dogs surgically altered to mimic renal failure. The problem with the old study methods was that you were creating a mimick of a condition and not the condition itself. Thus you could not definitively state that the results would be totally applicable to the same disease that was naturally ocurring. For this reason Polzin's work was on naturally ocurring dogs and cats. The studies completed are undeniable and undebateable. They are Grade 1 Evidence Based Studies.
> But, I think you get to the crux of the matter above - one either > believes that the death of some animals is acceptable in order to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - surprise - making animals hurt! But fewer animals (and humans) with > hurt in future, because of such work. I fall into this category. If I thought we could find a way to cure cancer in humans and it meant the death of a thousand animals I would be in favor of it. If I thought we could find a cure for male pattern baldness (a personal thing you know) and it cost the life of a single animal I would not be in favor of it.
Steve G - 24 Mar 2004 01:50 GMT > > Looking on their website, this does not seem to be true (any more). > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > According to statements made by Newkirk the leader that is the ultimate > goal. I don't know if Newkirk dictates the policy; regardless, this is not the view espoused on their website.
> > (...) > > > considering the fact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.charitynavigator.org/ That site doesn't appear to support your assertion. It suggests that 3.9% of PETA's cash goes to admin and staff expenses and that 83.7% goes to their designated cause ('the services it exists to deliver'). The CEO pay is noted as $74k.
(...)
> > Only non-invasive testing? So, even the development of innovative > > diets is entirely via non-invasive means? > > Entirely, unless you consider bi-annual teeth cleaning invasive. Not sure how all of the non-dental diets were formulated, then.
(...)
> > Or is the info simply gained from university research which is > > unfunded and unaffiliated with Hills? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > isn't a drug or surgical procedure or any medical product that cannot be > traced back to some animal study somewhere. Well, that's the crux really - relevant info is being gained from animal experiments that *someone* is doing! Following on, if people want to feed something that hasn't been derived via animal experiments, then it's not enough to simply buy from a company that doesn't do animal experiements.
> > If the latter, I wonder if the animal rights supporters would allow > > the feeding of such food? > > If not then they are going to be out of luck. There is no food that wasn't > developed based on some nutrition work done somewhere. I suppose it's possible that some of this work was carried out non-invasively. I guess that all innovative diets will have a dead animal or two somewhere in their lineage though.
(...)
> > You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, Steve. I doubt that > > the knowledge you refer to above was obtained without the deaths of > > many animals. > > Certainly there was a time in the 50's and even the 60's when such research > was funded at various universities around the world. That has not been the (...)
> disease that was naturally ocurring. For this reason Polzin's work was on > naturally ocurring dogs and cats. The studies completed are undeniable and > undebateable. They are Grade 1 Evidence Based Studies. Well, the point isn't just that the problems were 'naturally occuring' - the point is whether the animals had invasive procedures carried out on them.
(...)
> I fall into this category. If I thought we could find a way to cure cancer > in humans and it meant the death of a thousand animals I would be in favor > of it. If I thought we could find a cure for male pattern baldness (a > personal thing you know) and it cost the life of a single animal I would not > be in favor of it. I would place myself in the same category.
Steve.
GAUBSTER2 - 24 Mar 2004 16:00 GMT >From: news@stevethepsycho.co.uk
>> > http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I don't know if Newkirk dictates the policy; regardless, this is not >the view espoused on their website. Do you really think that their website is their "bible"? It's not likely they would reveal their true intentions on their website for all of the world (and their opponents) to see.
Liz - 27 Mar 2004 02:39 GMT "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@coxnospam.net> wrote in message news:
> If I thought we could find a way to cure cancer in humans and it meant > the death of a thousand animals I would be in favor of it. If I thought > we could find a cure for male pattern baldness (a personal thing you know) > and it cost the life of a single animal I would not be in favor of it. There wouldn´t need to be a cure for cancer if people only ate right. People spend their lives eating junk food and then animals have to die because of it. It´s just not fair.
