# Iams Whats your views



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi all

Because it hasnt been mentioned for a while i thought id post whats your views on Iams dry and wet food. I personally think its a good food. does anyone else feed it to there pets.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Funny you should ask that DK...i think Iams is a great cat food and use it daily.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

My friends uses Iams for there cats both dry and wet.! They think its great and the cats love it and surely its what the cat will eat that matters.!
You dont need to spend loads of money on food do you.? If the cat likes it then it all good..


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

my old cat was fed it, she lived till she was 16, so it cant be that bad can it..


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Must confess my Tabby has been on Iams for a long time and just had a trip to the vet following a fight and the vet was impressed with how healthy he was for his age.


----------



## Lily's Mum (Jan 22, 2009)

Iams is on special offer in Tesco at the moment (but can't remember what the offer was, sorry!)


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

it seems a good dry food i must admit i have some cats with sensitive tummys but they're fine with that


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Think i put this on another thread once but i'll dribble on again anyway.... 
I once had a cat years ago who was always scrawny no matter how much he ate...he was the runt of the litter too. My friend suggested i put him on Iams and in no time at all he filled out and looked so healthy. Probably got steroids in it...lol...but it works a treat.


----------



## mckitty (Jan 11, 2009)

well after several months of funny tummys with regular cat food, we kind of struck gold with hi life and hills so were sticking with what we know is ok for bracken for the time being

maybe give it a whirl one day ?

as i can find it in the supermarket instead of having to take a detour to pets at home, i will always keep an eye on meat percentage of products though


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

I used to rate iams, but recently was re-educated on here about their principles and practices of animal testing, so now i would never ever buy it again.


----------



## scosha37 (Feb 24, 2008)

My old cat loved them...:thumbup: but they was expensive back then so luckly i worked in a petshop so i got discount ..

Is it right you dont need to feed wet food as long as you feed iams??


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I used to rate iams, but recently was re-educated on here about their principles and practices of animal testing, so now i would never ever buy it again.


Good for you!!!:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

scosha37 said:


> My old cat loved them...:thumbup: but they was expensive back then so luckly i worked in a petshop so i got discount ..
> 
> Is it right you dont need to feed wet food as long as you feed iams??


My cat never had wet food.


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

my cats are fed on go cat indoors


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

:mad2:This is what purchasing İAMS funds ....IamsCruelty.com


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

i think iams are good


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

claire said:


> i think iams are good


İm sure they are fine if you have no morals about the cruelty you fund!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İm sure they are fine if you have no morals about the cruelty you fund!!


yep thats me!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İm sure they are fine if you have no morals about the cruelty you fund!!


So if iams was the only food a cat would eat would that not counts beacuse surley not feeding the cat would be more crutly then using this product??


----------



## Ducky (Nov 23, 2008)

not a fan of it myself. overpriced for what it is.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Where's Sallyanne when you need her?...lol...she made some of the best posts ive ever read on here about Iams food. Sallyanne is clearly an intelligent lady not fooled into believing everything that is written or viewed. She also was unbiased enough NOT to judge others on their choice of using Iams.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Where's Sallyanne when you need her?...lol...she made some of the best posts ive ever read on here about Iams food. Sallyanne is clearly an intelligent lady not fooled into believing everything that is written or viewed. She also was unbiased enough NOT to judge others on their choice of using Iams.


hi ony, i also remember the post


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> So if iams was the only food a cat would eat would that not counts beacuse surley not feeding the cat would be more crutly then using this product??


there are plenty of other commercial products in the uk - personally only feed my animals food that i know what is in it so either feed raw or food i have cooked.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

claire said:


> hi ony, i also remember the post


Exactly Claire and no-one could give her up to date proof of all that is said about Iams. Also as i said, Sallyanne did NOT pass judgement on others for using it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> there are plenty of other commercial products in the uk - personally only feed my animals food that i know what is in it so either feed raw or food i have cooked.


Yes and i total agree with that i also like to know whats in my food i dont know use it, my post said i know someone that uses it for her cats and the cat loves it and the owner says it great.! She struggles to find stuff for her cat to eat and this is the only thing it will eat.!
I think even knowing whats in it i would still use it if it was all my pet ate as i would rather it did eat.!!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Yes and i total agree with that i also like to know whats in my food i dont know use it, my post said i know someone that uses it for her cats and the cat loves it and the owner says it great.! She struggles to find stuff for her cat to eat and this is the only thing it will eat.!
> I think even knowing whats in it i would still use it if it was all my pet ate as i would rather it did eat.!!


No knowing what i know about the abuses of the company i would not purchase it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> there are plenty of other commercial products in the uk - personally only feed my animals food that i know what is in it so either feed raw or food i have cooked.


well raw has its own issues doesnt it? but lets not go there! if ya not squeaky clean ya self on feeding i find it funny you degrade others for there choices 



FREE SPIRIT said:


> Exactly Claire and no-one could give her up to date proof of all that is said about Iams. Also as i said, Sallyanne did NOT pass judgement on others for using it.


i agree ony, i remember the post it was very informative


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> No knowing what i know about the abuses of the company i would not purchase it.


Well looks like if it was all your cat would eat it would die WHICH is alot more cruel IMO..the cat would starve to death because of your morals


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Thanks to continued pressure from PETA and compassionate people around the world, Iams has stopped using baby chicks in crude protein-digestibility experiments. The company is currently in the process of validating a non-animal test method called IDEA that it says should be ready by the end of the year.

Leave it to Iams to use the cruelest research method available for completing the simplest of tasksnamely, testing the digestibility of protein in its pet foods by subjecting 1-week-old baby chicks to severely growth-retarding protein efficiency ratio (PER) studies.

Iams brags that it conducts extensive live animal testing in its PER chick tests to assure consistent protein quality. Yet, two of Iams largest competitors, Hills Pet Nutrition and Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, feel that these animal experiments are completely unnecessary and unreliable. Hills uses a high-tech computer program instead that provides very accurate results, and Purina refuses to conduct PER tests at all. Iams is truly behind the timesits continued use of the PER chick test flies in the face of objections raised by leading experts who have publicly condemned the PER test as being inhumane and ineffective.

TNO Nutrition and Food Research (an internationally recognized authority in nutrition research), notes the following in issue 27 (December 2004) of Leads in Life Sciences: [T]hese [PER] experiments are extremely slow and give no insight into the availability of the amino acids that are responsible for growth limitation. The test may also result in strong growth retardation due to amino acid deficiencies and therefore has ethical drawbacks. Moreover, this method determines the [protein] requirements of rats and [chickens], not of humans or dogs.

Iams actually funded a study that was published in a 2000 issue of the Journal of Microbiological Methods, in which the authors lamented that PER chick tests take from 2 to 4 weeks and require special facilities and large amounts of raw materials, making it a labor intensive, time-consuming and variable procedure.

Clearly, whether judging by ethical, scientific, or economic criteria, the PER test is a miserable failure. Even basic common sense says that using a baby chick to model the digestive processes of a dog is crazy, not to mention lazy!

Several companies have created humane alternatives that address all of these concerns. For instance, TNO developed a computerized non-animal model called FIDO (functional gastro-intestinal dog model) that has been scientifically validated for use as an alternative to the PER test.

But, as is usually the case, Iams ignored the existence of FIDO, preferring instead to remain set in its ways and to continue harming baby chicks.

Refusing to back down, PETA persisted in pressing Iams to join the companys major competitors in abandoning the use of chicks in PER tests. And, on February 7, 2005, Iams confirmed that it was looking into another alternative test method called IDEA (Immobilized Digestive Enzyme Assay) to replace the use of chicks. But Iams will be slow to implement this test method as it claims it must validate the method against the chick test. Validating a high-tech test against an inappropriate and inaccurate low-tech animal test is never a good idea, for obvious reasons.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Well looks like if it was all your cat would eat it would die WHICH is alot more cruel IMO..the cat would starve to death because of your morals


İn this country like many others there are no commercial cat foods available so to suggeast that iams is the only food a cat will eat is a nonsense.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Well may i just say that chicks are gased out at a day old anyway to feed other animals..
i know this through the wild life hospital i work at animals such as foxes, red kites, buzzars ETC eat these and dare i say we have to cut them up to feed the smalled beaked birds..!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

claire said:


> well raw has its own issues doesnt it? but lets not go there! if ya not squeaky clean ya self on feeding i find it funny you degrade others for there choices
> 
> İ had have raw over any of the commercial foods.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Well may i just say that chicks are gased out at a day old anyway to feed other animals..
> i know this through the wild life hospital i work at animals such as foxes, red kites, buzzars ETC eat these and dare i say we have to cut them up to feed the smalled beaked birds..!


Animals need to be fed thats life


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İn this country like many others there are no commercial cat foods available so to suggeast that iams is the only food a cat will eat is a nonsense.


Ok so now i am a lier as well.!! 
why would i make such a thing up.??
please answer me this as you have an answer me this you have one for everything else.!!!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İn this country like many others there are no commercial cat foods available so to suggeast that iams is the only food a cat will eat is a nonsense.


I think you know Devildogz was talking hypothetically...saying IF it was the only thing available for your pet to eat.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

claire said:


> Animals need to be fed thats life


Thanks claire.. and may i also say it takes a big person to do it than refuse due to there own morals..


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Thanks claire.. and may i also say it takes a big person to do it than refuse due to there own morals..


I totally agree.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

*Ask Iams to End Cruel Experiments on Animals* İn 2002 and early 2003, a PETA undercover investigation at Sinclair Research Center, a laboratory hired by Iams, uncovered a dark secret: The dog and cat food manufacturer funds animal testing. Dogs were left piled on a filthy floor after chunks of muscle had been hacked from their thighs, and extremely sick dogs and cats were left in cages to suffer without any veterinary care.

After intense pressure from PETA and its supporters, Iams severed its ties with Sinclair and agreed to end invasive experiments on dogs and cats. Iams also conducts in-home nutritional studies with companion animals who live with their families in homes. But Iams still keeps up to 700 dogs and cats in its Dayton, Ohio, laboratory for nutritional studies.

Iams also continues to perform invasive and deadly experiments on species other than cats and dogs. In one study, Iams gave Purdue University nearly $200,000 to conduct a two-year study in which experimenters taped the tails of mice and then raised their hind legs off the floor to cause the animals' muscle to deteriorate.

Even though Iams has made some progress, we must continue to send the message that safe, healthy dog and cat food does not require harming any animals. Until Iams agrees to implement 100 percent in-home testing, to stop imprisoning dogs and cats in its laboratory, and to stop paying others to conduct deadly experiments on animals, we encourage consumers to purchase companion animal food from companies that do not conduct laboratory tests on animals.

Please send a polite e-mail to Iams General Manager Dan Rajczak urging Iams to stop conducting and funding cruel laboratory experiments on all animals and to switch entirely to a humane in-home testing program.

Personalized letters always work best. Feel free to use the following text, but your message will carry more weight if you write your own customized message and subject line.

In addition to sending an e-mail, we also encourage you to keep the pressure on Iams General Manager Dan Rajczak by calling him or by mailing him a letter.

Please send polite comments to:

Dan Rajczak, General Manager
Iams Company
7250 Poe Ave.
Dayton, OH 45414-5801
1-800-675-3849


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Thanks claire.. and may i also say it takes a big person to do it than refuse due to there own morals..


its does, you are totally right


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

That looks out of date to me Turkeylad.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> That looks out of date to me Turkeylad.


I was thinking the same but only by 6years.!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Ok so now i am a lier as well.!!
> why would i make such a thing up.??
> please answer me this as you have an answer me this you have one for everything else.!!!!


İ did not say you were a liar what i said was that in my country as with many others there are no such foods as İAMS Go cat felix or any other such names but there are 1,000 of cats all of whom live quite happily without commercial products - therefore it is a nonsense to suggest that a cat not fed on İAMS is going to starve.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> I was thinking the same but only by 6years.!


lol...exactly.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I don't feed commercially available foods, and the BARF I feed is from supporting local butchers, who don't get their meat supply from huge battery farms. It means I pay more for the meat, but I'd rather know where it came from, and I know it won't be pumped full of growth hormones, which, if you're feeding raw, would obviously be passed on directly in the food chain.

I've heard things about IAMS and animal testing before, and unless I could verify where a food was made, and how it was made I personally wouldn't feed it to my dogs (or other pets, not that there are other pets  )

But then I am picky about what I eat, I prefer a healthy diet myself, I've got two Easter eggs sat here unopened as yet, I'm sure I'll get round to eating them one day, after I've eaten the Green & Black chocolate bar that's been in the fridge for the last six months  Seriously though, although I eat frugally, I try to support good local food producers, and I hate waste. I have no qualms about plucking and drawing, or skinning and gutting, game if I'm lucky enough to be given some, and the dogs get the bits I can't personally eat.

But that is a life style choice for me personally, and not everyone agrees with, or would want to be bothered with that. They'd much rather just open the packet and tip the food in a bowl, or pet bowl.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

I'm not really convinced that a cat *only* eating a particular brand of food is actually a positive reflection on said food. What it says to me is that is full of *something* that makes it addictive. I'm sure a kid would like to live on chicken nuggets for most their life, but it doesn't mean that chicken nuggets are good for them.. right?

The 'argument' that someone would be cruel to not feed their cat Iams if it was basically the only food on earth is ludicrous, and the idea shouldn't even be entertained imho. They/we are choosing *not* to feed it because their *are* other, better brands out there. Just as people are picky when they are spoilt for choice and in no danger of starving, I'm pretty sure that if a cat needed to eat, it would find a way. Chances are it's not getting to that stage in its hunger, and is fussy because it knows that eventually we'll put a bowl of junk food down. If your cat seriously is on a mission to starve itself, I would suggest that there is something else at play - an illness or discomfort perhaps. Animals, humans included, are survivors.. we *will* eat whatever we have to when it comes to life or death!

Personally I don't feel that Iams foods (along with many other 'popular' brands) have in them the the ingredients that I want to feed my cats, and therefore I spend my money elsewhere. 

I did used to feed them Iams when I believed it was the better brand out there, but my opinions changed. It's not my place to say that one food is right over another, but *my* view is that with a bit of research it isn't hard to find a reason to change buying habits.


