Reproduced from PETA website:
http://www.peta.org/feat-iams_page2.asp

Introduction

For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003, a PETA investigator went undercover at an Iams contract testing laboratory and discovered a dark and sordid secret beneath the wholesome image of the dog- and cat-food manufacturer: dogs gone crazy from intense confinement to barren steel cages and cement cells, dogs left piled on a filthy paint-chipped floor after having chunks of muscle hacked from their thighs; dogs surgically debarked; horribly sick dogs and cats languishing in their cages, neglected and left to suffer with no veterinary care.

Iams lied to PETA with promises to improve the conditions for animals in its contract laboratories, even assuring us that enrichment programs were already in place, but our undercover investigator saw otherwise. She fought for six months to have a single cheap, rubber toy placed in each cold, lonely kennel. This is Iams’ idea of enrichment.

Our video footage shows Iams representatives touring the facility and witnessing dogs’ endless circling in barren cells, sweltering in the summer heat. Iams knew the truth yet did nothing to protect the animals.

The dogs and cats in Iams’ tests are no different from our dogs and cats at home when it comes to deserving companionship, play, a stimulating environment, and the right not to be tormented in painful experiments.

Luckily, caring consumers know that advances in nutrition don’t have to come at the expense of animals in labs. Help PETA force Iams to end these painful and unnecessary tests, as many compassionate companies have already done.

The Investigation

Our investigator videotaped Iams representatives touring the facility. They saw the sad, distressed dogs. They felt the sweltering heat and humidity in the kennels. Then they walked out. But the animals couldn’t.

An Iams veterinarian inspecting a group of dogs purchased from a USDA Class B dealer did nothing when he saw that a mother dog who had just given birth in a cement kennel had been provided with no bedding to rest on. A puppy and an adult dog from that group died during our investigation, most likely the result of neglect and temperatures that fell below 34 degrees in the building.

An Iams “behaviorist” saw dogs spinning in their cages out of madness and yet said nothing. An Iams cat dental researcher even overheard two employees talking about animals who were treated inhumanely at the facility yet Iams continued to conduct business there as usual.

Despite assurances in the Iams research policy that no animal would ever be killed, our investigator documented the destruction of 27 out of 60 dogs who underwent an invasive procedure that involved having huge chunks of muscle cut out of their legs. Two more of those dogs were found dead in their cages after the surgery; one had been suffering for 11 days prior to her death.

When our investigator reported that Humbug, an Iams dog, was limping, she was told by a vet tech that the laboratory had an x-ray machine that dated back to the 1960s but no film for it and that the director of the laboratory preferred to kill, rather than treat, animals with broken bones. In addition, Fifi and the other dogs used in Iams’ metabolic studies were bled by the laboratory in order to sell their blood to other companies even though the studies do not call for blood draws.

Finally, shortly before our investigator left, the lab director told the vet techs to debark all the Iams dogs as he was being disturbed by their desperate cries for attention. Our investigator e-mailed Iams researchers in Dayton with this information, hoping that Iams would intervene. But all she got was the sickening sight of a lab technician covered in blood after a day of performing the debarking surgery.

When our investigator resigned, she told the Iams representative and the lab director that she was leaving because despite her best efforts, nothing was being done to enhance the desperately boring, lonely, harsh lives of the animals. The Iams representative admitted that both he and the lab director were from the “old school.

What Our Investigator Found: Iams’ Den of Horrors

• Iams dogs dumped on cold concrete flooring after having huge chunks of muscle cut out of their thighs
• dogs and cats gone stir-crazy from confinement; dogs and cats in windowless, dungeon-like buildings
• a coworker who instructed her to hit the dogs on the chest if they quit breathing; another coworker who talked about an Iams dog found dead in his cage, bleeding from his mouth
• a dog who limped in pain from Lyme disease
• cruel studies done by Iams involving sticking tubes down dogs’ throats to force them to ingest vegetable oil
• Iams dogs with such severe tartar buildup on their teeth that it was painful for them to eat
• vet technicians with inadequate training and experience performing invasive procedures
• coworkers who talked about a live kitten who was washed down a drain
• coworkers who talked about how they had to go home because the ammonia fumes in the animal trailers were so overpowering that it made their eyes burn (try being one of the animals in those cages!)
• cats kept in a cinderblock room with crude wooden “resting” boards that had nails sticking out of them; one of the boards fell on a cat, crushing her to death, while our investigator was there yet the lab director did not remove the boards when the cat was crushed—he removed them when he was told that the lab was going to be inspected because he knew they were illegal

