Tag: Cats

PETA Files FTC Complaint Against Iams

In June, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claming that pet food maker Iams’ has posted on its website a policy related to the use of research animals which PETA claims is false and misleading.

Iams policy reads,

The Iams Company Research Policy

Like humans, our canine and feline companions are faced with many threats to their health. Millions of cats and dogs around the world suffer from allergies, skin and gastrointestinal diseases, kidney failure and painful bone problems.

At The Iams Company, we work hard to advance scientific understanding of how nutrition can help pets resist and recover from such diseases, and how this understanding helps optimize their health so they can lead happier and longer lives. Research plays a key role in accomplishing these goals.

Our research is governed by the following principles.

1. The results must help veterinarians and pet owners worldwide nutritionally enhance the well-being of cats and dogs, and manage important pet health conditions.

2. Studies will only be conducted if alternative, non-animal methods or existing research cannot answer the questions raised.

3. We will ensure the humane treatment of cats and dogs, and provide for animal well-being, socialization and husbandry in a manner compatible with the company’s philosophy, creating a total culture of care. We will also meet or exceed standards established by the Animal Welfare Act of the US, the US Department of Agriculture and Directive 86/609/EEC of the European Union.

4. We will not fund or participate in any study requiring or resulting in the euthanasia of cats or dogs. We will only conduct research that is equivalent to nutritional or medical studies acceptable on people, including: urine, feces, blood and immune cell analysis, allergy tests, and skin and muscle biopsies, for which adequate anesthesia and analgesics will be provided whenever necessary.

5. Research will be closely monitored at internal and external facilities – with the goal being to eliminate even minor pain or discomfort and to create enriched environments for the cats and dogs involved. To enforce this principle, Iams will place, at these facilities, a company-designated and funded person responsible for ensuring the well being of cats and dogs. This trained, qualified person will follow guidelines used at the Paul F. Iams Technical Center to make certain that cats and dogs are properly cared for and socialized.

6. We will test our foods on groups of cats or dogs within the general population who already suffer from target diseases or conditions. However, we will not contract for, nor conduct, any study involving surgeries to create or mimic diseases such as diabetes, stroke, heart disease, kidney disease, or intentional damage to other organs; nor will the company use non-surgical methods to induce or simulate diseases that are not acceptable in nutritional or medical research on humans; nor will the company fund any university positions that may be involved in such activities for the study of cat and dog nutrition.

7. We will not use, in any studies, animals that are already induced with disease or surgically altered through other research; nor will the company conduct such studies under the auspices of any industry association or group.

8. Our findings will be communicated to benefit others who are seeking to improve the health and well-being of cats and dogs, and to help prevent repetition of tests requiring animal involvement.

We are proud that we have led breakthroughs in the health of cats and dogs, and we are committed to continuing this tradition with the principles outlined here as our guide.

In a press release announcing its complaint, PETA claimed that Iams violated its own policy (thereyb misleading consumers) in several areas,

Recently, PETA investigated an Iams contract laboratory and documented horrendous conditions for the animals and cruel practices that it believes show that the company?s claims are deceptive. The claims PETA disputes include the following:

Iams: ?[Iams] will only conduct the veterinary equivalent of any tests on cats or dogs which are acceptable in nutritional or medical studies in people.?
Among PETA?s findings: Tubes were stuck down dogs? throats in order to force them to ingest vegetable oil.

Iams: ?Each animal is given the best possible veterinary care and treated with care and respect.?
Among PETA?s findings: Dogs were dumped together on cold concrete flooring after having huge chunks of muscle cut out of their thighs.

Iams: ?[Iams] will not fund or participate in any study requiring or resulting in the euthanasia of cats or dogs.?
Among PETA?s findings: Twenty-seven of the 60 dogs who had thigh muscle removed were deliberately killed.

Iams: ?We will ensure the humane treatment of cats and dogs ? creating a total culture of care.?
Among PETA?s findings: Cats and dogs had developed neurotic behaviors, including whirling ceaselessly in their cages, from confinement, isolation, and lack of exercise inside barren cages in windowless, dungeon-like buildings. PETA?s investigator witnessed Iams representatives? touring the facility, which was oppressively hot and humid at the time, and failing to take any action to improve the conditions.