----------



## 3 red dogs (May 17, 2008)

OK guys, thats enuff, lets get back to the subject in hand.. or the thread will be closed, which would be a pity coz i'm learning stuff here!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İ did not say you were a liar what i said was that in my country as with many others there are no such foods as İAMS Go cat felix or any other such names but there are 1,000 of cats all of whom live quite happily without commercial products - therefore it is a nonsense to suggest that a cat not fed on İAMS is going to starve.


No hang on a minute there i said if a cat would only eat iams would you not feed it it..
you said no so then i said i guess it would starve then go back and read it.!!
also my friends has tried other food and this is the only one it will eat..


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't feed commercially available foods, and the BARF I feed is from supporting local butchers, who don't get their meat supply from huge battery farms. It means I pay more for the meat, but I'd rather know where it came from, and I know it won't be pumped full of growth hormones, which, if you're feeding raw, would obviously be passed on directly in the food chain.
> 
> I've heard things about IAMS and animal testing before, and unless I could verify where a food was made, and how it was made I personally wouldn't feed it to my dogs (or other pets, not that there are other pets  )
> 
> ...


Absolutely!!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

thelioncub said:


> I'm not really convinced that a cat *only* eating a particular brand of food is actually a positive reflection on said food. What it says to me is that is full of *something* that makes it addictive. I'm sure a kid would like to live on chicken nuggets for most their life, but it doesn't mean that chicken nuggets are good for them.. right?
> 
> The 'argument' that someone would be cruel to not feed their cat Iams if it was basically the only food on earth is ludicrous, and the idea shouldn't even be entertained imho. They/we are choosing *not* to feed it because their *are* other, better brands out there. Just as people are picky when they are spoilt for choice and in no danger of starving, I'm pretty sure that if a cat needed to eat, it would find a way. Chances are it's not getting to that stage in its hunger, and is fussy because it knows that eventually we'll put a bowl of junk food down. If your cat seriously is on a mission to starve itself, I would suggest that there is something else at play - an illness or discomfort perhaps. Animals, humans included, are survivors.. we *will* eat whatever we have to when it comes to life or death!
> 
> ...


It was the last food my friends tried so i am pretty sure it was not addicted to it.!!

You lot are still getting the wrong idea the cat does not eat any other food i did not say it was cruel not to feed this food i said it would be cruel not to feed this food if it was the only one the animals would eat.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

3 red dogs said:


> OK guys, thats enuff, lets get back to the subject in hand.. or the thread will be closed, which would be a pity coz i'm learning stuff here!


We are not arguing RED merely debating. I can honestly say i am respectful of everyone's choices/opinions.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

thelioncub said:


> I'm not really convinced that a cat *only* eating a particular brand of food is actually a positive reflection on said food. What it says to me is that is full of *something* that makes it addictive. I'm sure a kid would like to live on chicken nuggets for most their life, but it doesn't mean that chicken nuggets are good for them.. right?
> 
> The 'argument' that someone would be cruel to not feed their cat Iams if it was basically the only food on earth is ludicrous, and the idea shouldn't even be entertained imho. They/we are choosing *not* to feed it because their *are* other, better brands out there. Just as people are picky when they are spoilt for choice and in no danger of starving, I'm pretty sure that if a cat needed to eat, it would find a way. Chances are it's not getting to that stage in its hunger, and is fussy because it knows that eventually we'll put a bowl of junk food down. If your cat seriously is on a mission to starve itself, I would suggest that there is something else at play - an illness or discomfort perhaps. Animals, humans included, are survivors.. we *will* eat whatever we have to when it comes to life or death!
> 
> ...


My arguement was that whilst I oppose İAMS as a company in this country we do not have the choice of even the best commercial products but we still have healthy cats.


----------



## 3 red dogs (May 17, 2008)

Long may it continue Freebie. LOL


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

At the end of the day it's everyone's individual choice what they feed their animals.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

My views on Iams is simple.. my animals aren't fed it!! I feed my cats James Wellbeloved and that is because it is good for them and it lists exactly what is in it, so i know what my pets are eating without having to go raw/home cooked. 
I will not condone any animals cruelty, and that includes buying any product that tests on animals. 
I will however never judge or put other people down for their own choice. I have mine they have theirs.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> It was the last food my friends tried so i am pretty sure it was not addicted to it.!!


That's not how addiction works tho. To be addicted to something means that you've had it, and something makes you want to go back to it. Think of the chicken nugget scenario - it can be the first time a kid eats in McDonalds, and still the only thing it screams it wants for dinner from that point onwards.. you see my point? A cat *only* wanting a certain food, to me, is *not* a sign that this food is good for the cat.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Indie said:


> At the end of the day it's everyone's individual choice what they feed their animals.


Very well said and i totally agree.  
Oh and i want your cat pleeeeeeeeeeeease...lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

I have to say there is no point in this going furth offtopic with a should you-shouldnt you debate about feeding iams. The op asked for peoples opinions on the food, not a slanging match. 

Yes i personally stated that i no longer feed iams, and like sleeping lion i like to know where my food comes from. What i didnt do was condemn anyone for their choice, or presume to tell them that they are wrong. 

I think if anyone wanted to go and get the reports or info (which agreed could be outdated and their methods may have drastically changed, still its my choice not to support their business), they would have read my post and called on the powers of google. Forcing the information down peoples throats is the quickest way to alienate a cause and will not achieve anything.

hmph - i'm having a bad day today, please dont take offence if anything i have written upsets you - its not intended to.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> My arguement was that whilst I oppose İAMS as a company in this country we do not have the choice of even the best commercial products but we still have healthy cats.


I agree.. 'commercial products' are not, in my opinion the 'right' products. They are commercial because the company is making money, and that is what makes the world go around. We could all be fat and unhealthy and dying young, but if *someone* is making money from us, that's enough to keep us all going down the same road..


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

thelioncub said:


> That's not how addiction works tho. To be addicted to something means that you've had it, and something makes you want to go back to it. Think of the chicken nugget scenario - it can be the first time a kid eats in McDonalds, and still the only thing it screams it wants for dinner from that point onwards.. you see my point? A cat *only* wanting a certain food, to me, is *not* a sign that this food is good for the cat.


yes i agree with that.. i still think though if it goes back to the food well atleast its eating.! and i must state i never once said that iams was GOOD for a cat.!
i dont own cats or feed iams to my dogs.!
i am not judging those who do or dont use it...!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I have to say there is no point in this going furth offtopic with a should you-shouldnt you debate about feeding iams. The op asked for peoples opinions on the food, not a slanging match.
> 
> Yes i personally stated that i no longer feed iams, and like sleeping lion i like to know where my food comes from. What i didnt do was condemn anyone for their choice, or presume to tell them that they are wrong.
> 
> ...


Great post and a very unbiased/fair point of view.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> yes i agree with that.. i still think though if it goes back to the food well atleast its eating.! and i must state i never once said that iams was GOOD for a cat.!
> i dont own cats or feed iams to my dogs.!
> i am not judging those who do or dont use it...!!


In all honesty, if a cat isn't eating it's probably best to try and find out why. It could be some underlying issue that none of us can predict. Yeah, it's better for a cat to eat *something* than nothing at all, but a healthy cat shouldn't be refusing other foods. Animals are not brand conscious after all :


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

DKDREAM said:


> Hi all
> 
> Because it hasnt been mentioned for a while i thought id post whats your views on Iams dry and wet food. I personally think its a good food. does anyone else feed it to there pets.


my old cat thrived on it..but even though i dont have a cat any more i do still buy the dry, i use it as a mixer for my rat food.. they absolutely love it


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Indie said:


> At the end of the day it's everyone's individual choice what they feed their animals.


totally agree hun, well said


Acacia86 said:


> My views on Iams is simple.. my animals aren't fed it!! I feed my cats James Wellbeloved and that is because it is good for them and it lists exactly what is in it, so i know what my pets are eating without having to go raw/home cooked.
> I will not condone any animals cruelty, and that includes buying any product that tests on animals.
> I will however never judge or put other people down for their own choice. I have mine they have theirs.


i know its off topic, but! if you wont give your pets produce tested on animals,,,, what if you were ill would you use a treatment (life saving or not) tested on animals? just interested


billyboysmammy said:


> I have to say there is no point in this going furth offtopic with a should you-shouldnt you debate about feeding iams. The op asked for peoples opinions on the food, not a slanging match.
> 
> Yes i personally stated that i no longer feed iams, and like sleeping lion i like to know where my food comes from. What i didnt do was condemn anyone for their choice, or presume to tell them that they are wrong.
> 
> ...


i didnt think it has been a slagging match, i thought it was good points made by nearly all lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

thelioncub said:


> In all honesty, if a cat isn't eating it's probably best to try and find out why. It could be some underlying issue that none of us can predict. Yeah, it's better for a cat to eat *something* than nothing at all, but a healthy cat shouldn't be refusing other foods. Animals are not brand conscious after all :


I have a very fussy cat believe me. I also know plenty of others who have fussy animals. Granted im sure if left long enough without food maybe they wouldn't be quite so fussy but most of us dont have it in us to do that to our pets to test them out.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

thelioncub said:


> In all honesty, if a cat isn't eating it's probably best to try and find out why. It could be some underlying issue that none of us can predict. Yeah, it's better for a cat to eat *something* than nothing at all, but a healthy cat shouldn't be refusing other foods. Animals are not brand conscious after all :


The cat has been to the vets and check nothing was found.!
the cat has now been on IAM since he was 3 and is now 9 and went to the vets to be spayed not that long ago and vet saud was a very healthy cat..!
like you say cats are not brand consciouse like you say.!
my friend knows all about whats been going on with thos brand but hasnt stopped feeding it and im not going to make her.x


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> I have a very fussy cat believe me. I also know plenty of others who have fussy animals. Granted im sure if left long enough without food maybe they wouldn't be quite so fussy but most of us dont have it in us to do that to our pets to test them out.


i agree our cassie is fussy and will refuse to eat lots of thing, the meat she likes at the moment is tescos homebrand  she did like aldi own brand  wont touch chappie arkward bitch


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

claire said:


> i know its off topic, but! if you wont give your pets produce tested on animals,,,, what if you were ill would you use a treatment (life saving or not) tested on animals? just interested


This has been my point on previous threads about Iams Claire and it's a great point to raise. But will you get an honest answer from all?


----------



## LadyRedLainey (Apr 7, 2009)

I have not read everyones responses to this.
But it is something i would like to give my cat. I am glad to hear some people find their pets really enjoy it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

I think the point of animal testing for medicines etc is such a big topic (and wow what a debate that will cause ) that it deserves its own thread..?


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I think the point of animal testing for medicines etc is such a big topic (and wow what a debate that will cause ) that it deserves its own thread..?


lol i agree, buts its a valid point, is it not?


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I think the point of animal testing for medicines etc is such a big topic (and wow what a debate that will cause ) that it deserves its own thread..?


lol...dare you to put ya views on here...xxxx  :cornut:


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

as usual this thread gets turned into lets have personal attacks on people who feed iams to there animals, end of the day Iams is a good food, it keeps animals alive so why be so nasty to people that use it!! It really annoys me the way some members go on and i posted this thread because i knew sooner or later it would come up anyway


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

''i know its off topic, but! if you wont give your pets produce tested on animals,,,, what if you were ill would you use a treatment (life saving or not) tested on animals? just interested'' (quote from claire....i seem to have lost the 'quote' bit duh?! lol)

It really depends on what it is for!!! I don't like taking any medicines. Mainly because i can't swallow tablets (i think i am choking lol!) and i hate liquid medicine. I hold off taking anything unless it is absolutely nessercary. And i don't buy over the counter stuff, for the above reasons. If i feel that bad i go to the doctors.

But having said that if it were for a much more severe and life threatening/debilitating illness then yes i wouldn't have a choice......i have a 3 year old daughter who i wouldn't want to leave without a mum. I would of course want a non tested on animal one if there was one available.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> as usual this thread gets turned into lets have personal attacks on people who feed iams to there animals, end of the day Iams is a good food, it keeps animals alive so why be so nasty to people that use it!! It really annoys me the way some members go on and i posted this thread because i knew sooner or later it would come up anyway


I totally agree DK...i for one would recommend Iams to anyone as i have honestly seen great improvements in my cats health over the years. My cats really enjoy it too.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> i know its off topic, but! if you wont give your pets produce tested on animals,,,, what if you were ill would you use a treatment (life saving or not) tested on animals? just interested
> 
> It really depends on what it is for!!! I don't like taking any medicines. Mainly because i can't swallow tablets (i think i am choking lol!) and i hate liquid medicine. I hold off taking anything unless it is absolutely nessercary. And i don't buy over the counter stuff, for the above reasons. If i feel that bad i go to the doctors.
> But having said that if it were for a much more severe and life threatening/debilitating illness then yes i wouldn't have a choice......i have a 3 year old daughter who i wouldn't want to leave without a mum.


its a very deep one isnt it?

i wont buy over the counter (except calpol for temp) cos i dont believe in it if you have a cold ect it will run its course anything more serious see a doctor.

as for other treatments if i was ill i wouldnt consider where they came from or where they were tested id just except them


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Re the question about would I refuse a life saving treatment developed on animals?

No I wouldn't, I probably have already used medication that has been tested on animals. Fortunately I hate anything medical and avoid going to see the doctor like the plauge, but if my dogs have needed treatment, they've had it, whether its been tested on other animals I don't know, but I suspect it probably has. I have refused to allow them treatment I don't believe is good for them, and have self referred a couple of times from vets where I didn't think they did the best for my pets - running out of vets round here now though, I may have to move soon  Personally, I think there is a slight difference between receiving medication, and what you choose to eat - ie the choice bit.

Apols for the slightly off topic reply, but I thought I'd give an honest response to the question posed.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

to say anyone supports animal cruelty just because they feed a certain brand of dry food is stupid, so i guess the RSPCA must then as im sure they would not refuse a bag of iams as a donation. There is good and bad about any dry food its just personal choice.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't really see that anyone has been nasty to anyone else regarding the use of Iams food.
Just as people are expressing their opinions that Iams is good, people are expressing their opinions on why they don't like it. Of course there are going to be differences. That's life!
My question is, why ask 'what people's views are' in the first place, if actually you don't really want to know? Was the purpose just to instigate an argument? I think it's great hearing from a range of people - if it wasn't for free expression I would never have re-looked at my own views, and I'm grateful I did. It just seems a bit bonkers to post something that was bound to stir emotion, and then back off and say Iams is great, I don't care what you think.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Re the question about would I refuse a life saving treatment developed on animals?
> 
> No I wouldn't, I probably have already used medication that has been tested on animals. Fortunately I hate anything medical and avoid going to see the doctor like the plauge, but if my dogs have needed treatment, they've had it, whether its been tested on other animals I don't know, but I suspect it probably has. I have refused to allow them treatment I don't believe is good for them, and have self referred a couple of times from vets where I didn't think they did the best for my pets - running out of vets round here now though, I may have to move soon  Personally, I think there is a slight difference between receiving medication, and what you choose to eat - ie the choice bit.
> 
> Apols for the slightly off topic reply, but I thought I'd give an honest response to the question posed.