Correspondence PETA letter to Procter & Gamble (Iams’ parent company) —March 24, 2005 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —March 18, 2005 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —February 16, 2005 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —January 10, 2005 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —December 30, 2004 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —December 22, 2004 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —November 16, 2004 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) PETA letter to Procter & Gamble —November 9, 2004 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) "Can you please confirm for me that every dog in every Iams study has a resting platform in his or her cage?" —December 26, 2002, letter from PETA to Diane A. Hirakawa, Senior Vice President, Iams Research & Development   Iams Letter to PETA —May 10, 2002 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) "After learning from you that Iams has as many as 30 extra facilities involved in its research, I believe it is imperative that we know what facilities the company deals with on a contract basis. It is very important that we obtain the USDA inspection reports for all of these facilities and share with you any concerns we have about them. This is not to say that USDA reports are the be-all and end-all. In fact, they only give a snapshot in time of how a facility is carrying out its minimal duties to animals under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). But, it is all we have to go on…as I pointed out in my October 9 letter to Larry Games, the Awa requires resting platforms or bedding only when the internal temperature dips below 50 degrees. Since it is unlikely that any lab allows such temperatures, they probably would not be likely to provide beds or platforms, a comfort that Iams provides to dogs at its facility. This is just one of the many things that nag us about the company using contracts labs. Will Iams, until it ends it contract work, insist on platforms and beds for the animals used in all of its studies?" —December 4, 2001, letter from PETA to Diane A. Hirakawa, Senior Vice President, Iams Research & Development.

Correspondence “We are pleased that Iams will include ‘very specific instructions for pain management and socialization’…We would like Iams to make a commitment to this being an interim measure while it figures out how to bring all studies in-house. We know this is possible if Iams will only plan for it.” — October 22, 2001, letter from PETA to Diane A. Hirakawa, Senior Vice President, Iams Research & Development. “We fully realize that Iams is a business and that changes to almost anything it does are evaluated on a cost basis. We also know for a fact that in university settings, animal quarters and care are the lowest priorities. This is due, in part, to the very low standards set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but it is also due to greed. The less money spent on the animals, the more money available for the researcher to use at his/her discretion. Iams must show that it is not cheap where animals are concerned…I will say we have very serious concerns about Iams’ resistance to bringing its research completely in-house. I hope you can appreciate that it is a moral difficulty for us to spend valuable time working to convince a company like Iams that dogs need mental stimulation and companionship-just common decency-driven standards-rather than to be stuck, alone, in what is basically a steel box in a barren room.” — October 18, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company. “We will strengthen our protocols to include very specific instructions for pain management and socialization, with our goal being to eliminate even minor pain and create enriched environments for the dogs and cats…I realize that you have heard it all before, but we are truly committed to our Mission of enhancing the well being of dogs and cats, and we feel that we’re moving in the right direction. That’s why I felt it was important for me to write and give you our commitment.” — October 16, 2001, letter sent to PETA by Diane A. Hirakawa, Senior Vice President, Iams Research & Development. “Thanks again for bringing Dan Carey and Bryan Brown to Norfolk to discuss Iams’ use of animals in nutritional studies…I can tell you how Iams’ dogs in contract laboratories – whether private or university labs – are likely kept. They are surely kept in AWA-compliant cages – that is, the floor space of the cage in square inches is the length of the dog in inches plus six inches, multiplied by the length of the dog plus six inches. No doubt the facility has a written plan for exercise that it does not have to prove it implements and that it implements infrequently if at all. The dogs are probably without resting platforms or bedding as the internal temperature most likely never dips below 50 degrees which is the only trigger for providing bedding under the AWA, they are probably not socialized, and they are probably in cell rows. Dan Carey would find this acceptable because it meets regulations but I know you understand that this is exactly the type of paltry existence we are challenging Iams to change, or should I say demanding that Iams change? It can better do so with complete control over the animals and the facility in which they are housed.” — October 9, 2001, letter from PETA to Larry M. Games, Professional and Regulatory Services, Research and Development Department, Proctor & Gamble Worldwide. “There are two unresolved issues from our exchange of letters that we hope you will contemplate and address before our meeting…1) With regard to the company’s statement on nutritional studies, we ask that it be expanded to say that the company will not conduct any studies that cause discomfort, illness, or stress or that involve survival surgery. 2) We also ask that Iams use only its own facilities here and in the U.K. to conduct nutritional studies. We all know that animals used by contract and university laboratories are recycled if they can be, and that means that these animals may end up as cheap fodder for someone else’s painful tests, perhaps highly invasive ones or those involving the forced ingestion of toxins. Furthermore, conditions in contract and university facilities are notoriously inhumane, no matter how well funded.” — September 6, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company. “Thank you for your July 12 letter…Your letter did not respond to our request that Iams forego the use of contract laboratories for nutritional tests. I hope you will address this point shortly.” — July 17, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company. “We are troubled by the use of contract and university laboratories by major dog and cat food manufacturers. The living conditions for animals in these facilities are barren, bare bones stuff and we know that the animals used in Iams…or any other manufacturer’s tests are most likely ‘recycled’ into other tests after they are used in ‘noninvasive’ nutritional studies.” — June 20, 2001, letter from PETA to Jeff Ansel, President of The Iams Company.

