# James Wellbeloved Tested On Animals



## meggiemoo (Nov 15, 2009)

hi,i feed my shihtzu on James wellbeloved and have just been on a food review site.Has anyone else heard that they do horrific testing on animals as i am quite concerned with what i have just read.thanks


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2009)

I didn't think James Wellbeloved were one of the companies that tested on animals? 
I know for sure Iams test on animals.
Will have to read up on this!! 

xx


----------



## meggiemoo (Nov 15, 2009)

if you find anything out please post,i am quite concerned.The review site i went on said that jwb is part of the same company as pedigree.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

I've heard about this but I don't think it's tested on animals if the ingrediants are still the same before Pedigree took over. It's the only thing Cheeko can eat anyway without making him ill.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2009)

Just done some research, the same company that owns pedigree is the sister company to the company that owns JWB apparently, but this doesn't mean they test on animals!! xx


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

By definition, products for animals are generally tested on animals. And rightly so, I wouldn't want to buy a new brand of dog food only to be told mine would be the first. That could be catastrophic if there's a problem!

The Iams testing was blown out of proportion as a post on this forum explains, I imagine JWB are becoming a victim of the same style of reporting.

Do some proper research, was it JWB who conducted the nasty style of testing or a research lab they hired? Who else does that lab work for? Are the name brands aware that research is being done in this way?


----------



## MoonStr80 (Mar 21, 2009)

Would you have the article stating about animal testing on JW? 

Thanx


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2009)

This is their response:

"James Wellbeloved do no use any invasive methods of testing, the only testing we do is concerned with the palatability of our products. Please find below a copy of our company statement. 

Company Statement
In view of recent stories in the press about cruel animal testing by pet food companies, James Wellbeloved would like to make the following statement: 

1. We undertake no testing on animals other than that which is concerned with the palatability of our foods. Much of our palatability testing takes place on pets owned by members of staff at home. Because the tests involve the animals concerned in trying a number of different and tasty foods, they normally enjoy the tests very much! 
2. No test interferes in any unnatural way with the physiology of the animal nor produces any distress in that animal. 
3. During the palatability tests, we take scientific measurements concerned with the quantities eaten and the speed and eagerness of eating. We also make subsequent analyses of naturally excreted stool and urine to ensure that our foods are as healthy as possible. These are the only scientific measurements that we undertake. 
4. We are a company of animal lovers and most of our staff have pets themselves. We view the welfare and happiness of pets as being of the greatest 

importance. The thought of harming any pet for commercial reasons is therefore abhorrent to us and would be totally contrary to the ethic of the company. 

I hope this has answered your queries and if we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us again 

Regards
Roxanne Dove
Customer Services
Nutritional Advisor"


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2009)

The company "Masterfoods" owns or has shares with:

Cesar, Chappie, Frolic, Pal, Pedigree, James Wellbeloved, Royal Canin

as seen on this website: Pet Food Choice - Insider report on pet foods brands

Why did James Wellbeloved change from "Crown pet foods ltd" to "Masterfoods" that's probably why they have gone down hill!!

My dogs are on Burns now anyway  They LOVE it xx


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Random trivia: Masterfoods is a HUGE HUGE company, they probably bought the JWB brand. Masterfoods also own MARS, SNICKERS, GALAXY, MALTESERS, EXTRA, ORBIT, PEDIGREE, WHISKAS, UNCLE BENS, DOLMIO, KLIX and FLAVIA.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

JWB themselves may not physically do the testing but this is just the brand - the main company Masterfoods (Mars Inc) does test on animals.

google vivisection - lots of interesting information!

it is not just food testing for palatability - the animals are often kept in labs for periods of 15 years to do their tests and subjected to numerous and very regular invasive tests, among other things, which causes high stress levels in the animals (if living in a lab didnt do this to them in the first place).

as they have to test different formulations and different amounts etc, some dogs are fed half the amount that another would be fed for long periods of time etc...

if animal testing is a concern to you, look into brands such as Burns.