I appreciate your honesty and respect your opinion. Personally my view is...IF someone is so against animal testing they would refuse all products that come out of that. Whether it's for health or food choice.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> to say anyone supports animal cruelty just because they feed a certain brand of dry food is stupid, so i guess the RSPCA must then as im sure they would not refuse a bag of iams as a donation. There is good and bad about any dry food its just personal choice.


Well said DK but if you dont feed the best most exspensive food im other members opioins then your not fit to own an animal in the views ..
Its not just your thread that gets boom barder all threads do, members on thie forum love a good debate..!


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

no this was posted for a genuine reason. to ask peoples views. the end of the day theres good and bad with all dry foods


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

DKDREAM said:


> to say anyone supports animal cruelty just because they feed a certain brand of dry food is stupid, so i guess the RSPCA must then as im sure they would not refuse a bag of iams as a donation. There is good and bad about any dry food its just personal choice.


Here Here. Iams also helps your cats speach the advert is evidence the Siamese says so pmsl.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Re the question about would I refuse a life saving treatment developed on animals?
> 
> No I wouldn't, I probably have already used medication that has been tested on animals. Fortunately I hate anything medical and avoid going to see the doctor like the plauge, but if my dogs have needed treatment, they've had it, whether its been tested on other animals I don't know, but I suspect it probably has. I have refused to allow them treatment I don't believe is good for them, and have self referred a couple of times from vets where I didn't think they did the best for my pets - running out of vets round here now though, I may have to move soon  Personally, I think there is a slight difference between receiving medication, and what you choose to eat - ie the choice bit.
> 
> Apols for the slightly off topic reply, but I thought I'd give an honest response to the question posed.


when i asked i said i knew it was off topic, but i was interested as to people who are so oppose to animal tested produce ect how far would the uphold there beliefs, so for some people it will stretch to feeding there pets others will take it futher regarding what they eat, what beauty products they use ect,,,,,, others will take it the ultimate distance and refuse life saving treatment regarding it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i was just trying to work out if anyone here felt that strongly


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

thelioncub said:


> I don't really see that anyone has been nasty to anyone else regarding the use of Iams food.
> Just as people are expressing their opinions that Iams is good, people are expressing their opinions on why they don't like it. Of course there are going to be differences. That's life!
> My question is, why ask 'what people's views are' in the first place, if actually you don't really want to know? Was the purpose just to instigate an argument? I think it's great hearing from a range of people - if it wasn't for free expression I would never have re-looked at my own views, and I'm grateful I did. It just seems a bit bonkers to post something that was bound to stir emotion, and then back off and say Iams is great, I don't care what you think.


A bit harsh i think as the poster of this thread is a very respectful person. This type of thread/subject often gets differing opinions but surely that is called a healthy debate? The poster of this thread clearly has their own views on this subject but is entitled to post asking others on their views.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

Indie said:


> Here Here. Iams also helps your cats speach the advert is evidence the Siamese says so pmsl.


pmsl ....... so true


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> to say anyone supports animal cruelty just because they feed a certain brand of dry food is stupid, so i guess the RSPCA must then as im sure they would not refuse a bag of iams as a donation. There is good and bad about any dry food its just personal choice.


If I knew a company that sold a food tested on animals, personally I wouldn't want to support them. Fortunately I am not in that position, and I try my best, in general in life to buy responsibly. I have no idea whether IAMS do or do not currently test, or have in the past on animals, but I know having heard stories about them, I'd want to put my own mind at rest before giving them my money. But that is my choice entirely, and I don't actively lecture anyone I see with a bag of what I deem 'inappropriate' food in their trolley wandering round Tesco (other supermarkets are available). As far as the RSPCA argument goes, the damage has already been done as someone else has made the decision to buy whatever food it is that may or may not be ethically produced.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> A bit harsh i think as the poster of this thread is a very respectful person. This type of thread/subject often gets differing opinions but surely that is called a healthy debate? The poster of this thread clearly has their own views on this subject but is entitled to post asking others on their views.


Thanks for that im not saying there views is wrong all im basically saying is this. Feeding Iams cat food is not a bad thing, ok the company may have/still do test on animals, but this happens allover the world and its a known fact and to be honest i am glad it happens think of all the lives saved yeah sad that the animals may have died but id rather a few animals then loads of people.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> lol...dare you to put ya views on here...xxxx  :cornut:


ok here goes

Having had a very premature baby who by the miracle of modern medicine and technology lived and thrived, i do support animal testing.

Whether it is for veterinary or human medication i feel that in the development and testing of new treatments that animal testing is essential. Sometimes that means testing a common drug, but its being used in a different way to treat a totally different illness.

There are things I disagree with however, retesting certain common everyday drugs (paracetamol, just because they have changed the shape of the capsule for example), cosmetics, cleaners etc is just abhorrent. I do not use or buy household cleaners or cosmetics tested on animals whenever possible. I will admit to buying products who's ingredients in the past will have been tested on animals (nearly every chemical known to man has at one time or another been tested on animals).

I'm afraid that as much as my pets are part of my family and i love all animals, my children come first and foremost in my life.

I realise that this may make me a forum pariah, but i really dont care.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

how in your view is the food "inapropriate" what right have you got to say such things as that could be hurtful to someone who uses it. to me something is inapropriate when it cant be used, Iams could keep a cat/kitten alive so there for its an apropriate food.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> im not saying there views is wrong all im basically saying is this. Feeding Iams cat food is not a bad thing


 Surely this is a contradiction? What you mean to say is *I THINK feeding Iams cat food is not a bad thing. 
Otherwise, the latter is a 'fact' and mutes your point about 'not saying their views are wrong'. If something contradicts your fact then you *are* (indirectly) saying that other views are wrong..


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> ok here goes
> 
> Having had a very premature baby who by the miracle of modern medicine and technology lived and thrived, i do support animal testing.
> 
> ...


fantasic post i totally support ur views, well done for voicing them


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

i too support them well done


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> ok here goes
> 
> Having had a very premature baby who by the miracle of modern medicine and technology lived and thrived, i do support animal testing.
> 
> ...


I for one really appreciate your honesty. I also agree with you about not needing to keep retesting certain drugs, also the fact of make-up and such stuff...that is just insulting to think such things need to be tested on animals.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

thelioncub said:


> Surely this is a contradiction? What you mean to say is *I THINK feeding Iams cat food is not a bad thing.
> Otherwise, the latter is a 'fact' and mutes your point about 'not saying their views are wrong'. If something contradicts your fact then you *are* (indirectly) saying that other views are wrong..


why nit pick about silly things like that you know what i mean really your just trying to be funny


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

I don't no if this is going to come out right but here we go.
I have had 4 premature babies and when they were in SCBU they were treated everyday with medicene i didn't even think twice to question whether the products had been tested on animals i just wanted my babies to get better. So i guess what i am trying to say is you don't always get chance to think about it. Hope you no what i mean lol.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> Iams could keep a cat/kitten alive so there for its an apropriate food.


Just to play devils advocate.. My kitten appears to believe that the OH's arms could keep him alive. Does that make human flesh an appropriate food?  

Bottom line is, there is an abundance of food out there. If someone wants to feed their cat Iams, and someone else wants to feed corn-fed, free range chickens.. great!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Every single member of this forum comes on here because they all care, in one way or another, about their pets. We all have that in common - lets not forget it!


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

claire said:


> when i asked i said i knew it was off topic, but i was interested as to people who are so oppose to animal tested produce ect how far would the uphold there beliefs, so for some people it will stretch to feeding there pets others will take it futher regarding what they eat, what beauty products they use ect,,,,,, others will take it the ultimate distance and refuse life saving treatment regarding it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i was just trying to work out if anyone here felt that strongly


Mine is quite simple i will avoid what i can that has anything to do with Animal testing but if my life, my family members life and that includes my pets is on the line then i will do all i can to keep them alive and healthy.

While i disagree with it i have to understand that way back when science/medicine etc was becoming better the only way they knew how was to use animals. That is how a lot of things have become what they are today.

These days i don't agree and that is because with advances in technology can do this all important tests without using living creatures. As far as i know. I might not agree but i will be completely honest and admit i do not research and study the subject very much. I devote my study time and research on more positive subjects.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Indie said:


> I don't no if this is going to come out right but here we go.
> I have had 4 premature babies and when they were in SCBU they were treated everyday with medicene i didn't even think twice to question whether the products had been tested on animals i just wanted my babies to get better. So i guess what i am trying to say is you don't always get chance to think about it. Hope you no what i mean lol.


totally totally totally with you on that one!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Indie said:


> I don't no if this is going to come out right but here we go.
> I have had 4 premature babies and when they were in SCBU they were treated everyday with medicene i didn't even think twice to question whether the products had been tested on animals i just wanted my babies to get better. So i guess what i am trying to say is you don't always get chance to think about it. Hope you no what i mean lol.


i know what you mean


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

Indie said:


> I don't no if this is going to come out right but here we go.
> I have had 4 premature babies and when they were in SCBU they were treated everyday with medicene i didn't even think twice to question whether the products had been tested on animals i just wanted my babies to get better. So i guess what i am trying to say is you don't always get chance to think about it. Hope you no what i mean lol.


yep, know exactly what you mean


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> These days i don't agree and that is because with advances in technology can do this all important tests without using living creatures. As far as i know. I might not agree but i will be completely honest and admit i do not research and study the subject very much. I devote my study time and research on more positive subjects.


You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.

New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.

Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Indie said:


> I don't no if this is going to come out right but here we go.
> I have had 4 premature babies and when they were in SCBU they were treated everyday with medicene i didn't even think twice to question whether the products had been tested on animals i just wanted my babies to get better. So i guess what i am trying to say is you don't always get chance to think about it. Hope you no what i mean lol.


I fully understand you. If it were my daughter i wouldn't stop and think and ask questions or nip home and quick have reasearch on the computer! It would be a case of do it now!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.
> 
> New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.
> 
> Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


Great post with some very valid points.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.
> 
> New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.
> 
> Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


brilliant post .......


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.
> 
> New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.
> 
> Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


Very true, very good post. xx

Like i said i don't really know that much about it so to speak. 
x


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.
> 
> New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.
> 
> Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


Totally, 100% agree.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> how in your view is the food "inapropriate" what right have you got to say such things as that could be hurtful to someone who uses it. to me something is inapropriate when it cant be used, Iams could keep a cat/kitten alive so there for its an apropriate food.


I'm not sure you read the whole sentence/paragraph in context? Food I find inappropriate would be where I didn't want to give my pets what was contained in 'it' because of the ingredients, my personal choice - but I don't go round stopping everyone with a bag of Bakers or Pedigree, or Iams for that matter, its their choice what they feed their pets. I prefer to research things and ask questions of those in the know, and certainly wouldn't lecture anyone on the pros and cons of a particular brand, I'd more point them to do their own research. I can't see where I've put that I'd say hurtful things to anyone??

If someone were to ask me my opinion on a food, I'd give them it, pretty much what I've done here.


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.
> 
> New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.
> 
> Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


I do not agree with any kind of testing on living creatures. My dad was given a new heart drug, which I assume had gone through all the clinical trials etc. A week later he was dead. He had been told by the doctor he was going to be a guinea pig for these drugs. The first thing the doctor did when he came to see my dad after he died was to put the tablets in his pocket - I saw him do it. So no it does not work, animals are not a substitute for people, the results given do not tell us how it will behave with people. Guinea pig trials of penicillin held it back for years as it kills them... Nothing anyone can say will convince me that putting animals through all this suffering is for the greater good of human kind. It just shows us to be arrogant and cruel.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> I do not agree with any kind of testing on living creatures. My dad was given a new heart drug, which I assume had gone through all the clinical trials etc. A week later he was dead. He had been told by the doctor he was going to be a guinea pig for these drugs. The first thing the doctor did when he came to see my dad after he died was to put the tablets in his pocket - I saw him do it. So no it does not work, animals are not a substitute for people, the results given do not tell us how it will behave with people. Guinea pig trials of penicillin held it back for years as it kills them... Nothing anyone can say will convince me that putting animals through all this suffering is for the greater good of human kind. It just shows us to be arrogant and cruel.


I am very sorry for the loss of your dad.

From what you have said I presume he was in a patient trial for that drug, and terribly it didnt work. This is why patient trials are done, but only AFTER as much testing for safety has been possible.

I understand your views on penicillin (however a little outdated example dont you think?), and its terrible that this wonder drug was delayed due to the wrong animal being used. However whats the alternative?

The alternative is to either stop producing new drugs and trying to combat these terrible illness's, or to begin first stage testing on humans. I certainly dont want to be part of an initial first stage trial on a drug that someone "hopes" will have the desired effect. Where would we get enough people with these illness's to be able to test a drug sufficiently for general public release?

To put another view on things, using a specific example:

There is currently a gene therapy for duchenne muscular dystrophy that has gone into larger mammal trials (dogs to be precise), using a process called exon skipping. This is the first time that science has been able to "cure" this disease in anything larger than a mouse. Whether it then works for humans cannot be said, it is only in phase 2 testing, however if not, it will likely become a viable treatment for dogs effected with MD.

This treatment holds the hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands of parents and boys, who without a cure being found WILL die. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 100% fatal, usually before the boys reach their early 20's. It is also the most common and least talked about form of MD, with one in 3500 (3000 in the uk) boys being effected, and it can effect anyones family!

I'm not trying to dismiss your views, i respect them. I am just trying to put another side to the story.


----------



## joote (Dec 11, 2008)

I dont really have a personal input but dont feed Iams as my Oh is a strictly vegan has been for years and knows what the company get up to. 
I will speak for him on this one because i know exactly what he would be saying. 