But Iams Says ...

We say this; Iams says that. How can you know who’s telling the truth?

We’ve gotten thousands of calls, e-mail messages, and letters from consumers who are disturbed by the cruelty that we uncovered in Iams contract laboratories. But some consumers have been confused by conflicting information that Iams itself is providing.

Desperate to keep customers, Iams has been telling some startling lies. PETA would like to share the animals’ side of the story so that consumers can make informed choices.
 

Iams says that it has cut ties with the U.S. laboratory that we investigated and implemented new policies and thus resolved the problem.

The fact that Iams continues to test on thousands of animals proves that the problem is far from resolved. Furthermore, contrary to what its token gesture in dropping this particular laboratory might suggest, Iams knew exactly what was happening there before we publicized our findings. Our investigator videotaped Iams employees visiting the laboratory on at least five separate occasions. They knew that dogs and cats were deprived of socialization, enrichment, toys, and resting boards. It was only after PETA exposed the laboratory’s practices that Iams chose to distance itself from them.

The fact that Iams has repeatedly lied about the conditions endured by animals subjected to its tests makes this gesture even more dubious. In 2002, at the very time our investigator was working in an Iams contract laboratory, the company claimed that it never allowed dogs who were used in its tests to be euthanized, that it only conducted tests that were comparable to those acceptable for human beings, and that enrichment programs were already in place in all its labs―all of which turned out to be lies.

Ultimately, however, even if Iams were to make an effort to improve the quality of life of animals in its labs, the tests they undergo and the conditions they suffer are still unnecessary and cruel.

Iams claims that the PETA investigator was hired as an “animal behaviorist” and that it is her fault that the animals were not properly socialized.

Our investigator was hired by the contract laboratory as a “study monitor” and had her hands full collecting data, as her job required. Her job description did not include socializing the animals or enriching their lives. Nevertheless, not only did she try her best to perform these services, she also tried to make them standard laboratory practice. Unfortunately, Iams would neither supply the money required to improve conditions for the animals subjected to its tests nor push the laboratory’s director to do so. In fact, this same director was captured on videotape explaining to our investigator that Iams was going to pretend to be providing socialization and enrichment until the animal rights people got off its back and then drop the issue. All evidence suggests that Iams was simply feigning concern for socialization and enrichment in an attempt to sidestep the actual concerns of distressed consumers.
 

Although implementing socialization and enrichment programs wasn’t officially part of our investigator’s duties in her capacity as a study monitor, the heart-wrenching conditions that she witnessed prompted her to push for changes for the animals. Yet despite her repeated requests, even pleas, for improvements―including such basics as letting the dogs outside and providing resting boards―Iams implemented only a single one and only on a temporary basis: supplying toys. Iams also knew that the laboratory had hired no one to implement any enrichment or socialization programs and that our investigator, known to the company only as a study monitor, had a full-time position gathering data for studies conducted by Iams and other companies.

Iams says that the PETA investigator was the person responsible for allowing its dogs to be surgically debarked.

We turned over transcripts of all taped conversations regarding the debarking of Iams’ dogs, along with a letter to Iams Vice President Diane Hirakawa and P&G officials, in April 2003. It is clear from these transcripts that our investigator had nothing to do with the decision to debark the dogs, as Iams itself acknowledged after reading them. In fact, our investigator attempted to inform Iams that debarking was planned, but her warning went unheeded.