I believe that the following are all dubious when it comes to animal testing - often you wont find any info on the brand itself, but you just have to look at the company that owns, develops and manufactures it to realise - i think this is more or less up to date:

Nestle Purina/ Friskies: Alpo, Bonio, Felix, Go Cat, Gourmet, Omega Complete, Pro Plan, Spillers, Vital Balance, Winalot

Pedigree/ Masterfoods (Mars inc): Bounce, Ceasar, Chappie, Frolic, James Wellbeloved, Katkins, Kitekat, Pal, Pedigree Chum, Royal Canin, Sheba, Techni-Cal ( US and Canada), Whiskas, Pedigree also manufactures Thomas rabbit food and Thrill bird food.

Iams/ Eukanuba: owned by Proctor and Gamble

Hills Science Diet/Science Plan: owned by Colgate Palmolive


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> By definition, products for animals are generally tested on animals. And rightly so, I wouldn't want to buy a new brand of dog food only to be told mine would be the first. That could be catastrophic if there's a problem!
> 
> The Iams testing was blown out of proportion as a post on this forum explains, I imagine JWB are becoming a victim of the same style of reporting.
> 
> Do some proper research, was it JWB who conducted the nasty style of testing or a research lab they hired? Who else does that lab work for? Are the name brands aware that research is being done in this way?


The Iams testing was some of the most barbaric Animal testing the pet food industry has ever seen. Does anyone not remember the media coverage a number of years ago.........the campaign to stop these horrific practices was headed up by Morrisey ( he of The Smiths ). Based on this alone, I would never ever touch the stuff, nor Eukanuba which is part & parcel of the same.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Roo said:


> The Iams testing was some of the most barbaric Animal testing the pet food industry has ever seen. Does anyone not remember the media coverage a number of years ago.........the campaign to stop these horrific practices was headed up by Morrisey ( he of The Smiths ). Based on this alone, I would never ever touch the stuff, nor Eukanuba which is part & parcel of the same.


:thumbup1:


----------



## Road_Hog (Dec 8, 2008)

slicksps said:


> By definition, products for animals are generally tested on animals. And rightly so, I wouldn't want to buy a new brand of dog food only to be told mine would be the first. That could be catastrophic if there's a problem!
> 
> The Iams testing was blown out of proportion as a post on this forum explains, I imagine JWB are becoming a victim of the same style of reporting.
> 
> Do some proper research, was it JWB who conducted the nasty style of testing or a research lab they hired? Who else does that lab work for? Are the name brands aware that research is being done in this way?


 Do you work for one of the said companies that does animal testing, it does sound like you do.


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> The Iams testing was some of the most barbaric Animal testing the pet food industry has ever seen. Does anyone not remember the media coverage a number of years ago.........the campaign to stop these horrific practices was headed up by Morrisey ( he of The Smiths ). Based on this alone, I would never ever touch the stuff, nor Eukanuba which is part & parcel of the same.


Media coverage is the operative word. Read beyond the media coverage and you'll see a whole different story. Iams was never charged with animal cruelty despite the 'evidence'. This post has more information: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/74191-iams-charged-cruelty-animals.html



Road_Hog said:


> Do you work for one of the said companies that does animal testing, it does sound like you do.


Not at all. I don't condone invasive animal testing, but what upsets me more is people who believe the media without actually looking into details. I am a businessperson (in a complately different line of work) and to see business suffer from hearsay can be painful to see. The internet and media is full of c**p. Some of it is painstakingly researched and true, much of it is completely made up. Some stories like the Iams story is a complete mishmash of information aimed at destroying a whole brand. Iams had 19 dogs at a huge independent research facility. They were unaware of the cruelty going on there and the second they found out, they removed their 19 animals. The research facility WAS charged, and just because Iams used them for their dogs, Iams gets the blame... why? Because people know Iams, it's an easy target and one that sells papers.

Oh a newspaper is also a business, with one thing in mind. Not to report or give information, but to sell papers! They only make money when someone picks up and buys a paper. Truth is a partially necessary evil.


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Media coverage is the operative word. Read beyond the media coverage and you'll see a whole different story. Iams was never charged with animal cruelty despite the 'evidence'. This post has more information: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/74191-iams-charged-cruelty-animals.html
> 
> Not at all. I don't condone invasive animal testing, but what upsets me more is people who believe the media without actually looking into details. I am a businessperson (in a complately different line of work) and to see business suffer from hearsay can be painful to see. The internet and media is full of c**p. Some of it is painstakingly researched and true, much of it is completely made up. Some stories like the Iams story is a complete mishmash of information aimed at destroying a whole brand. Iams had 19 dogs at a huge independent research facility. They were unaware of the cruelty going on there and the second they found out, they removed their 19 animals. The research facility WAS charged, and just because Iams used them for their dogs, Iams gets the blame... why? Because people know Iams, it's an easy target and one that sells papers.
> 
> Oh a newspaper is also a business, with one thing in mind. Not to report or give information, but to sell papers! They only make money when someone picks up and buys a paper. Truth is a partially necessary evil.