Inquiries to the company about PETA’s charges are being met with this reply which outlines Iams responses to PETA’s complaints back in March about an independent contractor that Iams had been using for some animal research,

On March 25, we learned that nutritional studies being conducted for us at an independent facility in the U.S. may have violated our company’s strict
research policy. On March 26, we completed an unannounced visit of the facility to review
procedures and ensure the well-being of dogs and cats at the site.

On March 27, we concluded that the facility did not meet our strict standards regarding air temperature, ventilation, resting beds, and socialization (even though the facility recently passed U.S. government inspections). We made the
decision to end all research at the facility.

In addition, we worked with the facility to relocate Fifi, Maisy, Mickey, and the 16 other dogs to an Iams animal care center. We have an established program for socialization and employee adoption that will give these dogs the
opportunity for a successful transition to a family.

On April 10, we met with PETA to look over the facts and to share our plan for the review of our contract research facilities.

We have now completed comprehensive reviews of all external facilities involved in dog and cat nutritional studies for Iams. This was a major effort which included Iams researchers, P&G veterinarians, non-technical Iams employees who
served as the “eyes and ears” of our consumers, and where possible, independent animal welfare experts.

All of the facilities reviewed comply with government regulations, and the health of the dogs and cats is not at risk. However, we’ve decided to consolidate our nutritional studies at fewer contract facilities, and we will focus more on the implementation of our high standards for dog and cat care.

Also, we are establishing an Independent Animal Care Advisory Board which will be in place and active by July 15. Its role will be to:

1. Actively review external facility compliance with the Iams research policy.

2. Participate in random unannounced inspections of external sites.

3. Critically evaluate our research policy and bring new ideas to enhance animal well being.

4. Evaluate our animal care program to ensure the health and well being of dogs and cats. This evaluation will include site visits to Iams facilities.

Apparently PETA is basing its lawsuit on its belief that Iams has not followed through quickly enough to inspect all of the facilities it uses to conduct animal research. PETA spokesperson Peter Wood told the Cincinnati Post that the complaint was not based on any new information, and in fact Wood casts this as a straightforward animal rights issue. The Post quoted Woods as saying (emphasis added),

Why does PETA have to conduct investigations into what Iams does to get Iams to do what’s right? The tests are inherently cruel. The larger picture is they’re making claims that each animals is treated humanely, which in our opinion is fiction.

If PETA’s position is that any animal research Iams conducts is “inherently cruel” then this is just another frivolous PETA complaint that will do little other than generate a bit of publicity.

Iams, for its part, specifically denies parts of PETA’s claims, including the most sensational part of PETA’s complaint — that almost 30 dogs were killed during testing of food for the company. Iams spokesperson Bryan Brown told the Cincinnati Post,

No dogs involved in Iams studies were killed at that facility. We challenge the accuracy of points made by PETA. We know they have a track record of sensationalism.

Not to mention a track record of inaccuracy and distortion. According to Brown, Iams has already inspected all of the facilities it uses for research. They didn’t find any violations of federal laws or regulations, Brown said, but some did not meet Iams own internal policies and are currently in the process of bringing their procedures into compliance with Iams standards.

Sources:

PETA says Iams CO. Web site makes false statements. Associated Press, June 11, 2003.

Iams: PETA’s charges false. Alexander Coolidge, The Cincinnati Post, June 11, 2003.

Update on Iams Animal Research. Press Release, Iams, April 25, 2003.

PETA Files Complaint With FTC Against Iams Claiming Ads Are False And Misleading. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Undated.

The Iams Company Research Policy. Iams, Undated.

PETA Uses Bea Arthur to Annoy Palmer Chiropractic University Employees

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had Bea Arthur record a message complaining about the treatment of animals in federally funded studies being conducted at the Palmer Chiropractic University in Florida.

The taped messages were sent to dozens of employees at the university using an automated telephone messaging system. The messages claimed that Palmer “mutilates” cats. Palmer has grants totaling more than $1 million for spinal research involving felines and rats.

In her taped message, Arthur said, “Palmer should conduct humane studies on volunteer human patients rather than torture animals.”