Iams says that the footage we are showing is over a year old.

Yes, it has been more than a year and Iams still brazenly conducts the exact same laboratory tests on animals that our footage documents and that Sally, Christmas, No Name, and the other dogs featured on our Web site had to endure.

And during this time, hundreds more animals have suffered though these cruel and unnecessary tests. PETA will continue to show this footage until Iams ends laboratory tests on animals. Without this video documentation, no one would have known the dirty secret of Iams tests on animals. 

Iams says it supports the ultimate elimination of laboratory feeding studies as scientifically valid alternatives become available.

Iams has informed PETA that it will continue to conduct laboratory tests on animals, despite the fact that these tests are not necessary and are not required by law. The tests that Iams continues to conduct include palatability tests, “discovery phase” tests, and metabolized energy tests (METs)―the same tests that Sally, No Name, and the other dogs suffered through at the Iams contract lab exposed in our undercover investigation.   

There are numerous alternatives to laboratory testing on animals currently available, including in-home studies and collaborative studies with private veterinary clinics using animals whose guardians have volunteered them. More than 40 companion-animal food companies are conducting cruelty-free tests on their products, and the list continues to grow. Click here for a list of companion-animal food companies that do not test their products on animals in laboratories.  

Iams claims to be taking full responsibility for the destiny of all dogs and cats that participate in its feeding studies at both internal and external sites.

Iams refuses to tell us how many animals are involved in its laboratory studies or how many years they must suffer before they are adopted out or “retired.” Iams also refuses to let us visit its so-called “retirement center,” where it sends dogs and cats who cannot be adopted because they are too physically and/or emotionally scarred from years of suffering through Iams’ cruel laboratory tests.    

PETA has seen no evidence that any dog or cat has been adopted out of an Iams laboratory―and Iams has been unwilling to provide us with documentation of even a single adoption. One would think that if Iams had a successful adoption program or a retirement center, it would be clamoring to share this information―unless it has something to hide.

Well, that something to hide may be the fact that not all the animals that suffer through Iams’ cruel tests are eligible for the adoption program―only the dogs and cats Iams owns. Animals owned by other companies (such as the contract laboratories) will not be adopted out once Iams has finished performing tests on them. These suffering animals will most likely spend their lives in laboratory cages.

PETA has also learned that there “could also be situations in which animals (in Iams’ studies) live in a controlled habitat for much or all of their lives.”

But hasn’t Iams been telling consumers that all the animals suffering through its laboratory tests will be adopted out after just a short period of time? 

The devil is always in the details …                                                        

Iams says: “We are proactively sharing the Iams Welfare Program for dogs and cats in an effort to make it the norm.”

Iams’ Dan Carey stated at the March 2004 Pet Food Forum that he believed that dogs and cats could spend their “entire lives” in cages for laboratory studies. He also said that the last thing the companion-animal food industry needs are directives telling them how animals should be treated and that industry should control animal welfare standards―not the public. 

Iams’ new “welfare” guidelines state that dogs and cats need receive only 30 minutes of exercise and socialization per day, five days a week. This means that during the week, dogs and cats spend 23 1/2 hours a day―and on the weekend, 24 hours a day―confined to their cages. For the animals’ sake, we hope that Iams is not recommending that other companies follow these guidelines.

Iams says that it conducts experiments on animals so that it can make foods that benefit companion animals.

But Iams can’t even abide by its own label guarantees. In the last four years, Iams has had an astounding 27 commercial feed violations in Texas alone! And in the past year, Iams has had label violations in Illinois, Rhode Island, and South Dakota―where it had a 23 percent taurine deficiency relative to what was guaranteed on the product label. Iams has an entire Web page dedicated to the dangers of taurine deficiency entitled, “Taurine and Its Importance in Cat Foods.”

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) found that an Iams dog food had dangerously high levels of the amino acid DL-methionine, which can cause methionine toxicity or imbalance. The FDA recalled 248,080 pounds of the Iams dog food from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. 

It is in Iams’ best interests to play the blame game and hide the truth because no company wants to be exposed as negligent, dishonest, and cheap. Instead of lying to consumers, Iams and P&G should listen to consumers and use cruelty-free tests for their dog and cat food. It’s easy and only right to free all animals from laboratories.