OJ Simpson wasn't charged either.................
Ok , i'll cut the sarcasm but to believe that Iams ( brand ) had no idea how their product was being tested is naive beyond belief. Firstly, THEY commissioned the said lab to test, but only after signed agreement of HOW they would test & the cost implications of this. It happens.....it happened & it's a blinkered approach to the truth that allows it to continue to happen. The company that makes Herbal Essences for example still have rigerous testing on animals........& guess what....it's totally legal but TOTALLY WRONG. We as a country have the worse record for animal testing than any other country in the EU.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

a quick question:...
sorry as i don;t really get precisely the point...
it's dog food, why it should not be tested on dogs?

practically all human food is tested on human....

but probably i'm missing the point

care to explain please?
thanks
d


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> a quick question:...
> sorry as i don;t really get precisely the point...
> it's dog food, why it should not be tested on dogs?
> 
> ...


hey dimkaz - i think mainly because it is not just normal palatability testing and taste testing etc...

the animals often spend their lives in labs - they are given the food - and then to check it is safe etc, they do numerous invasive tests on them very regularly...

And I guess that is at the tame end of it...


----------



## DelboyTrotter (Nov 14, 2009)

JWB was taken over by the Mars group a while back, so don't really need to spell it out.


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> to believe that Iams ( brand ) had no idea how their product was being tested is naive beyond belief. Firstly, THEY commissioned the said lab to test, but only after signed agreement of HOW they would test & the cost implications of this.


All we know for certain is the lab that Iams used did run horrific tests on animals. But Iams had 19 dogs in a huge facility so there's no way of knowing which dogs were used in this test. We do know that as soon as Iams found out, it pulled 19 of it's own live dogs from the facility and has not been reported for anything similar since.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

slicksps said:


> All we know for certain is the lab that Iams used did run horrific tests on animals. But Iams had 19 dogs in a huge facility so there's no way of knowing which dogs were used in this test. We do know that as soon as Iams found out, it pulled 19 of it's own live dogs from the facility and has not been reported for anything similar since.


But slicks, I agree with you about not believing everything in the media, however, we cannot ignore the fact that even if Iams was not doing anything, they are really just a brand owned by a massive company - Proctor & Gamble...who are known for testing on animal practices.

But remember as well that the things they do may not be illegal and therefore prosecutable, but are unethical - so it doesn't make the things right 

Going back to James Well Belloved - same thing, owned by Masterfoods, part of Mars Inc - and this is the same situation. JWB was a very good brand, but now it has been bought by them it has been tainted with their unethical practices.


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Either way, yes we're off-topic. I've said my bit and I can see lots of anti-Iams people out there who aren't willing to do their own research.

DimKaz - Yes all pet food is tested on animals, but the happy testing is feeding it to a group of family puppies to see if they like it. The bad testing which concerns people is when they feed a group of surgically debarked puppies their food to then cut them open at various stages of digestion to see what happened. Or chunks of flesh cut off a live animal to check muscle composition and effects.

Unfortunately many human products are tested in the same or even worse ways on dogs and other animals (because they certainly couldn't do this to humans)


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Either way, yes we're off-topic. I've said my bit and I can see lots of anti-Iams people out there who aren't willing to do their own research.
> 
> DimKaz - Yes all pet food is tested on animals, but the happy testing is feeding it to a group of family puppies to see if they like it. The bad testing which concerns people is when they feed a group of surgically debarked puppies their food to then cut them open at various stages of digestion to see what happened. Or chunks of flesh cut off a live animal to check muscle composition and effects.
> 
> Unfortunately many human products are tested in the same or even worse ways on dogs and other animals (because they certainly couldn't do this to humans)


And how the hec do you know that people haven't done their own research?!!!!! 
I, as i'm sure many members of this forum have & therefore they have a right to express their opinion without snide little comments from you.