Steve Crane - 27 Mar 2004 02:57 GMT > "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@coxnospam.net> wrote in message news: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > People spend their lives eating junk food and then animals have to die > because of it. It?s just not fair. Liz, That's just silly nonsense. People have been dying of cancer for thousands upon thousands of years. There weren't buying twinkies in Pharaohs time.
Liz - 27 Mar 2004 13:21 GMT "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@coxnospam.net> wrote in message news:
> "Liz" <c864320@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > There wouldn´t need to be a cure for cancer if people only ate right. > > People spend their lives eating junk food and then animals have to die [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thousands upon thousands of years. There weren't buying twinkies in Pharaohs > time. They weren´t eating right either. Not enough food is also bad, you know? Besides, as far as I know, they were already getting much of their calories from grains, or carbs if you will. Now show me a native indian eating his native diet in the midst of plenty of food with cancer.
Steve Crane - 28 Mar 2004 15:46 GMT > They weren?t eating right either. Not enough food is also bad, you > know? Besides, as far as I know, they were already getting much of > their calories from grains, or carbs if you will. Now show me a native > indian eating his native diet in the midst of plenty of food with > cancer. You are kidding right? It's hard to imagine even you would continue on in this regard. I'll give you a hint and let you proceed - Inuit.
Liz - 29 Mar 2004 02:52 GMT > > They weren´t eating right either. Not enough food is also bad, you > > know? Besides, as far as I know, they were already getting much of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are kidding right? It's hard to imagine even you would continue on in > this regard. I'll give you a hint and let you proceed - Inuit. Yeah, I was thinking about them. Know any with cancer or any that have died of a heart attack despite all the meat and fat they used to eat? Used to eat alright because today their diet is as bad as it gets. They are drinking like sponges and eating sweets like bees. Why don´t you look at the cancer incidence of the Italian population and of the North American population? Cancer rate of North Americans is four times greater than that of Italians. It is estimated that one in every two North Americans will have cancer at some point in their lives. From what I have seen in Italy, Italians use very little condiments, eat a lot of meats, fruits, olive oil, and wheat. And they have that raw red meat dish I mentioned once: carpaccio. Any Italian here that can tell me more about your diet? They also live longer than any other nationality.
Liz - 29 Mar 2004 02:54 GMT .......And a lot of tomato sauce too!
GAUBSTER2 - 29 Mar 2004 15:44 GMT >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) As usual, you're changing the subject! You go from Indians to Italians?
Judy - 21 Mar 2004 06:20 GMT > Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. > http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html > This is what happens to dogs (and one kitten) in the name of "research". Iams is not the only one to blame.
Allergan, Inc. 2525 Dupont Dr., P.O. Box 19534, Irvine, CA 92612 ?714-752-4500, 800-347-4500, corpinfo@allergan.com
Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight) 469 N. Harrison St., Princeton, NJ 08543, 609-683-5900, 800-524-1328
Bausch & Lomb (Cur?l, Soft Sense, Clear Choice) 1 Bausch & Lomb Place, Rochester, NY 14604-2701, 716-338-6000, 800-344-8815
Benckiser (Coty, Lancaster, Jovan) 237 Park Ave., 19th Fl., New York, NY 10017-3142, 212-850-2300, attmail@cotyusa.com
Block Drug Co., Inc. (Polident, Sensodyne, Tegrin, Lava, Carpet Fresh) 257 Cornelison Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07302, 201-434-3000, 800-365-6500
Boyle-Midway (Reckitt & Colman) 2 Wickman Rd., Toronto, Ontario M8Z 5M5 Canada, 416-255-2300
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (Clairol, Ban Roll-On, Keri, Final Net) 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154-0037, 212-546-4000
Calvin Klein Cosmetics, (A division of Unilever), Trump Tower, 725 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10022-2519, (973) 347-8889
Carter-Wallace (Arrid, Lady's Choice, Nair, Pearl Drops) 1345 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10105-0021, 212-339-5000
Chesebrough-Ponds (Faberg?, Cutex, Vaseline) 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, 201-512-0094
Church & Dwight (Arm & Hammer) 469 N. Harrison St., Princeton, NJ 08543-5297, 609-683-5900, 800-524-1328
Clairol, Inc. (Bristol-Myers Squibb) 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154, 212-546-5000, 800-223-5800
Clorox (Pine-Sol, S.O.S., Tilex, ArmorAll) 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, 510-271-7000, 800-227-1860
+ Colgate-Palmolive, 300 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022-7499, (800) 338-8333 (+ currently observing a moratorium on animal testing).