Meet Iams Researchers

They may look nice, but don’t be fooled … behind these smiling faces are people responsible for the mutilation, torture, and deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs and cats in Iams-funded tests.

Iams’ research policy says that it will not conduct or fund invasive or lethal experiments on animals. And we might have believed Iams had the company not lied to us about providing proper veterinary care, enrichment and socialization, and exercise for animals in its contract labs. Click here for more information.

But we believe that Iams has found ways to hide its nasty experiments on animals. For example, it may fund a chair position at a university where nutrition-related tests are conducted or it may sponsor conferences such as those held by the International Elbow Working Group, the members of which conduct orthopedic experiments on animals, such as one published in the Journal of Animal Science in June 2003 that resulted in the deaths of nine Great Danes and eight miniature poodles used to study skeletal disorders. If you have knowledge that Iams is violating its own research policy or playing word games with consumers, please contact PETA. If the information that you supply shows that Iams is hoodwinking the public, you may be eligible to receive a reward of up to $5,000.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wrote to PETA in response to our complaint that Iams was making false statements regarding the care that it gives to animals used in tests: “[W]e appreciate that for many consumers, a company’s policies toward animal research and welfare may well affect their choice of or conduct regarding a product. … Therefore, a company’s public dissemination of its research policy may, depending on the circumstances, be ‘advertising’ subject to the substantiation requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act.”

The Iams researchers listed below have long histories of cutting into and killing dogs, cats, and other animals so it’s not unreasonable to wonder if they have really changed their ways. One of the major players in Iams’ deadly experiments is Diane Hirakawa, Iams’ senior vice president of research & development. Please e-mail her right now, and tell her what you think about cruel laboratory experiments on animals. Tell her that Iams must immediately end all laboratory experiments on animals and instead use in-home tests or studies in veterinary clinics with dogs and cats who have been volunteered by their human companions. And when you get a form reply back, telling you that everything is just fine, keep pushing. The dogs and cats used by Iams need your strength and persistence.

The following is a small sample of the hundreds of painful and deadly experiments carried out by Iams researchers:

Diane Hirakawa
Senior Vice President of Research and Development, Iams

In one experiment, she intentionally put 24 young dogs into kidney failure, removed their right kidneys, conducted numerous painful invasive procedures on the dogs over a matter of months, and then killed the surviving dogs.

White JV (University of Georgia), Hirakawa DA (The Iams Company), et al. Effect of dietary protein on functional, morphologic, and histologic changes of the kidney during compensatory renal growth in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991 Aug;52(8):1357-65.

Dan Carey
Director of Technical Services, Iams

He once removed 31 dogs’ kidneys to increase their risk of renal damage, keeping the surviving dogs alive for 48 months to study them, then killed and dissected the dogs. In a private meeting, he referred to dogs as "specimens."

Finco DR (University of Georgia), Carey D (The Iams Company), et al. Effects of aging and dietary protein intake on uninephrectomized geriatric dogs. Am J Vet Res 1994 Sep;55(9):1282-90.

Gregory Sunvold
Director of Clinical Research and Intellectual Properties, Iams

In an Iams experiment, he surgically forced 28 cats into kidney failure. The cats either died during the experiment or were killed by Sunvold to study the effects of protein on their kidneys.

Finco DR, Sunvold G, et al. Influence of protein and energy in cats with renal failure. In: Reinhart GA, Carey DP, eds. Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition, Volume II: 1998 Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press; 1998. p. 413-24.

Gregory A. Reinhart
Vice President, Strategic Research and Communications Research and Development Division, Iams

He chemically damaged 18 male beagle puppies’ kidneys, fed them experimental diets, inserted tubes into their penises, and then killed them.

Grauer GF (Colorado State University), Reinhart GA (The Iams Company), et al. Effects of dietary n-3 fatty acid supplementation versus thromboxane synthetase inhibition on gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicosis in healthy male dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996 Jun;57(6):948-56.

A.J. Lepine
Research and Development Division, Iams

He removed the ovaries and uteruses of 56 dogs to study the effects of beta carotene on their “reproductive performance.”

Weng BC (Washington State University), Lepine AJ (The Iams Company), et al. Beta-carotene uptake and changes in ovarian steroids and uterine proteins during the estrous cycle in the canine. J Anim Sci 2000;78:1284-90.