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> And how the hec do you know that people haven't done their own research?!!!!!


Because no-one has provided evidence to this barbaric practice 

Please do prove me wrong without using PETA's website.

People do have a right to express their opinion. I have no problem with that at all. But some people like to put their opinions across as FACT while using "didn't you read it in the papers?" as their best argument.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

slicksps said:


> Because no-one has provided evidence to this barbaric practice


I did suggest googling 'vivisection' to the OP in an earlier post - it is very interesting the amount of proper reports and info you can find - this is not a new issue. The thing is, as I said, it depends what evidence you want - a lot of the things going on are ok to some people, so fair enough, each to their own - but then to others even the milder practices are still viewed as very unethical...so i think a lot of it is also subjective.

As per anything else though, clearly there is also a lot of old rubbish out there and people would have to use their common sense to weed out the truth... seem to be finding that out with everything I research on animals! ...raw feeding, pet nutrition, whether to spay a bitch before first season/after first season...etc, the list goes on.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

For info if anyone would like to look at a list of companies that are anti-vivisection:
Uncaged Campaigns: Pet food and animal testing


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Because no-one has provided evidence to this barbaric practice
> 
> Please do prove me wrong without using PETA's website.
> 
> People do have a right to express their opinion. I have no problem with that at all. But some people like to put their opinions across as FACT while using "didn't you read it in the papers?" as their best argument.


Tell you what, you prove me wrong! As someone mentioned earlier, we can all pull up information for each argument. And why, prey tell can't people use PETA........you're not telling me that you think that you are better informed than these people?! Oh & while we're on the subject, have you ever been in one of these labs? I have & you can smell the fear, you can hear it, you can taste it.........HORRIFIC. So if you feel the need to defend someone, defend the innocent creatures that are put under this uneccessary suffering not the shallow minded, cold hearted, selfish idiots who commission these barbaric acts...........& the ones who defend them...!


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

Roo said:


> Tell you what, you prove me wrong! As someone mentioned earlier, we can all pull up information for each argument. And why, prey tell can't people use PETA........you're not telling me that you think that you are better informed than these people?! Oh & while we're on the subject, have you ever been in one of these labs? I have & you can smell the fear, you can hear it, you can taste it.........HORRIFIC. So if you feel the need to defend someone, defend the innocent creatures that are put under this uneccessary suffering not the shallow minded, cold hearted, selfish idiots who commission these barbaric acts...........& the ones who defend them...![/QUOTE


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Because no-one has provided evidence to this barbaric practice
> 
> Please do prove me wrong without using PETA's website.
> 
> People do have a right to express their opinion. I have no problem with that at all. But some people like to put their opinions across as FACT while using "didn't you read it in the papers?" as their best argument.


And who used ' didn't you read it in the papers?' as their best argument?
What's your best argument? ' Didn't you read it on the internet?' RIDICULOUS. Naive beyond belief.:nonod:


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> And why, prey tell can't people use PETA


Because PETA are trying to be a respectable organisation while advising Iams customers post their dog poo to Iams HQ... There seems to be more in their hatred than that incident.



Roo said:


> have you ever been in one of these labs? I have & you can smell the fear, you can hear it, you can taste it.........HORRIFIC.


Which Lab? Who were they working for? What did you do about it? *genuinely interested, not aimed as an attack.



Roo said:


> So if you feel the need to defend someone, defend the innocent creatures that are put under this uneccessary suffering not the shallow minded, cold hearted, selfish idiots who commission these barbaric acts...........& the ones who defend them...!


I'm not defending Iams, I'm just saying that there seems to be so much hatred for them when it was the Lab at fault (that we actually know of) not specifically Iams. Presumably the same lab would be used by cosmetics companies as they 'need' invasive testing for 'proper' research.

I am defending the animals as much as I can but I don't feel that boycotting one brand because of a historic news article is a particularly pro-active approach. I used to work for a cosmetic publication based on the science/suppliers side. I had names and addresses of actual animal testing facilities which I published elsewhere (many hidden from public view for obvious reasons but all too keen to advertise themselves to Maybelline, Lynx, P&G etc.)