If you eat meat or any animal produce you are in some way funding animal cruelty and its hypocritical for you to pick and choose one thing over another, so the testing isnt necessary, but niether is it for you to eat meat or drink milk. As for knowing where your food comes from, its nonsense, you know what you have been told, unless you have killed the animal/milked the cow you do not know 100% you only know what you are told, and someone could tell you the cow you're eating was blessed given a funeral and loved its whole life, does it make it more comforting hearing these things? To some it might. 

Like the facts on Iams alot of other material for animal rights is old and re-used time and time again, it dosent make it any less effective but makes you wonder why people are broadcasting these things that may not be happening anymore/to the same volume.


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

Billyboysmammy - Thank you. Having read your previous posts I understand your point of view and I am sure in those circumstances I would agree. My dad was not part of a clinical trial - not that he knew about anyway, I assume you have to agree, sign papers etc. He was given them by the doctor and that was that. That is probably why the doctor took them away. If this still happens, then those people who take new drugs are surely as unwilling a test subject as the animals that are used. I must admit it was a long time ago now, and as such my opinions about this subject were formed when I was very young so I am a bit of an immovable object when it comes to testing/cruelty etc. Your points are non the less valid though.

However, as I know everyone is different I do not try to change other peoples opinion, merely give my own. Everyone has the right to an informed choice, as long as it is informed - all too often the information is hidden. 

To answer a previous question on using products/drugs etc. It is very difficult not to use them as we are given very little choice as almost everything we use is or has been tested on animals. As a vegetarian, I often get anaemia. Iron tablets are coated in gelatin! This means I have to search around for vegetarian tablets that contain iron but are not as strong. I would love to have more choice in this matter.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> Billyboysmammy - Thank you. Having read your previous posts I understand your point of view and I am sure in those circumstances I would agree. My dad was not part of a clinical trial - not that he knew about anyway, I assume you have to agree, sign papers etc. He was given them by the doctor and that was that. That is probably why the doctor took them away. If this still happens, then those people who take new drugs are surely as unwilling a test subject as the animals that are used. I must admit it was a long time ago now, and as such my opinions about this subject were formed when I was very young so I am a bit of an immovable object when it comes to testing/cruelty etc. Your points are non the less valid though.
> 
> However, as I know everyone is different I do not try to change other peoples opinion, merely give my own. Everyone has the right to an informed choice, as long as it is informed - all too often the information is hidden.
> 
> To answer a previous question on using products/drugs etc. It is very difficult not to use them as we are given very little choice as almost everything we use is or has been tested on animals. As a vegetarian, I often get anaemia. Iron tablets are coated in gelatin! This means I have to search around for vegetarian tablets that contain iron but are not as strong. I would love to have more choice in this matter.


Completly agree, when i voice my opinions I am in no way intending to make others feel that their views are wrong.

It sounds like your dad had a very dubious cowboy of a doctor, for that you have my deepest sympathy.

My son had a milk protein allergy (dairy allergy), and when poorly it became quite a battle to find medicines suitable for him. Many of the antibiotics contain milk proteins or versions of lactose as sweetners (i presume) added and so it would usually mean a wait for a couple of days while the correct meds were ordered in for him - that was unacceptable imho.

Eventually my local chemist kept a small stock of basic antibiotics and other "regualr" meds so i didnt always have to wait. I could also phone the chemist before i went to the gp, when i pretty much knew what the problem and outcome would be and they would get the stuff ready!

on another side note!

Isnt it great that we can show that it is possible to have a healthy debate on this forum without it turning to mud slinging  :thumbup: I have found this one interesting and informative  yay for petforums


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

When I saw this thread my instant thought was not again,

I don't feed Iams I never have so don't really have an opinion one way or the other.
The cruelty regarding Iams is outdated and from unreliable sources such as PETA and Uncaged.
I have never defended Iams but there are two sides to every story,I would prefer to make my choice based on Hard facts and evidence,the links provided on other thread's for example,The report, written by the paper's Health Editor Lucy Johnston drew largely on findings by the animal rights organisation Uncaged.The links offered are either links to Peta or Uncaged,rather than from reliable independant sources.

As I said I don't feed Iams, and I have never stated Iams don't test,however you need to look at all the evidence from various sources to get a clear indication of what testing is taking place etc.

So for me,unless there is hard evidence with references to independant companies who have researched the claims I will take it with a pinch of salt.

It's about making an informed choice,we can't make or force someone into taking on others value's.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

There have been some really good points made on this thread, its nice to be able to read and discuss different points of view. Also some touching posts that give a different side to the same old debates.



joote said:


> If you eat meat or any animal produce you are in some way funding animal cruelty and its hypocritical for you to pick and choose one thing over another, so the testing isnt necessary, but niether is it for you to eat meat or drink milk. As for knowing where your food comes from, its nonsense, you know what you have been told, unless you have killed the animal/milked the cow you do not know 100% you only know what you are told, and someone could tell you the cow you're eating was blessed given a funeral and loved its whole life, does it make it more comforting hearing these things? To some it might.
> 
> Like the facts on Iams alot of other material for animal rights is old and re-used time and time again, it dosent make it any less effective but makes you wonder why people are broadcasting these things that may not be happening anymore/to the same volume.


I'm not sure this applies just to meat eaters? I think no matter what food you're buying, you should try and source locally (where possible), and support those using more sustainable methods - I was amazed to be able to buy vine ripened tomatos from Teeside recently  But I don't think meat eaters are any worse, and I disagree that you can't know where your food is from. I get lamb from someone I know who rears his own and has the facility to slaughter, I'd say I know exactly where that comes from, and I endeavour to make sure all the meat I buy is from a traceable source. I hate using supermarkets, occasionally you need to buy bits in once place, but prefer to use local shops, never mind if the apples are a bit bruised, as long as they're not grown half way round the world. I think the only thing I buy from supermarkets is cleaning and long shelf life products (pasta, rice, tinned things).

I think my ethos with any food, Iams or any commercially available food, is that its cheap and convenient, which is fine if that's what you're after and it suits lifestyle etc, but I prefer to put a bit more thought into what I feed my dogs, the same as I do for my own diet.


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

joote said:


> If you eat meat or any animal produce you are in some way funding animal cruelty and its hypocritical for you to pick and choose one thing over another


Hmm.. I see where you are coming from but I find this a bit too black or white. Sadly nothing can be categorised that easily, and in all honesty *everything* can be traced back to some form of 'badness', meaning humans could literally do nothing without it being bad somewhere along the line. 'Can't drive to work cos the car is polluting the air', 'can't wear those shoes to walk to work cos an animal has died for the leather', 'can't get the bus to work cos the driver is underpaid'. We *all* live with things that we accept, and obviously those levels are different for all of us. I don't think it's 'bad' for someone to choose a type of shampoo over another (for example) because that is their bit towards a fight to stop animal testing. It's not for anyone else to judge and say that person should be doing more. Neither should that person 'give up' on their beliefs and buy the other shampoo because 'what difference does one bottle do anyway' People 'pick and choose one thing over another' fitting with their beliefs to the best of their ability. I guess in strict terms this *could* be classed as hypocritical, but sadly life isn't that simple anymore. Some of us do/buy things for one reason, and some of us don't do/buy those things for another. I don't think either can be classed as wrong.


----------



## joote (Dec 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There have been some really good points made on this thread, its nice to be able to read and discuss different points of view. Also some touching posts that give a different side to the same old debates.
> 
> I'm not sure this applies just to meat eaters? I think no matter what food you're buying, you should try and source locally (where possible), and support those using more sustainable methods - I was amazed to be able to buy vine ripened tomatos from Teeside recently  But I don't think meat eaters are any worse, and I disagree that you can't know where your food is from. I get lamb from someone I know who rears his own and has the facility to slaughter, I'd say I know exactly where that comes from, and I endeavour to make sure all the meat I buy is from a traceable source. I hate using supermarkets, occasionally you need to buy bits in once place, but prefer to use local shops, never mind if the apples are a bit bruised, as long as they're not grown half way round the world. I think the only thing I buy from supermarkets is cleaning and long shelf life products (pasta, rice, tinned things).
> 
> I think my ethos with any food, Iams or any commercially available food, is that its cheap and convenient, which is fine if that's what you're after and it suits lifestyle etc, but I prefer to put a bit more thought into what I feed my dogs, the same as I do for my own diet.


yeah sorry, i think what i was meant to point out is that you can never 100% know how your food has been harvested, unless you do it yourself, even the most humane slaughter houses could have instances where a mistake is made and an animal suffers more than they needed to.

I just feel alot of people apply morals to some issues, and how can you regard one form of suffering higher than another when both are not compulsary.


----------



## MurphyMoo (Nov 29, 2008)

I dont know we feed our cat iams dry food and i love the advert the cat i think is georgus !!!!! got to go eat luch xxxx MurphyMoo:thumbup1:


----------



## thelioncub (Feb 9, 2009)

Can I just point out, for the record, that I don't not buy Iams for any animal testing reason. I honestly don't, and could never really know what happens on that side of things!

I don't buy it because of the ingredients: -

maize - 'It irritates the bowel, it is highly allergy producing and it has a high glycemic index'

wheat - 'Wheat is another allergen that finds its way into cat foods, but which can cause health problems if it isn't served up in extreme moderation'

digest - 'cooked-down broth of unspecified parts of unspecified animals. The list is extensive as to which animals can be included, but some of them are goats, pigs, rats, horses, euthanized animals from shelters, supermarket waste, and road kill. A cat food with animal digest could be exactly that; a food made from cats'

In all honesty tho, it's near impossible to feed any animal (humans included) a *perfect* diet. I choose my foods because I want to look at the ingredients and pick the best I can, at the same time as not wanting their dinners to cost more than mine. It's all about what suits us as individuals and I wouldn't 'look down' on anyone who fed something different to me. I'll share the info and facts I've learned, and let them decide for themselves..

Interesting info here


----------



## joote (Dec 11, 2008)

yeah exactly, and im not posting to say people should do more but it is a bit of a pet hate of mine when people research all these companies and find out all the nasties but turn a blind eye to some other things they indulge in. 

Nobody should be made to feel guilty by anybody unless the person is flawless themselves.... which is not very likley


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

ive read some of the thread now.

When my kitts had their injections they got a kitten pack each....in there they had samples and Iams was one of them, they loved them! ive only ever bought 1 bag of it coz it was on offer in asda at the time.

If it was all bad then it wouldnt have been in the kitten pack surely?
I used to feed mine on wet and dry as a snack, but i was talking to the pet shop the other day and they suggested a dry food is better....and said James Welbeloved is one of the best. They also suggested Iams but James is the better food, as i said no to royal cannin as its stupidly expensive!


----------



## joote (Dec 11, 2008)

vickie1985 said:


> If it was all bad then it wouldnt have been in the kitten pack surely?


you would be amazed what vets will let sponser them! it just comes down to money, they would have given the vets free packs hoping that you would buy from them in the future


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

I just wanted to say what a pleasant surprise to see so many people putting their opinions across without slagging others opinions/views. It is very refreshing to see and this thread has allowed a very balanced view. Ive also thorougly enjoyed reading everyones posts and experiences/opinions. I also find it very informative.


----------



## Dylan & Daisy (Feb 4, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> You see, whilst i agree that for simple things like cosmetics, there are "mechanical" ways of testing. Certain breakthrough treatments etc can only be tested on living tissue and then living animals, before going into patient trials.
> 
> New Cancer treatments need to be tested first on living tissue to ensure its having the right reaction, but then needs to be tested on a whole body to gauge reactions and potential problems with the treatment, it wouldnt be very successful if it killed the cancer but also had a nasty side effect of dissolving the brain (ok a bit far fetched but you get my meaning). Then there are gene therapy trials in place to resolve debilitating illness's such as cystic fribrosis, MD, MS etc. The very fact that they need to see the whole body response to these therapies means that they have to be tested on animals. I dont know many people out there who would be willing to subject themselves or their children to an untested treatment which might not work and could be very very dangerous.
> 
> Hmmmm genetic modification - a bit deep for a bank holiday evening? lol


I personally have taken part in a clinical trial for a new drug some years ago. The decision to do so wasn't easy but at the end of the day i went ahead as i felt that unless these things are tried on us as the end consumer, we'll never quite know it's true affect on the human body. This particular trial was ended early as it's side effects were found to be far to harsh on people after the dosage was raised for the second intake group.
I think i would try any drug if my life was dependent on it, if it didn't work at least i'd tried every avenue open to me. Most people would probably do the same if it was a matter of life and death. 
(A friend of mine who is a Professor of Paediatrics does research for the advancement of childhealth and his input was invaluable to my decision.) Just my opinion though.


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

joote said:


> you would be amazed what vets will let sponser them! it just comes down to money, they would have given the vets free packs hoping that you would buy from them in the future


everything comes down to money at the end of the day i guess.....

i suppose its a bit like the food chain, it all happens for a reason!


----------



## joote (Dec 11, 2008)

vickie1985 said:


> everything comes down to money at the end of the day i guess.....
> 
> i suppose its a bit like the food chain, it all happens for a reason!


its a real shame though, when i was at an RSPCa a few weeks ago i saw they were selling a brand i use and thought 'oh that must be good then' but then remembered they probably get free donations from the company for selling at the shelter! and when shelters need food they cant really afford to turn it down for the moral high ground!


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

joote said:


> its a real shame though, when i was at an RSPCa a few weeks ago i saw they were selling a brand i use and thought 'oh that must be good then' but then remembered they probably get free donations from the company for selling at the shelter! and when shelters need food they cant really afford to turn it down for the moral high ground!


It is a shame, but thats life as we all know it, and it wont be changed.
If it wasnt for the food chain none of us would be here....its the same with money and businesses, except some get gready.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Just seen another thread on this and really sad to see how many people still feed their pets this type of food, regardless of their cruel experimentation on animals.

PLEASE, to all those people still feeding their pets Iams, watch the following video.

YouTube - Investigation into Iams


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Nina said:


> Just seen another thread on this and really sad to see how many people still feed their pets this type of food, regardless of their cruel experimentation on animals.
> 
> PLEASE, to all those people still feeding their pets Iams, watch the following video.
> 
> YouTube - Investigation into Iams


they test makeup om animals but women still use it.they test medicines on animals but we still use it


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

I won't feed my cats Iams for the cruelty reasons but i certainly wouldn't slag someone off who uses it. At the end of the day, slagging someone off about feeding Iams won't make you achieve anything.

Besides, even though i do believe that P&G still fund evil experiments on animals, the Iams one is out of date. The latest is herbal essances but i won't go there.


