NationStates Jolt Archive

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=205502&GT17153

"Marilyn, Sugar Pie and Puppy are boycotting Iams until it stops testing on animals in labs," the poster reads beneath a picture of Smith, a former Playboy model, and her three dogs.
...
Iams, which sells pet food and pet care products, disputes those allegations.
Iams tests on animals in labs. They test pet food and pet products on lab animal. Better boycott them for making sense.

Of course the next paragraph is about how PETA, illegally probably, infiltrated Iams and recorded "deplorable" conditions and other junk they probably did themselves.

One can't lose something one never had.

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=205502&GT17153


Iams, a dog food company, tests on animals in labs. Is anyone else disturbed here?

Of course the next paragraph is about how PETA, illegally probably, infiltrated Iams and recorded "deplorable" conditions and other junk they probably did themselves.
OMG
then again they are against pet ownership too, so it would make sense for them to boycott a dog food company. or does it? I don't know PETA requires too much thought from me to figure out what the heck they are thinking.

and if they are against pet ownership then why would they need to boycott a pet supply company anyway? I smell hipocrasy...............

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=205502&GT17153


Iams, a dog food company, tests on animals in labs. Is anyone else disturbed here?

Of course the next paragraph is about how PETA, illegally probably, infiltrated Iams and recorded "deplorable" conditions and other junk they probably did themselves.

If Iams makes animal food, who the hell else are they going to test it on? I can tell you now that it's gonna be a hard persuasion to get me to eating it so I can say "Mmm! Yummy! My dog is sure gonna love this!"

Having Smith as a 'celebrity' endorser says alot about thier mindset in the first place.

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=205502&GT17153
Iams tests on animals in labs. They test pet food and pet products on lab animal. Better boycott them for making sense.
Of course the next paragraph is about how PETA, illegally probably, infiltrated Iams and recorded "deplorable" conditions and other junk they probably did themselves.
Taken in context there are other (I suggest more viable) points that PETA appears to trying to make (other than 'stop making sense or we wont buy your stuff).

For starters there is criticism of the treatment of the animals (it is entirely possible and not far-fetched to see that the intent is to communicate the need for different lab practises more amenable to the well being of the animals concerned, and that the 'boycott till it stops' is both intended to 'grab attention' and to be qualified by the comments about the standard of treatment).

Equally it may be that PETA wishes to establish that lab testing is the problem, ie that tests on pet food etc ought to be carried out in some way that doesnt require a 'traditional laboratory' setting.

Taken in context, there appear to be other more likely interpretations than 'we wont buy off you if you make sense'.

If Iams makes animal food, who the hell else are they going to test it on? I can tell you now that it's gonna be a hard persuasion to get me to eating it so I can say "Mmm! Yummy! My dog is sure gonna love this!"

I don't quite think that they mean 'taste test' when they say testing it on dogs. I seem to remember there were stories years ago about Iams destroying perfectly healthy livers/kidneys in dogs/cats in order to see what their dog food did under such circumstances. Oh yeah and there is a bit in the linked article that mentions the removal of vocal chords to prevent barking. I pretty sure that such surgery is not at all pleasant for the animal and can hardly be seen as nescessary.

I don't quite think that they mean 'taste test' when they say testing it on dogs. I seem to remember there were stories years ago about Iams destroying perfectly healthy livers/kidneys in dogs/cats in order to see what their dog food did under such circumstances. Oh yeah and there is a bit in the linked article that mentions the removal of vocal chords to prevent barking. I pretty sure that such surgery is not at all pleasant for the animal and can hardly be seen as nescessary.
It would be necessary to keep the animals quiet and under control, rather than loud and potentialling violating noise regs. Further, such surgery can be conducted under anesthetic and will do nothing more than prevent speech, making it no worse than neutering or spaying. Except you do it to the throat as opposed to the genitals. Sort of.

OMG
snip

and if they are against pet ownership then why would they need to boycott a pet supply company anyway? I smell hipocrasy...............
Lol exactly ... you cant boycot something you dont use anyways

And if you ARE using it that means you have a pet

It would be necessary to keep the animals quiet and under control, rather than loud and potentialling violating noise regs.
It is possible to prevent the noise from breaching restrictions. For instance it is possible to prevent noise escaping a building, or even from certain areas of a building to other areas, and staff can take the widely available precautions that other people employed in 'hearing risk' situations use.

Further, such surgery can be conducted under anesthetic and will do nothing more than prevent speech, making it no worse than neutering or spaying. Except you do it to the throat as opposed to the genitals. Sort of.
'Nothing more than prevent speach' may in itself be reason enough to not perform such operations. Certainly there is some reason to suggest that it could be harmful. I dont know that there is any good reason to believe that it cannot be harmful.

Arguably if there are other ways of preventing the problem it seeks to address, and if there is some probability of harm and no reason to assume 'non-harm', there is some justification for suggesting that perhaps consideration should be given to alternatives.

Lol exactly ... you cant boycot something you dont use anyways

And if you ARE using it that means you have a pet
and have you noticed that all the PETA celebs seem to have purse dogs? isn't that like abuse? I don't know, I mean my dog likes to walk.

Purse dog meaning a dog you carry around like a purse or a purse made of dog?

Purse dog meaning a dog you carry around like a purse or a purse made of dog?
dogs that they carry in purses, they dress them up too, I was watching a show on it the other day, it seemed like their pets were accesories for their outfits.

I use my dog, don't get me wrong, but I use him for things in his nature to do anyway, my dog wouldn't be caught dead wearing a tu-tu and a diamond bracelet as a necklace.

Having Smith as a 'celebrity' endorser says alot about thier mindset in the first place.

Having someone who names their dog "Puppy" say a lot...