It was also you who brought up 'the media' as evidence which I feel is very naive (now we're on the name calling)

PETA didn't send an investigator into Iams, they sent them into Sinclair Research Facility. It was there they found the animal cruelty taking place over 10 months. A quick look through the lab's client list finds Iams (amongst others) and they launched a huge media campaign against that one company. Iams quickly withdrew it's animals and contract (something they wouldn't have been able to do if they had agreed to this torture). And that was the end of that...

My big question is, as the lab isn't owned by Iams but a separate company altogether, who else is in their client list? Presumably not clients PETA were interested in and so probably no other animal food companies. Meaning these invasive tests were probably part of some other client project. Why would one need to remove flesh from a dog's leg while keeping it alive to test dog food? Maybe to test medication, antiseptics, even cosmetics...

There's plenty of evidence against Sinclair Research Facility (presumably the one in Colimbia, Missouri, but none against Iams.

If the owners of this forum turned out to be torturing animals, would we be to blame for using it?

*EDIT*
Anyway, this discussion is HUGELY off topic and should get it's own thread (if at all), I'm sure most people are smart enough to do their research before deciding for or against certain brands (as the OP was doing here for JWB). Just because one company has appeared in the paper and another hasn't, it doesn't mean that one is bad and one's good. Hearsay is dangerous.


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Because PETA are trying to be a respectable organisation while advising Iams customers post their dog poo to Iams HQ... There seems to be more in their hatred than that incident.
> 
> Which Lab? Who were they working for? What did you do about it? *genuinely interested, not aimed as an attack.
> 
> ...


Firstly, it's non of your business why I was in the lab & certainly non of your business as to what I did about what I saw. Secondly I didn't bring up the 'media as 'evidence', if you'd care to pay attention, I asked if anyone remembered the campaign run by Morrisey. The evidence is available for people to see in various guises on various medium. Iams withdrew the testing ONLY when their commission of this torture was exposed. And yes, they commissioned the testing therefore they are/were culpable.If we as users of this forum were aware that the owners of this forum were torturing animals then yes, by supporting the forum we would also be culpable..........
Yes, heresay is dangerous........but ignorance is more so. And yes, people ARE smart enough to do their own research & come up with their own opinions & that is precisley why there is so much anti Iams feeling on this forum.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Random trivia: Masterfoods is a HUGE HUGE company, they probably bought the JWB brand. Masterfoods also own MARS, SNICKERS, GALAXY, MALTESERS, EXTRA, ORBIT, PEDIGREE, WHISKAS, UNCLE BENS, DOLMIO, KLIX and FLAVIA.


It also owns AQUARIAN Fish food and API fish products now! It brought Rena Aquariums but it was a failing company, so they got rid of that 

*Heidi*


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> Firstly, it's non of your business why I was in the lab & certainly non of your business as to what I did about what I saw.


Then why did you bring it up? If it's none of my business, don't tell me about it.



Roo said:


> Secondly I didn't bring up the 'media as 'evidence', if you'd care to pay attention, I asked if anyone remembered the campaign run by Morrisey.


I'm sorry when you said:


Roo said:


> Does anyone not remember the media coverage a number of years ago... Based on this alone, I would never ever touch the stuff, nor Eukanuba which is part & parcel of the same.


It gave the impression that based soley on the media campaign, you had made a decision.



Roo said:


> The evidence is available for people to see in various guises on various medium. Iams withdrew the testing ONLY when their commission of this torture was exposed.


Evidence that Sinclair mistreated animals yes, but not strictly Iams. The latter part is reasonable grounds for Iams to say that they withdrew as soon as they found out about it. In fact they performed their own investigation and withdrew the contract and animals based on their and PETA's findings. Which is pretty much what we would do if we found out that Petforums conducted animal cruelty. (Should probably say this is entirely hypothetical and to my knowledge, no animals are harmed in the making of this forum  )



Roo said:


> And yes, they commissioned the testing therefore they are/were culpable.


Beyond 'testing' we don't know what they did and didn't commission. The insider never said that Iams commissioned it, only that this was going on in a facility Iams hired.



Roo said:


> If we as users of this forum were aware that the owners of this forum were torturing animals then yes, by supporting the forum we would also be culpable..........


Before or after we knew about it?


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Then why did you bring it up? If it's none of my business, don't tell me about it.
> 
> I'm sorry when you said:
> 
> ...