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

borderer said:


> they test makeup om animals but women still use it.they test medicines on animals but we still use it


not everyone does....i for one dont use any make-up or beauty stuff tested on animals, and i actually refuse medication tested on animals too 

I dont feed iams....


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

borderer said:


> they test makeup om animals but women still use it.they test medicines on animals but we still use it


testing cosmetics on animals in now illegal in the UK and will be illegal in all of Europe in 2013 

I refuse to feed Iams and i certainly don't use products tested on animals


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

Marcia said:


> testing cosmetics on animals in now illegal in the UK and will be illegal in all of Europe in 2013


good! but 90% of my make-up is american/canadian/australian so im very careful


----------



## Badger's Mum (Mar 23, 2009)

Am i realy thick! why would a food company need to treat dog's like. what is it todo with food?


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

what exactly do they test?? 
i dont really understand why........ 
They have a food, they know what goes into the food so what they testing?
is it illegal in the UK to test anything on what could be a demostic pets? what i mean by that is to test on any dogs or cats mainly.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Not again lol,
All the info is outdated and comes from unreliable sources.


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

christine c said:


> Am i realy thick! why would a food company need to treat dog's like. what is it todo with food?


Thats my point really...you said it a bit better than me lol


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

i dont feed iams, used to but they prefer royal canin so thats what they get.

i couldnt give a hoot about what PETA say on the subject, they are all a bunch of fruitcakes who dont even understand what animal welfare really is and often show this by their disgraceful behaviour.

if your cat loves iams and you dont care what goes on in making it then good for you


----------



## vickie1985 (Feb 18, 2009)

sallyanne said:


> Not again lol,
> All the info is outdated and comes from unreliable sources.


I was also gonna say how do you know that video is Iams? 
i just dont get why a food brand is linked to all those bad images, or am i missing the point?


----------



## mckitty (Jan 11, 2009)

on the iams cruelty website that turkeylad posted about yesterday there was a list of food producers that dont appear to upset the webmasters, quite a few names were missing from this list, can we clarify who else is reliant on animal testing ?


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

sallyanne said:


> Not again lol,
> All the info is outdated and comes from unreliable sources.


unreliable sources meaning PETA? LOL  fruitcakes....the lot of them.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixxen said:


> unreliable sources meaning PETA? LOL  fruitcakes....the lot of them.


You got it lol,

All the links offered on other threads regarding this, relate directly back to PETA and Uncaged,until indepent research is done I will disregard it.


----------



## Badger's Mum (Mar 23, 2009)

sallyanne said:


> Not again lol,
> All the info is outdated and comes from unreliable sources.


yeah that's what i think. but poor thing's where ever that was taken


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

borderer said:


> they test makeup om animals but women still use it.they test medicines on animals but we still use it


Exactly and as we established yesterday on that other Iams thread...not many people would refuse life saving medicine if they or a loved one needed it. 



sallyanne said:


> Not again lol,
> All the info is outdated and comes from unreliable sources.


lol...i thought the same thing. Thought i was seeing things.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

sallyanne said:


> You got it lol,
> 
> All the links offered on other threads regarding this, relate directly back to PETA and Uncaged,until indepent research is done I will disregard it.


totally agree ,


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Vixxen said:


> not everyone does....i for one dont use any make-up or beauty stuff tested on animals, and i actually refuse medication tested on animals too
> 
> I dont feed iams....


So you don't use any form of general painkillers, hay fever tablets etc? Everything for human use has been tested on animals at some point.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Do we really need 2 threads on this?

could the mods perhaps merge them?

I have said it before and will say it again, the FASTEST way to alienate people from a cause or belief is to ram it down their necks. Telling them they are wrong and you are right will only put peoples backs up and make them defensive of their position. 

If people want to research the info available on iams, after seeing the other thread, they only have to employ the powers of the google gods. 

Starting threads like this is surely only going to cause an argument, which would be a shame, as the previous thread has been interesting, informative, full of good healthy debate but most of all tolerance and RESPECT for other peoples ideals, feelings and beliefs.


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> So you don't use any form of general painkillers, hay fever tablets etc? Everything for human use has been tested on animals at some point.


no i dont use either of those, its not hard to go without painkillers (i cant take aspirin or ibuprofen etc anyway). i drive the doctors mad....as a nurse myself i do know what im doing though.....im asthmatic too and researched thouroughly into which brands of inhalers were tested on animals and changed to another.

not *every* medicine is tested on animals now, it just takes a fair bit of research....but theres nothing better to do on night shifts


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Do we really need 2 threads on this?
> 
> could the mods perhaps merge them?
> 
> ...


I agree,
We have had lots of threads on this forum regarding Iams and it's old news now.
The threads are easy enough to find


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Do we really need 2 threads on this?
> 
> could the mods perhaps merge them?
> 
> ...


Brilliant post and very well said. I too found the other thread to be very informative and thoroughly enjoyed the way we all expressed our views in a respectful manner.


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

I have merged these two threads as there is no need for two to run at the same time


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not sure this applies just to meat eaters? I think no matter what food you're buying, you should try and source locally (where possible), and support those using more sustainable methods - I was amazed to be able to buy vine ripened tomatos from Teeside recently  But I don't think meat eaters are any worse, and I disagree that you can't know where your food is from. I get lamb from someone I know who rears his own and has the facility to slaughter, I'd say I know exactly where that comes from, and I endeavour to make sure all the meat I buy is from a traceable source. I hate using supermarkets, occasionally you need to buy bits in once place, but prefer to use local shops, never mind if the apples are a bit bruised, as long as they're not grown half way round the world. I think the only thing I buy from supermarkets is cleaning and long shelf life products (pasta, rice, tinned things).
> 
> I think my ethos with any food, Iams or any commercially available food, is that its cheap and convenient, which is fine if that's what you're after and it suits lifestyle etc, but I prefer to put a bit more thought into what I feed my dogs, the same as I do for my own diet.


I am like you, although i am not techically veggie or vegan, i don't really like meat i only really chicken. I am researching all i need to know then i will make the choice to not eat meat. But i raise my daughter on meat (well try!) she doesn't like it either!! I would like to give her the choice when she wants too.

I am very lucky to live here as it is such a tiny Island we do not have problems with battery farms/intensive farming etc. All here is it free range and animals do what they are meant to, and live very very happy lives. I buy from my local butcher if i make meals for my little one that contain meat. We have 'farmers markets' for eggs and veg and local shops sell local food. I don't buy supermarket fresh food that has been imported form the UK or elsewhere. I support my Island!! Our milk is locally produced and our tomatoes  lol!! I do buy from supermarkets things i can't aquire locally produced.


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

billyboysmammy said:


> Do we really need 2 threads on this?
> 
> could the mods perhaps merge them?
> 
> ...


very good post


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixxen said:


> no i dont use either of those, its not hard to go without painkillers (i cant take aspirin or ibuprofen etc anyway). i drive the doctors mad....as a nurse myself i do know what im doing though.....im asthmatic too and researched thouroughly into which brands of inhalers were tested on animals and changed to another.
> 
> not *every* medicine is tested on animals now, it just takes a fair bit of research....but theres nothing better to do on night shifts


I think that is very admirable but if my family need urgent treatment they get it regardless, there isn't always time to research these things.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixie said:


> I have merged these two threads as there is no need for two to run at the same time


lol Vixie...you confused me there...i thought i was reading double.  
So im not going senile after all?   xxxx


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

rainy said:


> I think that is very admirable but if my family need urgent treatment they get it regardless, there isn't always time to research these things.


of course  i mean you cant say "oh hang on a minute whilst i just research whatever meds youre going to use" in an emergency  though i'd love to see the doctors face if you did.....the ones i worked with all thought i was a loon.

i researched the meds that i use often or have to take, and worked around that....but as for the stronger drugs used in hospitals if i didnt have a lot of choice in the matter then thats that. I worked on the only ward in the hospital allowed to carry cocaine for medical use...that was tested on doctors, not animals....oh yes.


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> lol Vixie...you confused me there...i thought i was reading double.
> So im not going senile after all?   xxxx


well thats debatable :  just kidding lol 
nope its just me messing with the threads lol :thumbup1:


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixie said:


> well thats debatable  just kidding lol
> nope its just me messing with the threads lol :thumbup1:


Stop it!
Your confusing all us oldies,I thought I had, had one too many glasses of wine


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixxen said:


> of course  i mean you cant say "oh hang on a minute whilst i just research whatever meds youre going to use" in an emergency  though i'd love to see the doctors face if you did.....the ones i worked with all thought i was a loon.


LOL. Bet they did. I am into natural remedies and try to use those as a first port of call. I am training in Reflexology and have had great results with things like Hayfever and colds in my children without any drugs at all but i would never turn my back on modern medicine.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

phew! was gonna check my drink then - though it had been spiked!


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixie said:


> well thats debatable :  just kidding lol
> nope its just me messing with the threads lol :thumbup1:


lol..fair play.  
If you are not trying to confuse me with changing your profile pic, you are doing it with merging the threads...lol...but i totally agree no need for the two going at the same time..too confusing for my poor brain...lol. :crazy::crazy: xxxx


----------



## Vixxen (Jan 13, 2009)

rainy said:


> LOL. Bet they did. I am into natural remedies and try to use those as a first port of call. I am training in Reflexology and have had great results with things like Hayfever and colds in my children without any drugs at all but i would never turn my back on modern medicine.


i used to swear by tiger balm for everything...but havent used it for a few years....whatever herbs the chinese use makes me sneeze constantly!


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

sallyanne said:


> Stop it!
> Your confusing all us oldies,I thought I had, had one too many glasses of wine





billyboysmammy said:


> phew! was gonna check my drink then - though it had been spiked!


:devil::devil: my work here is done lol sorry for the confusion


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

thelioncub said:


> Hmm.. I see where you are coming from but I find this a bit too black or white. Sadly nothing can be categorised that easily, and in all honesty *everything* can be traced back to some form of 'badness', meaning humans could literally do nothing without it being bad somewhere along the line.


We are and alway have been a law upon ourselves!!! (Mankind i mean!)

You are 100% right, man is every living things worst enemy and that includes us...........

Humans are meant to live and learn....and we have in most areas regarding animals. The way we feed them, the way we treat them, the way we are now protecting species (after we caused the damage enough for them to be listed 'vunerable' etc)
I could go on and on but i won't for the sake of you all  

x


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

sallyanne said:


> Stop it!
> Your confusing all us oldies,I thought I had, had one too many glasses of wine





billyboysmammy said:


> phew! was gonna check my drink then - though it had been spiked!


lol...so glad it wasn't just me.   :lol:


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> lol..fair play.
> If you are not trying to confuse me with changing your profile pic, you are doing it with merging the threads...lol...but i totally agree no need for the two going at the same time..too confusing for my poor brain...lol. :crazy::crazy: xxxx


ha ha yep thats true, I might be needing a change of avatar and sig soon 

just been reading through some of this thread and it has been going well and hopefully it will continue to do so


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixie said:


> ha ha yep thats true, I might be needing a change of avatar and sig soon
> 
> just been reading through some of this thread and it has been going well and hopefully it will continue to do so


I agree,it's been a really good,interesting,informative thread


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> ''i know its off topic, but! if you wont give your pets produce tested on animals,,,, what if you were ill would you use a treatment (life saving or not) tested on animals? just interested'' (quote from claire....i seem to have lost the 'quote' bit duh?! lol)
> 
> It really depends on what it is for!!! I don't like taking any medicines. Mainly because i can't swallow tablets (i think i am choking lol!) and i hate liquid medicine. I hold off taking anything unless it is absolutely nessercary. And i don't buy over the counter stuff, for the above reasons. If i feel that bad i go to the doctors.
> 
> But having said that if it were for a much more severe and life threatening/debilitating illness then yes i wouldn't have a choice......i have a 3 year old daughter who i wouldn't want to leave without a mum. I would of course want a non tested on animal one if there was one available.


I am reading all these opinions, which i find interesting and informative. What gets me is that due to the whole nature of the pharamceutical industry, people don't seem to realise that EVERYTHING has been tested on animals at some point, whether it is over the counter or prescribed by the doctor. EVERYTHING for human use (especially children) has at some point been teste on animals. Whilst I don't agree with testing for make up etc (we know how to make it now) if we have any chance of finding cures for all these diseases, we will have to, for the forseeable future, have to test on animals.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

Vixie said:


> ha ha yep thats true, I might be needing a change of avatar and sig soon
> 
> just been reading through some of this thread and it has been going well and hopefully it will continue to do so


lol...now your'e scaring me with your avatar threat  
Totally agree it's been a brilliant thread to read through and so respectful of others too. Just goes to show it can be done....xxxx :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I am reading all these opinions, which i find interesting and informative. What gets me is that due to the whole nature of the pharamceutical industry, people don't seem to realise that EVERYTHING has been tested on animals at some point, whether it is over the counter or prescribed by the doctor. EVERYTHING for human use (especially children) has at some point been teste on animals. Whilst I don't agree with testing for make up etc (we know how to make it now) if we have any chance of finding cures for all these diseases, we will have to, for the forseeable future, have to test on animals.


couldnt agree more


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

hmph apparently i have given out too much rep and cant give out more - off to sulk now lol


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

You can MERGE threads???? 

Can someone please get rid of my wrinkles?


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

I cannot find my thread on Iams, but was saddend to see so many people still using P & G products.

I will post the link to the Iams video again, and ask everyone who still has this pet food, to spare a moment and watch it. Please God that it will change your mind forever

YouTube - Investigation into Iams


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You can MERGE threads????
> 
> Can someone please get rid of my wrinkles?


now if I could do that I would be loaded  and have a wrinkle free face lol must start researching a way to virtually remove wrinkles and make my fortune :idea::smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Vixie (Nov 17, 2007)

Nina said:


> I cannot find my thread on Iams, but was saddend to see so many people still using P & G products.
> 
> I will post the link to the Iams video again, and ask everyone who still has this pet food, to spare a moment and watch it. Please God that it will change your mind forever
> 
> YouTube - Investigation into Iams


your thread was merged with this one as they were about the same thing so your link is a part of this thread  about 2 pages back


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Thanks Vixie. till hurting over last nights scores


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I think the point of animal testing for medicines etc is such a big topic (and wow what a debate that will cause ) that it deserves its own thread..?


absolutely -- you gonna go for it!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> absolutely -- you gonna go for it!!


read further back hun, all covered in here! feel free to share your views!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Whilst some of the information maybe outdated personally dont accept that its from questionable sources but look at what the company says about itself.