Jürgen Zentek
Iams Chair in Clinical Nutrition
University of Vienna, Austria

In one of the most gruesome experiments imaginable, he killed six healthy 6-month-old Great Dane puppies and then “minced, lyophilized, fat extracted with light petrol, dried and ground” the puppies in order to conduct a “total body analysis.”

Kienzle E (Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich), Zentek J (The Iams Company), Meyer H. Body composition of puppies and young dogs. J Nut 1998 Dec;128(12):2680S-3S.

Patrick R. Gavin
Chief Scientific Officer at the Iams Pet Imaging Center
Vienna, Virginia

Just before joining Iams, Gavin conducted a cruel experiment to test the safety and precision of “intensity modulated radiation therapy” (IMRT) in dogs. In addition to exposing 15 young adult dogs to high doses of radiation, inflicting a pathological softening of the spinal cord on them (myelomalacia), and subsequently killing them, he made the following callous comments in his published research paper:

“[W]e wanted to deliver a [radiation] dose likely to cause severe damage to the spinal cord …”

“The six dogs in Group A developed severe neurologic dysfunction …. [T]he dogs were unable to support weight or walk.”

Gavin, PR (Washington State University), et al. Spatial accuracy of fractionated IMRT delivery studies in canine paraspinal irradiation. Vet Radiol & Ultrasound 2003;44(3):360-66.

Iams' Animal Care Advisory Board

• The animals had names.
   
• The cats “were reported to have 4-5 hours out of their cages each day.”
   
• The dogs “were housed in short-fenced runs and had platforms up off of the floor.”
   
• The dogs were provided with “socialization time.”
   
• A study “scheduled for implementation on the day of inspection” was “designed to verify that the diet being fed would allow the animals to maintain normal health and body condition.”
   
• “The findings from studies done at this facility are designed to prove complete and balanced nutrition for specific products.
   
• The information from this type of study is generally presented on the product label.”

Timeline of Events

The following is a timeline of key events in PETA’s struggle to end the Iams Company’s laboratory experiments on animals.

• October 2000—PETA asks Iams to improve the living conditions of animals in Iams laboratories. Iams assures PETA that this is happening.
• June 2001—Following an exposé by the Times of London and the U.K. organization Uncaged which detailed Iams’ horrific laboratory research on dogs and cats, PETA asks the Iams Company to end all invasive and lethal “nutritional” experiments.
• July 2001—Iams denies PETA access to its research facility for the first time.
• September 2001—PETA and Iams meet at PETA’s worldwide headquarters to discuss Iams’ laboratory research on animals. Iams’ Dan Carey refers to the dogs and cats as “specimens.” Iams assures PETA that it will develop a new policy that will include prohibitions on invasive and lethal experiments and that will provide for exercise, socialization, and enrichment programs in both its internal and external facilities.
• June 2002—Iams announces its new research “policy” stating the above. The policy also states that the company will not induce diseases such as diabetes or obesity in animals used in its laboratories.
• March 2003—PETA unveils the results of our nine-month undercover investigation into an Iams contract laboratory in the Midwest. Our investigator discovered dogs and cats living in appalling conditions, with little to no exercise or socialization with people or other animals. Our investigator also witnessed the painful debarking and killing of dogs who participated in Iams-funded experiments even though the new research policy had been implemented. Iams’ animals at this facility did not even have resting boards or toys. Iams was fully aware of conditions inside this laboratory and in fact had visited the facility five times during our investigation.
• April 2003—Iams and P&G vice presidents fly to PETA’s headquarters to see what it would take to make us stop the campaign arising from our investigation.
• May 2003—Iams again refuses to let PETA tour its Dayton research facility or its “retirement facility.”
• May 2004—Iams provides Purdue University researchers with $195,140 to conduct a study from May 1, 2004, through June 30, 2006, in which mice are subjected to seven days of muscle atrophy—the wasting away of muscle tissue—by suspending their hind limbs to disable their ability to bear weight. After losing the use of their hind legs, the mice are scheduled to be killed.
• October 2004—Iams announces it will continue laboratory experiments on animals and will more than double the number of animals experimented on at its Dayton facilities. But in a clear indication that PETA’s campaign is working, Iams says that it will end its use of outside contract laboratories by October 2006.
• January 2005—Iams continues to refuse to adopt validated non-animal test methods in place of its experiments on baby chicks (that it conducts to test the digestibility of protein in its pet foods).
• February 2005—Facing increased pressure from PETA, Iams says that it will look into a non-animal testing alternative to the baby chick protein test. But Iams will be slow to implement this humane test method because the company claims that it must “validate” the method against the chick test, stubbornly refusing to accept existing validation data from the manufacturer of the test method.
• February 2005—Iams denies that animals were killed in experiments it funded at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and the University of Kentucky, even though public documents obtained from these schools clearly show otherwise