The lab was mentioned to highlight the cruelty of testing.....unless you see these places first hand then you never really get a true feel........... That's why.......and it still remains non of your business. And don't tell me what to mention & what not to mention. You really are a distasteful cocky little man aren't you.

Hired & commissioned are part & parcel of the same.


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> You really are a distasteful cocky little man aren't you.


If you mean I put up a good argument which puts doubt into your mind about this subject thus questioning your self-riteousness, then yes I am. Although I don't know where 'distasteful' came from...



Roo said:


> Hired & commissioned are part & parcel of the same.


I know but until we know exactly what Iams commissioned or hired them for, we'll never know if Iams was behind the cruelty or Sinclair. What we need is someone on the inside of Sinclair to find the original contract. A contract which never turned up to prove or disprove either case.

I think the jury has failed to make a decision.


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> If you mean I put up a good argument which puts doubt into your mind about this subject thus questioning your self-riteousness, then yes I am. Although I don't know where 'distasteful' came from...
> 
> I know but until we know exactly what Iams commissioned or hired them for, we'll never know if Iams was behind the cruelty or Sinclair. What we need is someone on the inside of Sinclair to find the original contract. A contract which never turned up to prove or disprove either case.
> 
> I think the jury has failed to make a decision.


Absolutely no doubt at all in my mind about this subject. 
Eureka!! You finally admit that Iams may have been behind the cruelty


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

I never said they weren't, I'm simply criticising the people who believe they are for definite without any real proof or research. No one actually has any proof just a few newspapers (one) and someone who claims to have been in a lab but who's information stops there. Someone trying to protect themselves no doubt...

Whatever the case, there's no proof either way and that's my point, you know it's true


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

slicksps said:


> I never said they weren't, I'm simply criticising the people who believe they are for definite without any real proof or research. No one actually has any proof just a few newspapers (one) and someone who claims to have been in a lab but who's information stops there. Someone trying to protect themselves no doubt...
> 
> Whatever the case, there's no proof either way and that's my point, you know it's true


Whether they test on animals or not aside, they produce poor quality food at over inflated prices and for that reason alone I will not be touching them with a bargepole


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

sequeena said:


> Whether they test on animals or not aside, they produce poor quality food at over inflated prices and for that reason alone I will not be touching them with a bargepole


Now that is a researched and defined opinion based on intelligence rather than which papers you read.

I've not looked into the food quality of Iams at all so can't argue. I've heard some positive reviews but after doing my own research after finding out about the c**p in Bakers, expanding into other popular dry and wet foods, I've gone onto home cooked which works out cheaper and better quality than most of the most expensive brands. Testing aside, I was astonished by the amount of rubbish in many of the more popular brands and the price of some of the more quality brands! That should take precedence over animal testing IMHO. If Shadow was hooked on the best quality brand known to man which was perfect in every way and I found out 19 dogs suffered as a result of it's production, I'd probably still use it. Not because I condone animal testing, I'm as horrified as Roo at the extent these tests go to for one of the most basic pet commodities. But because I look after myself and my families diet so carefully and with so much thought and effort, Shadow should receive the same respect. He may not be intelligent, may be just a pack member or follower, but in my eyes he has as much right to enjoy the Earth as myself. In the Human owned world, he has little chance alone, but with my help he can live a long and fulfilling life.

On that point, Roo, let's just agree to disagree about Iams. We do both agree on the important points and neither of us knowingly fund animal cruelty or testing. We're arguing about a newspaper story/peta investigation from years ago. Iams have publically reformed/changed/sacked the lab, whatever. To our knowledge the testing has stopped but neither of us use or recommend them anyway so what's the point in the name calling and upset. Anyone looking for good brands of food I'd recommend home brewed anyway raw or cooked, you'll have your own recommendations. Regarding Iams, both our opinions match; don't bother.

JWB - (the original question) - although this argument/discussion wasn't related to JWB, it should give a big idea that any opinion isn't the opinion of 100% of people (JWB and Iams are big, popular brands so someone must like them) You're best off starting with hearsay and investigating any complaints people have about JWB. Ignore Masterfoods. Masterfoods is a corporate but have very little impact on the individual brands inside it. Just because Mars does one thing, it doesn't mean that Iams does. They have separate directors, managers, labs and teams, it's going to be tricky enough tracing one part, don't get messed up looking at each corporation as one.