Iams Animal Testing

The Iams Company ensures that Iams pet food products are safe and wholesome by feeding them to the dogs and cats in our care. Iams animal testing helps us know that the foods we create truly improve the health and well being of millions of dogs and cats around the world. We make sure the animals in our care are happy and healthy with plenty of playtime and attention.

We take extraordinary measures to ensure that our love and respect for our four-legged friends is delivered every day for every dog and cat here at Iams. Animal testing is a last resort used only if there is no valid non-animal option. While ethical and legal regulations require Iams animal testing, we also support the internationally accepted three Rs:

Replacement of animal studies with non-animal alternatives 
Reduction in the numbers of animals involved in studies 
Refinement of methods to enhance animal welfare 
Iams animal testing is designed to help veterinarians and pet owners enhance the well being of cats and dogs or to manage important pet health conditions. We share our findings globally to benefit others seeking improvement of pet health and to help prevent repetition of tests on animals.

Iams does not fund studies that require the loss of life of cats or dogs. Iams animal testing procedures are the veterinary equivalent of nutritional or medical studies acceptable for humans, including urine, feces, blood and immune cell analysis, allergy tests, and skin and muscle biopsies.

Iams animal testing is conducted in three kinds of locations, including in pet owners' homes, in our Pet Health and Nutrition Center, and in locations where dogs and cats already live, like assistance dog organizations and kennels. We test Iams dog food and Iams cat food with healthy pets or with pets who already have specific diseases or conditions.

We assure the highest possible standards of care for pets used in Iams animal testing by having an Animal Welfare Specialist and Veterinarian looking after the dogs and cats. Our staff and independent experts monitor Iams animal research to create enriched environments for the cats and dogs involved. Respected animal welfare organizations helped develop the Iams animal testing policies to make sure the animals in our care enjoy health, happy lives while helping us develop nutritious products that enrich the lives of pets around the world.


Okay thats there own biased between the lines admissions.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> read further back hun, all covered in here! feel free to share your views!


Didnt respond earlier as i did not want to move of the threads subject but in answer to those who asked No İ would Not take any medical procedure medicine that had been tested on animals.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> Didnt respond earlier as i did not want to move of the threads subject but in answer to those who asked No İ would Not take any medical procedure medicine that had been tested on animals.


Then you are pretty much screwed, as all things medical/chemical have been tested on animals at some point. Even paracetamol in its day was tested on animals. It's a part of life unfortunately, and will be until we are disease free, both human and animals.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> Didnt respond earlier as i did not want to move of the threads subject but in answer to those who asked No İ would Not take any medical procedure medicine that had been tested on animals.


Do you not get your pets vaccinated? as this was tested on animals


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> Didnt respond earlier as i did not want to move of the threads subject but in answer to those who asked No İ would Not take any medical procedure medicine that had been tested on animals.


I totally respect your views, and i believe from previous chats you are vegan and i can see how a vegan might not wish to use any medication that has been tested on animals. Does this include every medication that, while no longer tested - would have been at some point in its development (i'm sure that would include all modern medicines)? What alternative treatments do you use?

How do you feel about veterinary procedures and treatments? If you use them would that be hypocritical, if not - with regards to your views do you feel that you have the right to deny them lifesaving treatment due to your beliefs?

I find it really interesting to learn about other peoples views and positions on things like this, so i hope you dont think i'm having a dig. Its not intended to come accross that way.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> Do you not get your pets vaccinated? as this was tested on animals


İts a choice i make for me not other living things!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

&#304; am also, type 1 Diabetic but made the decision that i would refuse insulin and medication.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İts a choice i make for me not other living things!


lol in that case ignore the 2nd half of my question :thumbup:


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

i do not condone animal cruelty and would not feed my dogs IAMS but it is an individual choice.

also PETA who campaign against IAMS and animal cruelty and have been linked to thefts of peoples pets and even burning them alive in a bid to 'save them' from being owned and enslaved to humans and for people who are so into animal welfare to alledgedly be invoved in this kind of behaviour is both cruel an hypocritical in my book.

wendy


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

reddogsX3 said:


> i do not condone animal cruelty and would not feed my dogs IAMS but it is an individual choice.
> 
> also PETA who campaign against IAMS and animal cruelty and have been linked to thefts of peoples pets and even burning them alive in a bid to 'save them' from being owned and enslaved to humans and for people who are so into animal welfare to alledgedly be invoved in this kind of behaviour is both cruel an hypocritical in my book.
> 
> wendy


do you have any proof of these alligations? I dont condone animal cruelty and i dont see how anyone does who feeds Iams, to me animal cruelty is when you dont care for an animal or abuse it in anyway. Feeding isnt one starving maybe yeah thats cruel


----------



## Kinski (Apr 4, 2009)

All P&G products are banned in this house, my daughter also refuses to use any of their stuff in her home.

Terri


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

DKDREAM said:


> do you have any proof of these alligations? I dont condone animal cruelty and i dont see how anyone does who feeds Iams, to me animal cruelty is when you dont care for an animal or abuse it in anyway. Feeding isnt one starving maybe yeah thats cruel


no proof that is why i said alledgedly but it was reported that PETA were alledgedly involved in the theft and subsequent torching of a van with dogs inside from a dog show. i am not sure if this is true or not but there have been a few news reports of things like this being linked to them.

so no i am not saying they did it just that it was reported that they were linked to it.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I can understand why people wont use the product and if they did that then i think its so cruel but i cant see how buying some iams is supporting it as your paying for the food. the shops that buy the food in are the ones that support iams really when you think about it.


----------



## 3 red dogs (May 17, 2008)

I think this is what reddogsx3 its referring to, athough not the setting light to vans story.

PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

alot of shelters put animals down that we dont know about though dont they, I dont agree with it but in another sense i can see why theres only so many homes and thousands of dogs and cats and other animals and only so much money.


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

I think that we all know that medicines etc were at one point tested on animals. However, there has to be a point when we can say - okay this has happened, it does not need to be tested again and SHOULD not be tested again as we know what effects/side effects it has. 

I think that if it has not been tested for xxx amount of years then we should be able to use it with a clear conscience. I believe this is what the Body Shop did. We have to start somewhere. 

Personally I think that we also need more choice. Medicines are given out but with no explanations as to what they are, how they are tested, what ingredients are in them, what the alternatives are etc. We are just expected to take them and be grateful. When you ask you are looked at as if you are mad! I have said it before on here but iron tablets are coated in gelatine. This does not only affect vegetarians but those with religions that prevent them from eating cows or pigs etc. However, there are no alternatives to these (except the "weaker" over the counter ones). Why? The usual answer - Money!


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> I think that we all know that medicines etc were at one point tested on animals. However, there has to be a point when we can say - okay this has happened, it does not need to be tested again and SHOULD not be tested again as we know what effects/side effects it has.
> 
> I think that if it has not been tested for xxx amount of years then we should be able to use it with a clear conscience. I believe this is what the Body Shop did. We have to start somewhere.
> 
> Personally I think that we also need more choice. Medicines are given out but with no explanations as to what they are, how they are tested, what ingredients are in them, what the alternatives are etc. We are just expected to take them and be grateful. When you ask you are looked at as if you are mad! I have said it before on here but iron tablets are coated in gelatine. This does not only affect vegetarians but those with religions that prevent them from eating cows or pigs etc. However, there are no alternatives to these (except the "weaker" over the counter ones). Why? The usual answer - Money!


sadly the same rules dont apply for consumables like the body shop as the pharma industry. A small change in a process of ingredient can have dramatic effects and require lengthy and costly testing. Even moving product off one site to another for manufacture requires new testing by law. (which is why it takes 3 yrs to close the site i work on)

Even something as simple as a tablet coating can have an effect on how the drug performs as they are carefully engineered to act in a certain way and dissolve at a certain speed to ensure the product acts as it should. Things are not as simple as "just finding an alternative", as such alternatives either dont exist or will take a huge sum to source - when producing new drugs is already a very lengthy and costly process (around 10yrs from design to final release i believe)


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Exactly Claire and no-one could give her up to date proof of all that is said about Iams. Also as i said, Sallyanne did NOT pass judgment on others for using it.


Free Spirit, I am not passing judgment by posting the video link on the cruel practices of P & G, Iams in particular. There are still so many people who buy these products, who are in total ignorance of the nutritional experiments that are carried out so unnecessarily.

I myself, had absolutely no idea until a couple of years ago when I read with horror how these poor cats and dogs are suffering without any veterinary care and without justification.

It is obviously up to the general public whether they wish to continue buying Iams, all I was doing was once again responding to the initial thread


----------



## joote (Dec 11, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> İts a choice i make for me not other living things!


exactly, its the same the same as asking someone vegan if they dont feed thier pets meat,


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Savahl said:


> sadly the same rules dont apply for consumables like the body shop as the pharma industry. A small change in a process of ingredient can have dramatic effects and require lengthy and costly testing. Even moving product off one site to another for manufacture requires new testing by law. (which is why it takes 3 yrs to close the site i work on)
> 
> Even something as simple as a tablet coating can have an effect on how the drug performs as they are carefully engineered to act in a certain way and dissolve at a certain speed to ensure the product acts as it should. Things are not as simple as "just finding an alternative", as such alternatives either dont exist or will take a huge sum to source - when producing new drugs is already a very lengthy and costly process (around 10yrs from design to final release i believe)


Really good post, I for one never understood the reasons behind re-testing common drugs (paracetamol) happened when only one little change (shape or coating for example) had happened. I now see that any change could effect the performance of the drug which would require it to be retested. Thank-you for the info 

x


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've really enjoyed reading this thread, such a lot of different view points and ideas.



DKDREAM said:


> I can understand why people wont use the product and if they did that then i think its so cruel but i cant see how buying some iams is supporting it as your paying for the food. the shops that buy the food in are the ones that support iams really when you think about it.


Not sure I get your logic there, shops will only stock things that sell, so the consumer demand is what puts it on the shelf in the first place?


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Playing devils advocate here.....

I would like to ask another thing about petfood testing....

Ok I dont feed iams, I dont particularly like the (yes outdated, and from very dubious sources) information i have read about their practices. However I dont actually object to animal testing for medicine etc... Does medicine include diet and nutrition?, i think it does.

To take things further - Many petfood manufacturers produce prescription diets, lighter diets, along with age specific diets. Now I know I am pretty naieve, but i would assume that these are all tested on animals so that they have the benefits that they claim? - otherwise surely they would be in breach of trading standards for producing a product that didnt do what it says? 

Many diets make claims to be of help for Kidney, Liver, stomach, skin, teeth etc along with even the normal supermarket cat brands claiming to reduce the incidence of FLUTD. Surely to able to market these diets as such they need to have been tested and proven to do so? Not all of the diets are precription diets, many are supermarket or petshop available brands. 

So what are peoples views here? Is this testing justified?, 

I know many of you have stated you wont use pet diets that have been tested on animals, from what i understand most of them would have been, in order for them to make the health claims they do.


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

Savahl said:


> sadly the same rules dont apply for consumables like the body shop as the pharma industry. A small change in a process of ingredient can have dramatic effects and require lengthy and costly testing. *Even moving product off one site to another for manufacture requires new testing by law.* (which is why it takes 3 yrs to close the site i work on)
> 
> Even something as simple as a tablet coating can have an effect on how the drug performs as they are carefully engineered to act in a certain way and dissolve at a certain speed to ensure the product acts as it should. Things are not as simple as "just finding an alternative", as such alternatives either dont exist or will take a huge sum to source - when producing new drugs is already a very lengthy and costly process (around 10yrs from design to final release i believe)


Thank you for your reply. However I do not understand the reasoning behind the emboldened text. If it is exactly the same product as was in the 'old' site and is only being moved (presumably in sealed containers) why does it need testing again?- Surely this counts as cruel and un-necessary?


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Playing devils advocate here.....
> 
> I would like to ask another thing about petfood testing....
> 
> ...


If it was just, make the food then feed it to cats/dogs to see if it works over a time period, people wouldn't object. But that's simply not how it's done. The animals are injected which certain chemicals found within the pet food, most are overdosed, that is wrong. And why would companies such as P&G syringe these chemicals into rabbits eyes?! Surely, cats and dogs don't feed through their eyes?
And the lack of vet treatment is wrong. Most animals suffer which no care or corcern about their wellbeing.
It's bad enough knowing what crap goes into cat/dog food let alone every last chemical which your dog/cat does not need. If all felines and canines can survive in the wild on just raw and without the use of testing, then theres simply no need for it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> Thank you for your reply. However I do not understand the reasoning behind the emboldened text. If it is exactly the same product as was in the 'old' site and is only being moved (presumably in sealed containers) why does it need testing again?- Surely this counts as cruel and un-necessary?


It is not necessarily animal testing, just a small possibility. Most companies now adhere to the 3r system when it comes to animal testing... so animal testing really is the last resort. This applies to pharma industry as well as any other. _I dont know if IAMS use this practice, but these days I would be suprised if they dont, after all the bad press in the past. I dont know about the pet food industry, or what they achieve through this form of animal testing, so will stick to what i do know about_

The 3 R's are:
Replacing studies using animals with other methods where possible 
Reducing the number of animals used in studies by applying new technologies or study methods 
Refining the techniques we use so that we eliminate or minimise pain and distress and improve animal welfare.

Product needs retesting following a transfer because no two factories are the same. Our products are moving to spain and canada so different environmental conditions (humidity and temperature) can have a huge affect on product. Also, the people and processes may be different. The ingredients are the same but the process is just as important on the final product - heating times, granulation processes, coating processes etc. It is a very careful balance of things to keep product the same everytime - as it has to be without fail, so these retests are necessary.

edit: When i say our product is being moved.. i mean it is being manufactured elsewhere - packing lines do not need retesting they can be bottled anywhere, but the manufacture of the product is heavily dependant on such environmental conditions and processes. Machines may be the same but the way people use them are different, they way in which the product is handled is different and the way in which they are set up between batches is different. All these things can effect a product. It is a lot more in depth than just packing up what we have and putting them on a lorry to spain 

Testing is to ensure that the processes and environment do not effect the final product.