Coty (Benckiser) 237 Park Ave., 19th Fl., New York, NY 10017-3142, 212-850-2300, info@coty.com
Cover Girl (Procter & Gamble) One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202, 513-983-1100, 800-543-1745
Dana Perfumes (Alyssa Ashley) 635 Madison Ave., 5th Fl., New York, NY 10022-1009 ?212-751-3700, 800-822-8547
Del Laboratories (Flame Glow, Commerce Drug, Sally Hansen) 565 Broad Hollow Rd., Farmingdale, NY 11735, 516-293-7070, 800-645-9888
Dial Corporation (Purex, Renuzit), 1850 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, 602-207-1800, 800-528-0849
DowBrands (Glass Plus, Fantastik, Vivid) P.O. Box 68511, Indianapolis, IN 46268, 317-873-7000
Drackett Products Co. (S.C. Johnson & Son) 1525 Howe St., Racine, WI 53403, 414-631-2000, 800-558-5252
Ecolab, Inc. 370 N. Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102-1390, 612-293-2233, 800-352-5326
Elizabeth Arden, Inc. (A division of Unilever), 1345 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10105, (212) 261-1000
Erno Laszlo 200 First Stamford Place, Stamford, CT 06902-6759, 203-363-5461
Givaudan-Roure 1775 Windsor Rd., Teaneck, NJ 07666, 201-833-2300
Helene Curtis Industries (Finesse, Unilever, Suave) 325 N. Wells St., Chicago, IL 60610-4713, 312-661-0222
Jhirmack (Playtex) 300 Nyala Farms Rd., Westport, CT 06880, 203-341-4000
Johnson & Johnson 1 Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, NJ 08933, 908-524-0400
Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Kleenex, Scott Paper, Huggies) P.O. Box 619100, Dallas, TX 75261-9100, 800-544-1847
Lamaur 5601 E. River Rd., Fridley, MN 55432, 612-571-1234
L & F Products One Philips Pkwy., Montvale, NJ 07645-1810, 201-573-5700
Lever Bros. (Unilever) 390 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022, 212-888-1260, 800-745-9696
Max Factor (Procter & Gamble) One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202, 513-983-1100, 800-543-1745
Mead Courthouse Plaza N.E., Dayton, OH 45463, 513-222-6323
Melaleuca, Inc. 3910 S. Yellowstone Hwy., Idaho Falls, ID 83402-6003 , 208-522-0700
Mennen Co. (Colgate-Palmolive) E. Hanover Ave., Morristown, NJ 07962, 201-631-9000
Murphy-Phoenix Co. (Colgate-Palmolive) P.O. Box 39670, Solon, OH 44139, 800-486-7627
Neoteric Cosmetics 4880 Havana St., Denver, CO 80239-0019, 303-373-4860
Neutron Industries, Inc. 7107 N. Black Canyon Hwy., Phoenix, AZ 85021, 602-864-0090
Noxell (Procter & Gamble) 11050 York Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21030-2098, 410-785-7300, 800-572-3232
Olay Co./Oil of Olay (Procter & Gamble) P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, OH 45201, 800-543-1745
Pantene (Procter & Gamble) Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202, 800-945-7768
Parfums International (White Shoulders) 1345 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10105, 212-261-1000
Perrigo 117 Water St., Allegan, MI 49010 ?616-673-8451, 800-253-3606
Pfizer, Inc. (Bain de Soleil, Plax, Visine, Desitin, BenGay) 235 E. 42nd St., New York, NY 10017-5755, 212-573-2323
Playtex Products, Inc. (Banana Boat, Woolite, Jhirmack) 300 Nyala Farms Rd., Westport, CT 06880, 203-341-4000
Procter & Gamble Co. (Crest, Tide, Cover Girl, Max Factor, Giorgio) One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202, 513-983-1100, 800-543-1745
Reckitt & Colman (Lysol, Mop & Glo) 1655 Valley Rd., Wayne, NJ 07474-0945, 201-633-6700, 800-232-9665
Richardson-Vicks (Procter & Gamble) One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202, 513-983-1100, 800-543-1745
Sally Hansen (Del Laboratories) 565 Broad Hollow Rd., Farmingdale, NY 11735, 516-293-7070, 800-645-9888