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> I never said they weren't, I'm simply criticising the people who believe they are for definite without any real proof or research. No one actually has any proof just a few newspapers (one) and someone who claims to have been in a lab but who's information stops there. Someone trying to protect themselves no doubt...
> 
> Whatever the case, there's no proof either way and that's my point, you know it's true


Your claim was that they definitely weren't........so where is YOUR proof. You are so quick to critisise other people's source of information.....so what makes your's so water tight? Were you the CEO of Iams??!! Where did you get 'one' Newspaper from? Rubbish...!And yes, I have been in a testing lab....have you? For fear of repeating myself, the point of my mentioning the lab was to point out just how horrific the testing is..........it's easy to turn a blind eye on these matters......but you experience it & you will never forget. So yes, my divulging of details does stop there .................and what am I trying to protect myself from prey tell? It's people like you who believe & protect organisations who practice unethical testing....& that's why it is still happening today.


----------



## lisa.asil (Dec 2, 2009)

Just to stick my tuppence worth in... I think there's a difference between taste testing on animals - as after all, dogs are the ones who are to eat dog food... and exposing a dog's stomach to see what happens when the dog digests the food or seeing what too much protein does to a dogs kidneys and then not treating the animal when it gets ill! Yes, each party will be biassed in their opinions and what they will admit to knowing or not knowing but if a company hires a lab to test it's food and does not make the correct enquiries to make sure that somewhere down the road they won't be accused of animal cruelty, then they deserve all the bad press attention they get. Ignorance may be bliss but it can also turn round and bite the food companies in the behind.

I feed my dog Arden Grange and as I know they don't inflict cruel tests on animals yet still my puppy is thriving on their food.


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> Your claim was that they definitely weren't........


Read through my posts, I never made such a claim. I'm just pointing out that there are other possibilities through lack of proof that Iams was directly involved.

I said one paper as the story was sold originally to one paper. The other papers are just repeating the same information (hearsay) so should be discounted.


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Read through my posts, I never made such a claim. I'm just pointing out that there are other possibilities through lack of proof that Iams was directly involved.
> 
> I said one paper as the story was sold originally to one paper. The other papers are just repeating the same information (hearsay) so should be discounted.


You're wrong.........yet again.:nonod:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

slicksps said:


> Now that is a researched and defined opinion based on intelligence rather than which papers you read.
> 
> I've not looked into the food quality of Iams at all so can't argue. I've heard some positive reviews but after doing my own research after finding out about the c**p in Bakers, expanding into other popular dry and wet foods, I've gone onto home cooked which works out cheaper and better quality than most of the most expensive brands. Testing aside, I was astonished by the amount of rubbish in many of the more popular brands and the price of some of the more quality brands! That should take precedence over animal testing IMHO. If Shadow was hooked on the best quality brand known to man which was perfect in every way and I found out 19 dogs suffered as a result of it's production, I'd probably still use it. Not because I condone animal testing, I'm as horrified as Roo at the extent these tests go to for one of the most basic pet commodities. But because I look after myself and my families diet so carefully and with so much thought and effort, Shadow should receive the same respect. He may not be intelligent, may be just a pack member or follower, but in my eyes he has as much right to enjoy the Earth as myself. In the Human owned world, he has little chance alone, but with my help he can live a long and fulfilling life.


Merci beaucoup.

Anyway, here's an ingredients list for you;

Puppy/Juior large breed (IAMS)



> Maize, chicken (>20%), wheat, animal fat, dried beet pulp, chicken digest, fish oil, fish meal, dried whole egg, brewer's dried yeast, potassium chloride, salt, dicalcium phosphate, DL-methionine, glucosamine hydrochloride.


The first ingredient is a filler, second is anywhere up to 20% chicken (I think never got the hang of > and <) and the third is another filler.

Large Kibble Puppy (JWB)



> Rice, turkey meat meal, oats, potato protein, turkey fat, whole linseed, turkey gravy, alfalfa, natural seaweed, sodium chloride, calcium carbonate, D.L-methionine, lysine hydrochloride, threonine, glucosamine, chondroitin, JWB special ingredients.
> 
> Contains: Min 26% turkey, min 26% rice, min 15% oats, min 0.3% JW+.


Again the first ingredient is a filler. Second is turkey meat meal with a minimum of 26%.