Hope this helps 

edit: I am an engineer not a chemist so obviously have basic understanding of the chemistry of the products, I just know that we have to keep processes the same stringently (to even change a relay for the same thing but different brand we have to do 7 pages of paperwork in case something changes!!), and that if we let the environmental conditions waiver then a whole batch of product could be lost.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

Marcia said:


> If it was just, make the food then feed it to cats/dogs to see if it works over a time period, people wouldn't object. But that's simply not how it's done. The animals are injected which certain chemicals found within the pet food, most are overdosed, that is wrong. And why would companies such as P&G syringe these chemicals into rabbits eyes?! Surely, cats and dogs don't feed through their eyes?
> And the lack of vet treatment is wrong. Most animals suffer which no care or corcern about their wellbeing.
> It's bad enough knowing what crap goes into cat/dog food let alone every last chemical which your dog/cat does not need. If all felines and canines can survive in the wild on just raw and without the use of testing, then theres simply no need for it.


I didnt know this do you have any articals for me to read as im very interested and agree its wrong injecting into eyes.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've really enjoyed reading this thread, such a lot of different view points and ideas.
> 
> Not sure I get your logic there, shops will only stock things that sell, so the consumer demand is what puts it on the shelf in the first place?


Iams is well marketed so thats why shops stock it, for who ever wishs to feed there animals it, surely all animal foods are tested on animals the way other members have said so why is it always Iams that get the bad press.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> İ am also, type 1 Diabetic but made the decision that i would refuse insulin and medication.


so how do you manage to control you diabetes as from what ive read people who have type one are insulin dependant and can prove leathal to your health im just curious as to how you manage to control it. (not being nosey just curious)


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> I didnt know this do you have any articals for me to read as im very interested and agree its wrong injecting into eyes.


2 sources come from Peta and Uncaged which most people seem to completely disregard. But another comes from the BUAV website. I'll attempt to find the article


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Marcia said:


> 2 sources come from Peta and Uncaged which most people seem to completely disregard. But another comes from the BUAV website. I'll attempt to find the article


some info here Marcia, ive posted it before.
www.buav.org/pdf/H1PetFood.pdf


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

look at the date updated december 2005, things maybe different now.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Thank-you for the link, the problem you will find again though, is that it is yet another article from an animal rights group. For many people, they need to see hard evidence from independant studies rather than potentially hyped info from ARA (animal rights activists). 


I was however very pleased to see that the foods i feed my pets acording to that article, are not tested on animals , Personally I already boycotte nestle too - but thats for other reasons than petfood!, i had no idea that the owned the purina brands.

hmmm... I am sure some forms of testing would have gone on though (for the non-testing brands, maybe it should be non invasive or non vivesection brands), even if it was in a more natural way "lets feed it and record what happens", as otherwise they wouldnt be able to make the claims they do surely.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

Not reading through 208 replies! but it is not a food I would choose to buy! reasons I would suspect will have already have been flogged to death!
DT


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

DKDREAM said:


> look at the date updated december 2005, things maybe different now.


Sadly not. I received a reply from P & G stating while they still carried out experimentation, it is done humanely!!!!

There is absolutely NO need to test pet foods on animals, since there are far better products which are cruelty free, with no additives etc. etc.

These animals are suffering needlessly and I just cannot see any justification for this.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

i think all food must be tested some how, companies are not going to make a food up and say ah thats ok for animals lets sell it..... if anything went wrong they would be sued to hell.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

Late to this post - But I don't use Iams re the testing stuff but also am trying to convert my cats to raw so dry is very limited (do Iams do wet?)


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

hi spid yeah they do wet, i also feed raw to my cats but 2 of them are dry food addicts, not my fault as ive given them raw from 14 weeks they just wont eat it unless cooked.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

My cats are raw feeders too, but there is always a big bowl of (hardly touched lol) arden grange for them too. They also get forthglade wet food too, as when i go away its easier to trust people to open a packet rather than feed the raw diet properly.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> My cats are raw feeders too, but there is always a big bowl of (hardly touched lol) arden grange for them too. They also get forthglade wet food too, as when i go away its easier to trust people to open a packet rather than feed the raw diet properly.


im gonna use arden grange for them soon when i order some, they do get some Iams too not alot but some, never heard of forthglade though


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2009)

its a little known wet food (DT put me onto it). Similar to naturediet for dogs, but this one is suitable for cats. It has a 60% pure (as in no dried hydrolised cra*) meat content and weight for weight works out cheaper than whiskers!!!!!!!

I buy it in bulk from berriewood wholesale, along with the naturediet and arden grange.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

mine like natures menu, thats 70% meat i know. But Dreams fav is irish frying steak he loves it.


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

DKDREAM said:


> mine like natures menu, thats 70% meat i know. But Dreams fav is irish frying steak he loves it.


yeah, i love frying steak too.. cooked of course ...lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Thank-you for the link, the problem you will find again though, is that it is yet another article from an animal rights group. For many people, they need to see hard evidence from independant studies rather than potentially hyped info from ARA (animal rights activists).
> 
> I was however very pleased to see that the foods i feed my pets acording to that article, are not tested on animals , Personally I already boycotte nestle too - but thats for other reasons than petfood!, i had no idea that the owned the purina brands.
> 
> hmmm... I am sure some forms of testing would have gone on though (for the non-testing brands, maybe it should be non invasive or non vivesection brands), even if it was in a more natural way "lets feed it and record what happens", as otherwise they wouldnt be able to make the claims they do surely.


BUAV are a well respected Internationally, they are opposed to violence & intimidation, retailers such as Co-op & M&S, etc, use their endorsement to guarentee their products are cruelty free, so consumers can make a choice


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

marion..d said:


> yeah, i love frying steak too.. cooked of course ...lol


lol will think of you Marion next time he gets some hes had it twice this week


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> BUAV are a well respected Internationally, they are opposed to violence & intimidation, retailers such as Co-op & M&S, etc, use their endorsement to guarentee their products are cruelty free, so consumers can make a choice


And also, if BUAV were just mad animal rights activists, why would the co-op print BUAV all over their carrier bags?
The co-op are very proud to be one of the few supermarkets that doesn't sell products tested on animals.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Savahl said:


> sadly the same rules dont apply for consumables like the body shop as the pharma industry. A small change in a process of ingredient can have dramatic effects and require lengthy and costly testing. Even moving product off one site to another for manufacture requires new testing by law. (which is why it takes 3 yrs to close the site i work on)
> 
> Even something as simple as a tablet coating can have an effect on how the drug performs as they are carefully engineered to act in a certain way and dissolve at a certain speed to ensure the product acts as it should. Things are not as simple as "just finding an alternative", as such alternatives either dont exist or will take a huge sum to source - when producing new drugs is already a very lengthy and costly process (around 10yrs from design to final release i believe)


You are looking closer to 15 years from design to final release, and one of the reasons the drugs are so expensive is because testing and marketing them is expensive. For an oncology study you are looking at about $60k per patient at a minimum. You will have a minimum of 3 studies which will range from about 15 patients to 300. If you are looking at marketing in countries such as china you will have to do it all over again. Testing prices are ridiculous. i also think that whilst a lot of us like to think we are noble when it comes to drugs tested on animals, how many of you would really turn down a lifesaving drug because it was tested on animals? I think very few people actually would, if they were being honest with themselves.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> You are looking closer to 15 years from design to final release, and one of the reasons the drugs are so expensive is because testing and marketing them is expensive. For an oncology study you are looking at about $60k per patient at a minimum. You will have a minimum of 3 studies which will range from about 15 patients to 300. If you are looking at marketing in countries such as china you will have to do it all over again. Testing prices are ridiculous. i also think that whilst a lot of us like to think we are noble when it comes to drugs tested on animals, how many of you would really turn down a lifesaving drug because it was tested on animals? I think very few people actually would, if they were being honest with themselves.


yea i done a little research after i posted and all of our stuff says 10-15yrs depending on the market (the china market is alot more demanding and deman must higher levels of control, we only have a few lines running for the chinese market but it is obvious they demand lots more)

and no, i cant see many people turning down lifesaving drugs for thme or their family cos its animal tested.

Sadly it is still a very necessary part of the industry, and if we want to devlop better treatment for fatal or debilitating illnesses, it will carry on.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Marcia said:


> And also, if BUAV were just mad animal rights activists, why would the co-op print BUAV all over their carrier bags?
> The co-op are very proud to be one of the few supermarkets that doesn't sell products tested on animals.


thats right xx, i get all my household products from co-op because i trust the BUAV endorsement that their products are cruelty free


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

What I can't understand is why these companies don't get together and lobby the governments to change the laws in order to pool information, save money, time and animals. Surely it would be better than having to repeat tests over and over getting the same results? It would also get life saving medicines out onto the market quicker wouldn't it? I may be totally naive but I still can't believe the waste of life and time and money it takes for all this testing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> What I can't understand is why these companies don't get together and lobby the governments to change the laws in order to pool information, save money, time and animals. Surely it would be better than having to repeat tests over and over getting the same results? It would also get life saving medicines out onto the market quicker wouldn't it? I may be totally naive but I still can't believe the waste of life and time and money it takes for all this testing.


Sorry but it is a necessary evil with drugs. there are no viable alternatives to testing sometimes. and as much as they may seem unecessary, they really are needed. small changes can have fatal affects on a patient, and so even environmental changes require a degree of testing (i dont know what tests these are) to ensure quality product is going out to the patient. You cant just not test on the assumption things havent changed, when there is a very real chance they have. Its not like these tests happen with drugs being produced at the same place for 10yrs with the same process, its only new products or when the product has been redesigned (chemically) or process significantly changed.

Medicines are tested this way for a reason. Even after many many years of clincal trials and testing some new products dont even make it to the market as a particular test brings something unexpected up. Id rather they took so long and did the job than rushed and and inadequate.

As for pooling information, i dont see how this would make a difference. Testing will use assumptions based on past knowledge but you cant predict how chemicals react with each othe in different processes and combinations - with pharma it is simply too dangerous to make this assumptions.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

JUst popped in for my steak! Darn it you fed it to the cats didn't you?!


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

Savahl said:


> Sorry but it is a necessary evil with drugs. there are no viable alternatives to testing sometimes. and as much as they may seem unecessary, they really are needed. small changes can have fatal affects on a patient, and so even environmental changes require a degree of testing (i dont know what tests these are) to ensure quality product is going out to the patient. You cant just not test on the assumption things havent changed, when there is a very real chance they have. Its not like these tests happen with drugs being produced at the same place for 10yrs with the same process, its only new products or when the product has been redesigned (chemically) or process significantly changed.
> 
> Medicines are tested this way for a reason. Even after many many years of clincal trials and testing some new products dont even make it to the market as a particular test brings something unexpected up. Id rather they took so long and did the job than rushed and and inadequate.
> 
> As for pooling information, i dont see how this would make a difference. Testing will use assumptions based on past knowledge but you cant predict how chemicals react with each othe in different processes and combinations - with pharma it is simply too dangerous to make this assumptions.


Thanks for your answer but as you may have read in one of my earlier posts, even all the testing doesn't work sometimes... So I will have to just agree to disagree. It has been a very interesting and informative thread.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> What I can't understand is why these companies don't get together and lobby the governments to change the laws in order to pool information, save money, time and animals. Surely it would be better than having to repeat tests over and over getting the same results? It would also get life saving medicines out onto the market quicker wouldn't it? I may be totally naive but I still can't believe the waste of life and time and money it takes for all this testing.


First you have to test the compound. Then you will test the drug on animals to see what effect it will have on a living species. This is where a lot of drugs will get thrown out. This process will take about 10 years. Once you believe it is safe for use in people, a small number of healthy volunteers will be take part in tests to see the effects it has. They have to have done an obscene amount of tests before it can get this far. Once you have analysed results in healthy volunteers, you then start testing in the people with the disease you are trying to cure. You are looking at about 5 yaers minimum for this stage, longer if it is an oncology study, or a rare disease. This is why it costs money, and as much as people hate it, it is a business which is why they won't pool resources. If maybe the government funded more scientific research that would help reduce costs. As it is, very few studies are undertaken by the NHS due to the costs associated with the testing side.

This is only a basic summary of how the industry works. there are a variety of aspects involved, which will differ according to study/therapeutica area. The tests need to be done - would you take something, or give something to your child, that hadn't been tested properly?


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> would you take something, or give something to your child, that hadn't been tested properly?


This is basically what it all comes down to


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Marcia said:


> And also, if BUAV were just mad animal rights activists, why would the co-op print BUAV all over their carrier bags?
> The co-op are very proud to be one of the few supermarkets that doesn't sell products tested on animals.


absolutely!!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> You are looking closer to 15 years from design to final release, and one of the reasons the drugs are so expensive is because testing and marketing them is expensive. For an oncology study you are looking at about $60k per patient at a minimum. You will have a minimum of 3 studies which will range from about 15 patients to 300. If you are looking at marketing in countries such as china you will have to do it all over again. Testing prices are ridiculous. i also think that whilst a lot of us like to think we are noble when it comes to drugs tested on animals, *how many of you would really turn down a lifesaving drug because it was tested on animals? I think very few people actually would, if they were being honest with *themselves.


İ do every day!! İ make a choice not to take the insulin my body requires.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İ do every day!! İ make a choice not to take the insulin my body requires.


My question was how many people would, and I think you are one of very few.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> My question was how many people would, and I think you are one of very few.


i agree, very few people would


----------



## Barney (Feb 24, 2008)

well i wouldnt turn down life saving medicine no matter what it had been tested on i love animals but i love my kids and claire more and would do anything to be able to stay alive and be with em like it or lump it


----------



## Barney (Feb 24, 2008)

we could test these things on rapists murderers and child molesters but there are even more DO gooders that wont let that happen


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

Goat Boy said:


> well i wouldnt turn down life saving medicine no matter what it had been tested on i love animals but i love my kids and claire more and would do anything to be able to stay alive and be with em like it or lump it


thats so nice ................


----------



## Barney (Feb 24, 2008)

marion..d said:


> thats so nice ................


cheers marion lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2009)

Goat Boy said:


> well i wouldnt turn down life saving medicine no matter what it had been tested on i love animals but i love my kids and claire more and would do anything to be able to stay alive and be with em like it or lump it


That is so sweet and honest of you.  



Goat Boy said:


> we could test these things on rapists murderers and child molesters but there are even more DO gooders that wont let that happen


My thoughts exactly...well said. :thumbup1:


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

spid said:


> JUst popped in for my steak! Darn it you fed it to the cats didn't you?!