Sanofi (Yves Saint Laurent) 90 Park Ave., 24th Fl., New York, NY 10016, 212-907-2000
Schering-Plough (Coppertone) 1 Giralda Farms, Madison, NJ 07940-1000, 201-822-7000, 800-842-4090
Schick (Warner-Lambert) 201 Tabor Rd., Morris Plains, NJ 07950, 201-540-2000, 800-492-1555
S. C. Johnson Wax (Pledge, Drano, Windex, Glade) 1525 Howe St., Racine, WI 53403, 414-260-2000, 800-558-5252
SmithKline Beecham 100 Beecham Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15205, 412-928-1000, 800-456-6670
SoftSoap Enterprises (Colgate-Palmolive) 1107 Hazeltine Blvd., Suite 370, Chaska, MN 55318, 612-448-1118
Sun Star 600 Eagle Dr., Bensenville, IL 60106-1977, 800-821-5455
3M (Scotch, Post-It) Center Bldg., 220-2E-02, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000, 612-733-1110, 800-364-3577
Unilever (Lever Bros., Calvin Klein, Elizabeth Arden, Helene Curtis, Diversey) 390 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022, 212-888-1260, 800-745-9696
Vidal Sassoon (Procter & Gamble) P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, OH 45201, 800-543-7270
Warner-Lambert (Lubriderm, Listerine, Schick) 201 Tabor Rd., Morris Plains, NJ 07950-2693, 201-540-2000, 800-323-5379
Westwood Pharmaceutical 100 Forest Ave., Buffalo, NY 14213, 716-887-3400, 800-333-0950
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the ALL FOR ANIMALS Home Page. We value your feedback! Send comments to: info@allforanimals.com. Copyright ? 2004 ALL FOR ANIMALS?. All rights reserved.
Joe Canuck - 26 Mar 2004 16:46 GMT > Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. > http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html > This is what happens to dogs (and one kitten) in the name of "research". > > The rest of you, don't. It's not pretty. > In fact, it's very, very sad. I'd balance that against this report from a credible source:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iamsinvestigation
 Signature "Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck
kaeli - 26 Mar 2004 18:16 GMT > > Those of you who still think IAMS is okey-dokey, check it out. > > http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iamsinvestigation This is one independent contract company (who actually seem to have great policies, though). What about all the others? What about the ones they own themselves?
http://www.impactpress.com/articles/decjan04/moore120104.html http://www.uncaged.co.uk/iamsexpress.htm
And, to be fair, IAMS seems to like to blame the independent companies, not themselves, for the cruelty that happened in the past (they do not dispute that it did, in fact, happen), so, hey, maybe that's true. I doubt I'll ever know for sure. They seem to think they're getting better.
http://www.coreymondello.com/IAMS.html http://www.hsus.org/ace/20342
But having been close friends with one of the people who does investigations for the government to make sure that companies are obeying the Animal Welfare Act, I can tell you that just because a policy is written doesn't mean it is engaged. I can also tell you that when people know an inspector is coming, they clean up. All companies do this, no matter what they do. Heck, I clean up when Mom comes over. If I owned a big company, I'd sure "clean up" if I knew an investigator was coming.
I don't really know for sure one way or the other. I can only believe what I see and what I'm told. I don't work there. Video sure goes a long way for me, though.
 Signature -- ~kaeli~ He often broke into song because he couldn't find the key. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
|
|
|