Support Brands That Do Not Test on Animals

PETA has contacted hundreds of companion-animal food companies, asking if they conduct laboratory tests on animals. Numerous companies responded to let us know that they do not. We have compiled a list of those companies below.

View the first letter, follow-up letter, and survey sent to companion-animal food companies.

Companies that are not on this list either responded to let us know that they do conduct laboratory experiments on animals or failed to respond to our numerous inquiries and are assumed to conduct laboratory experiments on animals.

If you are concerned about animals in laboratory tests, you should purchase companion-animal food exclusively from the following companies:

(Click here for the U.K. version of this list.)

Active Life Pet Products
1-877-291-2913
www.activelifepp.com

Amoré Pet Services, Inc.
1-866-572-6673
www.amorepetfoods.com

Animal Food Services
1-800-743-0322
www.animalfood.com

Artemis Pet Food—NEW
1-800-282-5876
www.artemiscompany.com

Azmira Holistic Animal Care
1-800-497-5665
www.azmira.com

Burns Pet Health, Inc.
1-877-983-9651
www.burnspethealth.com

Canusa International
519-624-5697
www.canusaint.com

CountryPet Pet Food
1-800-454-7387
www.countrypet.com

Dr. Harvey’s
1-866-362-4123
www.drharveys.com

Dry Fork Milling Co.
1-800-346-1360

Dynamite Marketing, Inc.
208-887-9410
www.dynamitemarketing.com

Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co., Inc.
1-800-288-6796
www.evangersdogfood.com

Evolution Diet, Inc. (entirely vegan)
1-800-659-0104
www.petfoodshop.com

Good Dog Foods, Inc.
732-842-4555
www.gooddogfoods.com

GreenTripe.Com
831-726-3255
www.greentripe.com

Halo, Purely for Pets
1-800-426-4256
www.halopets.com

Happy Dog Food
1-800-359-9576
www.happydogfood.com

Harbingers of a New Age (entirely vegan)
406-295-4944
www.vegepet.com

Holistic Blend
1-800-954-1117
www.holisticblend.com

The Honest Kitchen
858-483-5995
www.thehonestkitchen.com

Know Better Dog Food
1-866-922-6463
www.knowbetterdogfood.com

KosherPets, Inc.
954-938-6270
www.kosherpets.com

Kumpi Pet Foods
303-699-8562
www.kumpi.com

Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc. (has vegan options)
1-800-829-4493
www.naturalbalanceinc.com

Natural Life Pet Products, Inc. (has vegan options)
1-800-367-2391
www.nlpp.com

Nature’s Variety
1-888-519-7387
www.naturesvariety.com

Newman’s Own Organics—NEW
www.newmansownorganics.com

PetGuard (has vegan options)
1-800-874-3221
904-264-8500
www.petguard.com

Pied Piper Pet & Wildlife
1-800-338-4610
www.piedpiperpet.com

PoshNosh Inc.
613-747-1542
1-866-893-4006 (Outside Ottawa-Outaouais)

Raw Advantage, Inc.
360-387-5158
www.rawadvantagepetfood.com

Rocky Mountain Natural Products
1-877-768-6788 (Eastern U.S.)
1-800-665-5521 (Western U.S.)
www.rmtnp.com

Sauder Feeds, Inc.
260-627-2196
www.sauderfeeds.com

Stella & Chewy’s LLC—NEW
718-522-9673
www.stellaandchewys.com

V-dogfood LLC (entirely vegan)—NEW
1-888-280-8364
www.V-dogfood.com

Veterinary Nutritional Formula
1-800-811-0530
www.vnfpetfood.com

Wow-Bow Distributors Ltd. (has vegan options)
1-800-326-0230
www.wow-bow.com

Wysong Professional Diets (has vegan options)
1-800-748-0188
www.wysong.net

Reproduced from: http://www.peta.org/feat-iams_page2.asp