PMSL Spid, they loved every mouth full


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Goat Boy said:


> we could test these things on rapists murderers and child molesters but there are even more DO gooders that wont let that happen


Theres a whole prison population who could be used much more effectively than animals.


----------



## Barney (Feb 24, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> Theres a whole prison population who could be used much more effectively than animals.


lets get started on em then they good for fuuck all else


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goat Boy said:


> lets get started on em then they good for fuuck all else


i'm in favour of this:thumbsup: send em to the labs!!!


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

Absolutely, send them in with Garry Glitter leading the way :thumbup:


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Goat Boy said:


> lets get started on em then they good for fuuck all else


My belief system may not be popular with you but it does not stetch to Rapists murders child abusers peodophiles or born again christians - they could all put there lives to some use and save innocent lives.:thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İ am also, type 1 Diabetic but made the decision that i would refuse insulin and medication.


How long have you been a diabetic?


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

20 years!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> 20 years!!


So what medication do you take for it to keep it under control?


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> So what medication do you take for it to keep it under control?


im sure i asked this and it got ignored??? Id love to know what medication if any you take to control it.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> So what medication do you take for it to keep it under control?


Refuse all medications.


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> Refuse all medications.


my hubby is diabetic. his exact words were ' how you still alive'

Type 1 diabetes used to be called 'insulin dependent diabetes.
This is because this type of diabetes always requires insulin treatment.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

marion..d said:


> my hubby is diabetic. his exact words were ' how you still alive'
> 
> Type 1 diabetes used to be called 'insulin dependent diabetes.
> This is because this type of diabetes always requires insulin treatment.


Although my bloods always run high and without insulin have poor control İ do use natural blood glucose controllers. İ do not take any form of poison into my body such as meat alcohol etc... İ use no form of medication for any ailments.


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> Although my bloods always run high and without insulin have poor control İ do use natural blood glucose controllers. İ do not take any form of poison into my body such as meat alcohol etc... İ use no form of medication for any ailments.


you have me interested............. what natural blood glucose controllers..


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> Refuse all medications.


Well it surprises me you are alive then.


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

this is taken from a diabetic forum that my hubby uses

Often referred to as juvenile diabetes, type 1 diabetes is a less common form of diabetes mellitus. An autoimmune disease that permanently destroys beta cells in the pancreas, meaning that the body can longer produce insulin, type 1 is deadly without regular insulin injections.

Type 1 is an insidious disease, for which no prevention is currently possible (unlike type 2 diabetes.) Those people affected by type 1 diabetes are often healthy before diagnosis. Although diet and exercise have a role to play in type 1 diabetes management, they cannot reverse the disease or eliminate the need for insulin.
Type 1 diabetes symptoms should be acted upon immediately, as without treatment this type of diabetes can be deadly. 

you have me intrigued how you still alive .......


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

marion..d said:


> this is taken from a diabetic forum that my hubby uses
> 
> Often referred to as juvenile diabetes, type 1 diabetes is a less common form of diabetes mellitus. An autoimmune disease that permanently destroys beta cells in the pancreas, meaning that the body can longer produce insulin, type 1 is deadly without regular insulin injections.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post Marion....there will be many im sure who will be curious to know how he is still alive.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

marion..d said:


> this is taken from a diabetic forum that my hubby uses
> 
> Often referred to as juvenile diabetes, type 1 diabetes is a less common form of diabetes mellitus. An autoimmune disease that permanently destroys beta cells in the pancreas, meaning that the body can longer produce insulin, type 1 is deadly without regular insulin injections.
> 
> ...


Good post Marion, i am also intrigued!!!


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Brilliant post Marion....there will be many im sure who will be curious to know how he is still alive.


my current regime consists of Aloe Vera Gingseng cinnamon regular meal planning (6 small meals a day) and a daily regime of walking swimming. İ am not going to suggest that my blood levels remain at a satisfactory level - they dont but i remain well work and enjoy my life within my ethical belief system. İ also use crystal therapy as a healing tool. the use of properties in gemstones and crystals to bring about balance and wellness for myself. You can intuitively choose what crystals are appropriate for you.

İ dont believe in conventional medicine and do not visit a doctor. İn fact İ believe Doctors make you sick (ill). İ dont eat any animal derivatives or dairy products - use Wheatgrass milk soya milk or rice milk. One of the huge difficulties here is avoiding natural sugars - particularly at the moment with peaches and apricots coming into season.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> my current regime consists of Aloe Vera Gingseng cinnamon regular meal planning (6 small meals a day) and a daily regime of walking swimming. İ am not going to suggest that my blood levels remain at a satisfactory level - they dont but i remain well work and enjoy my life within my ethical belief system. İ also use crystal therapy as a healing tool. İ dont believe in conventional medicine and do not visit a doctor.


I have to admit, i do admire you ethics and ideals, and the fact that you stick to them, even if you are risking your life.

My life would be unbearablle without my medication, and i do feel a certain amount of guilt, knowing that it was tested on animals. I do do my bit for animals rights (within the law - i dont agree with those who just threaten people or let captive animals free) in a kinda of redemptive manner.


----------



## Claire&Taz (Mar 29, 2009)

Without the medication I have taken in the past and the medication I take on a daily basis I would have died aged 17. No I would not refuse medication tested on animals nor would I expect anyone else to however I do campaign for more research to be done in alternative testing. I would volunteer to be a guinea pig myself but no one would want my crappy body  

Back to the original question.... We are hoping to keep her ladyship on a diet of iams senior dry food and natures menu pouches.


----------



## MarthaT (Jan 27, 2009)

Ive used it in the past, no real complaints here


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> İ also use crystal therapy as a healing tool. the use of properties in gemstones and crystals to bring about balance and wellness for myself. You can intuitively choose what crystals are appropriate for you.
> 
> İn fact İ believe Doctors make you sick (ill).


You seriously believe crystals/stones actually have powers? You also believe doctors make you ill?....Ive heard it all now.


----------



## Sampuppy (Oct 22, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> My belief system may not be popular with you but it does not stetch to Rapists murders child abusers peodophiles or born again christians - they could all put there lives to some use and save innocent lives.:thumbup:


Forgive me but i'm struggling to undertstand where you are coming from?? I thought you were a social worker when you were in this country and therefore thought you had the welfare of innocent people at your heart?? so where does the fact that you want to protect abusers come into it?? Apologies if I have misunderstood you!!


----------



## Marcia (Mar 10, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> You seriously believe crystals/stones actually have powers? You also believe doctors make you ill?....Ive heard it all now.


Quite a number of people i know have or still use crystals/stones for use in regards to their healing properties. I for one have never used any but that doesn't mean that i don't believe.

Turkeylad, good on you and you're clearly doing very well for yourself to still be alive


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

Marcia said:


> Quite a number of people i know have or still use crystals/stones for use in regards to their healing properties. I for one have never used any but that doesn't mean that i don't believe.
> 
> Turkeylad, good on you and you're clearly doing very well for yourself to still be alive


Some people will believe anything...it amazes me how many people believe what they think sounds good but do no research. Here's a good link to all those who are easily fooled into believing such stuff:

Crystal healing: Does it work? - by Craig Hawkins - Helium


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Some people will believe anything...it amazes me how many people believe what they think sounds good but do no research.
> 
> Surely he is allowed to believe in whatever he wants, especially if he believes it helps him? The positive power of the brain has been proven scientifically, so .... Turkeylad also sounds like someone who would research ad infinitum!


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> FREE SPIRIT said:
> 
> 
> > Some people will believe anything...it amazes me how many people believe what they think sounds good but do no research.
> ...


----------



## Sampuppy (Oct 22, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Guinevere13 said:
> 
> 
> > Positive thoughts are one thing but that has nothing to do with crystals having powers and no matter how much positive thinking you do/have, it cannot medicate type 1 diabetics. Of course people can believe in what they want...santa and tooth fairies included...but facts are facts.
> ...


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

Sampuppy said:


> FREE SPIRIT said:
> 
> 
> > Yep - agree fully!!! and I believe in Santa too!!!
> ...


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

Sampuppy said:


> Forgive me but i'm struggling to undertstand where you are coming from?? I thought you were a social worker when you were in this country and therefore thought you had the welfare of innocent people at your heart?? so where does the fact that you want to protect abusers come into it?? Apologies if I have misunderstood you!!


that was a particular comment for that poster which you have misread!!


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I dont think its fair to say doctors make you ill, when if it wasnt for doctors I would not be alive, I wouldnt refuse drugs, TL what would you do if you needed medical care if you had an accident, god forbid? I dont wish it on anyone but im just curious as to weather or not you would recive care


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> I dont think its fair to say doctors make you ill, when if it wasnt for doctors I would not be alive, I wouldnt refuse drugs, TL what would you do if you needed medical care if you had an accident, god forbid? I dont wish it on anyone but im just curious as to weather or not you would recive care


Well no doubt that's where the crystals come in.


----------



## Sampuppy (Oct 22, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> that was a particular comment for that poster which you have misread!!


I soooooo apologise!!!! I am not gifted in the brain department i'm afraid


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Some people will believe anything...it amazes me how many people believe what they think sounds good but do no research. Here's a good link to all those who are easily fooled into believing such stuff:
> 
> Crystal healing: Does it work? - by Craig Hawkins - Helium


Please theres a whole bunch of people on here that believe in GOd - now thats what i call İ have heard it all. Crystal Therapy like alternative medicines date way back. İn the Village İ live in most medicine is practiced by the old women of the village who will create a herbal potion for anything you wish for and yes İ believe that there is huge reliance upon medical science much of which is exploritative in terms of its diagnostics. They add a cocktail of this and a cocktail of that and if it dont kill you people tend to believe its made them better. İ believe in the power of my body to heal or maintain itself.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> I dont think its fair to say doctors make you ill, when if it wasnt for doctors I would not be alive, I wouldnt refuse drugs, TL what would you do if you needed medical care if you had an accident, god forbid? I dont wish it on anyone but im just curious as to weather or not you would recive care


My family and friends know my wishes and would not allow me to have any intervention that went against my beliefs.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

what i think you seem to forget it animals helped you understand your condition without testing on animals you wouldnt have understood it. So i think you have to see positive side of animal testing


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> Please theres a whole bunch of people on here that believe in GOd - now thats what i call İ have heard it all. Crystal Therapy like alternative medicines date way back. İn the Village İ live in most medicine is practiced by the old women of the village who will create a herbal potion for anything you wish for and yes İ believe that there is huge reliance upon medical science much of which is exploritative in terms of its diagnostics. They add a cocktail of this and a cocktail of that and if it dont kill you people tend to believe its made them better. İ believe in the power of my body to heal or maintain itself.


As i have stated many times on here...each to their own and i respect everyones beliefs....but tell me something? You claim that doctors make you ill and you refuse all medication but you trust vets and get your dogs vaccinated. 
Am i missing something or are you contradicting yourself and your beliefs?....why not use your healing powers from your crystals to treat your dogs? It would save on vet fees surely especially if they are so powerful as to keep your condition of being type 1 diabetic under control.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> what i think you seem to forget it animals helped you understand your condition without testing on animals you wouldnt have understood it. So i think you have to see positive side of animal testing


What utter rubbish - i recieved a diagnosis which İ declined to be treated for and have refused all medical intervention. İn the same way i would not allow my family to allow any form of medical intervention be it a blood transfusion or an operation.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I think your rude and talk absolute rubbish im fed up of talking to you you belive what you think is right with your crystals


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> As i have stated many times on here...each to their own and i respect everyones beliefs....but tell me something? You claim that doctors make you ill and you refuse all medication but you trust vets and get your dogs vaccinated.
> Am i missing something or are you contradicting yourself and your beliefs?....why not use your healing powers from your crystals to treat your dogs? It would save on vet fees surely especially if they are so powerful as to keep your condition of being type 1 diabetic under control.


As i have said so many times it is not my right tto make a decision for another living thing in terms of intervention - İ would use alternatives alonside conventional vetinary care for my animals. My parents who are also Vegan and believe in alternative medicine but would choose to use some forms of conventional medication. İ have never said it keeps my diabetes under control -- it assists in my functioning within my ethical standards.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

turkeylad said:


> As i have said so many times it is not my right tto make a decision for another living thing in terms of intervention - İ would use alternatives alonside conventional vetinary care for my animals. My parents who are also Vegan and believe in alternative medicine but would choose to use some forms of conventional medication. İ have never said it keeps my diabetes under control -- it assists in my functioning within my ethical standards.


You keep saying it's not your right to make a decision over your pets but surely your beliefs would over ride such rights? Also YES you did state earlier you kept your condition under control, so why back track and say otherwise now?


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

so do you ever check your blood sugar levels, and if you do what are they. i have see my hubby suffer both hypo's and hyper's.. each time he needed immediate medical help.. and this is with him taking insulin


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> You keep saying it's not your right to make a decision over your pets but surely your beliefs would over ride such rights? Also YES you did state earlier you kept your condition under control, so why back track and say otherwise now?


İ said that my bloods run high but that i have some controls as i use alternative. My condition is under control in so far as i live and survive with it.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

marion..d said:


> so do you ever check your blood sugar levels, and if you do what are they. i have see my hubby suffer both hypo's and hyper's.. each time he needed immediate medical help.. and this is with him taking insulin


Very rarely because i know that by choosing not to take insulin İ constantly live in a state of being Hyper. İ dont have hypos because i dont take insulin.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

you maybe interested in this......... who talks rubbish???

Free - Why PETA is Against More Usual Diabetes Research Psychic Against


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> Very rarely because i know that by choosing not to take insulin İ constantly live in a state of being Hyper. İ dont have hypos because i dont take insulin.


but being in a state of hyper you are doing so much damage to your kidneys and other organs..... does that not worry you at all..


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

marion..d said:


> but being in a state of hyper you are doing so much damage to your kidneys and other organs..... does that not worry you at all..


yes and making the choice i make comes with all sorts of comlications such as diabetic nuropathy which is extremely painful but for me medical choices choices would be even more unbearable....when i was first diagnosed synthetic insulins were almost non existent and choces were animal insulin.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

turkeylad said:


> yes and making the choice i make comes with all sorts of comlications such as diabetic nuropathy which is extremely painful but for me medical choices choices would be even more unbearable....when i was first diagnosed synthetic insulins were almost non existent and choces were animal insulin.


well i have to say i do admire you for sticking to your principles.


----------