If I absolutely HAD to feed one of the 2 it would be JWB as rice (imo) is better than maize and easier to digest.

I know the quality of JWB has changed since they were taken over but I'm not sure how as I'm new to the world of nutrition so can't really comment


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> You're wrong.........yet again.:nonod:


You're evidence-less again... Where?


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> You're evidence-less again... Where?


And so are you! I'm still awaiting your source of research, the research which makes your opinion right & gives you the right to critisise everyone elses research.....the watertight research which makes you side with companies who torture animals. You are oh so very quick to demand facts & figures but oh so very very slow in backing up your flimsey arguments. You know very little methinks:smile5:


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Roo said:


> And so are you! I'm still awaiting your source of research, the research which makes your opinion right & gives you the right to critisise everyone elses research.....the watertight research which makes you side with companies who torture animals. You are oh so very quick to demand facts & figures but oh so very very slow in backing up your flimsey arguments. You know very little methinks:smile5:


I'll repeat, I never said Iams was innocent, not once. Re-read before calling me 'wrong' because It was you making baseless claims which I pulled you up on, not the other way round as you seem to think.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

:blink: so, back to JWB...


----------



## lisa.asil (Dec 2, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> :blink: so, back to JWB...


hehehe I know! get a room already...


----------



## Roo (May 28, 2009)

slicksps said:


> By definition, products for animals are generally tested on animals. And rightly so, I wouldn't want to buy a new brand of dog food only to be told mine would be the first. That could be catastrophic if there's a problem!
> 
> The Iams testing was blown out of proportion as a post on this forum explains, I imagine JWB are becoming a victim of the same style of reporting.
> 
> Do some proper research, was it JWB who conducted the nasty style of testing or a research lab they hired? Who else does that lab work for? Are the name brands aware that research is being done in this way?


........and you're implication is? And you're proof is where...........?


----------



## slicksps (Oct 11, 2009)

Proof for which claim?



> By definition, products for animals are generally tested on animals. And rightly so, I wouldn't want to buy a new brand of dog food only to be told mine would be the first. That could be catastrophic if there's a problem!


Ok, this is ambiguous, by wanting my dog food tested on animals, I mean only palatability and not the Sinclair Research method.



> The Iams testing was blown out of proportion as a post on this forum explains, I imagine JWB are becoming a victim of the same style of reporting.


The media aren't there to tell us things, they're not there to show us articles. Their primary purpose is to sell papers. It's common fact that news paper articles on and offline are generally embellished for the shock factor. I linked to the post in question which has all sorts of alternate views.



> Do some proper research, was it JWB who conducted the nasty style of testing or a research lab they hired? Who else does that lab work for? Are the name brands aware that research is being done in this way?


No statements to prove here, just questions to consider.

It is not for me to prove their innocence, it is for you to prove their guilt. The law of this country is just that; innocent until proven guilty. Sinclair Research were proven guilty. I don't believe they broke any laws which I feel is outrageous (not that they didn't break the law but that the US and UK laws didn't cover these animals enough). Iams have not been proven guilty. Nothing suggests they condoned or commissioned this cruelty, nothing suggests that the tests were run on Iams dogs, no proof exists that they knew about what was going on there.

Back to the media; They know that 'Sinclair Research Centre' means nothing to the general public (i.e. the people who buy the papers) but they DO know we know who Iams is, and worldwide.

I'm not saying, and never have said that Iams WEREN'T involved, I'm just saying that there's no proof that they were involved. There's doubt both ways. PETA don't state that the Iams dogs were tested on, only that animals were badly treated at the enormous facility (Iams only had 19 dogs there). Likewise Iams haven't sued the media or PETA for libel.

On the original post about JWB. I can't find any media reports that JWB test on animals in this way, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean it does. It just means we don't know, and the the eyes of a reasonable logical person, one could say the same about Iams. There is just NO evidence that Iams was cruel to animals, only that a company was which they hired. What we need is that contract, why didn't the undercover worker not find this crucial piece of evidence? They were there for 10 months. I'm assuming you weren't in your lab for 10 months and from the sounds of it, you saw enough. This PETA person spent 10 months and couldn't find any proper proof that it was Iams who commissioned the invasive testing. I'm just saying there's too much doubt.


----------