Palmer Vice President for Research William Meeker countered that PETA is distorting the facts (hard to believe, right?)

What PETA supporters fail to realize is that this research is not only rigorously regulated by external and internal governing bodies who ensure that the highest possible standards in animal care are followed, but that this type of research is vital for understanding how the neural and musculoskeletal systems function.

In a Question and Answer piece on its web site, Palmer Chiropractic says of PETA’s attacks against the university,

Why is PETA attacking Palmer?s research?

It?s simple. PETA is attacking Palmer because we use laboratory animals in some of our research studies. PETA does not really care about how well we treat our laboratory animals because PETA is unalterably opposed to the use of animals in research for any and all reasons whatsoever. PETA is also against the use of animals for food or clothing, or as pets (http://www.peta.org/about/index.html). In fact, PETA is against the use of animals for any human purpose of any kind. PETA does not seem to recognize that any good has arisen, or can arise from research using animals. (Ironically, health care research using animals and humans benefits both animals and humans alike.)

In a letter dated last November 2002, PETA threatened to ?do everything in our power to stop you.? PETA will never stop attacking Palmer as long as laboratory animals are used, regardless of the significance of the research and despite the fact that all such studies adhere to extremely stringent regulations and ethical guidelines for humane care. We also suspect that PETA is attacking Palmer and the chiropractic profession because they perceive us as weak. We note that many, many research institutions with much larger animal research programs are ignored by PETA. Why doesn?t PETA attack the 125 medical schools in the U.S.?

. . .

PETA continues to imply that Palmer cuts the legs and tails off the rats. Is this true?

No. PETA had obtained a grant proposal from Palmer that had originally discussed this methodology at one time. However, during the almost year long period of scientific review at NIH, new studies were published describing a new behavioral model of rat bipedalism. When these became known to NIH program officers and Palmer investigators, the protocols were changed. We have no plans to use the old surgical bipedal model, even though it has been used extensively in the past in spine research (over 30 references available upon request).

Sources:

Animal rights group harasses college. Chiropractic Economics, July 2003.

Questions and Answers about Research Using Laboratory Animals at Palmer Chiropractic University. Press Release, Palmer Chiropractic University, July 27, 2003.

“Golden Girl” to Call Employees for PETA?s Sake. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, June 12, 2003.

UK Considers Requiring "Domestic Animal" Label of Some Furs

According to The Independent (London), Great Britain’s Trade and Industry Secretary is considering rules that would require a “domestic animal” label on furs that are made from the fur of dogs and cats.

The United States banned the import, export or sale, of clothes made of cat or dog fur after Burlington Coat Factory sold coats that turned out to contain dog fur. Great Britain apparently currently has no law banning such furs nor requiring labelling.

The Independent quotes Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock as pushing for the rules. Hancock told The Independent,

Cat and dog fur is a cheaper option than other fur and is being used all over Europe. I am sure it’s being sold in Britain and I have spoken to traders abroad in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there is a massive stray dog problem and their fur is routinely used. This fur is being passed off as Siberian fox or rabbit fur and people have no idea it is from dogs and cats.

Source:

Fur clothes to be given ‘domestic animal’ label. Marie Woolf, The Independent (London), June 20, 2003.

Canadian Court: Cat Torture Is Not Art

The National Post reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal this month rejected an appeal by convicted animal abuser Jesse Power after dismissing his claim that his torture of a cat constituted art.

Power is one of three men arrested for their involvement in making a video showing the three men torturing a stray cat. At the time Power was a student at the Ontario College of Art and Design and after being arrested claimed that the film was designed as an “artistic protest” against society’s treatment of animals.

The Court of Appeal was not buying that nonsense. Writing for the court, Justice David Doherty wrote,

While it may help those who cannot reconcile this act with [Power’s] character to rationalize his actions as some form of artistic endeavor or artistic commentary gone amok, that interpretation is inconsistent with the contents of the videotape.

Doherty also criticized the trial judge, Judge Ted Ormston, for the lenient 90 day sentence imposed on Power. Doherty described as “patently unreasonable” the logic that Ormston used to arrive at the conclusion that Power “did not intend that the cat should suffer . . . there is nothing in the videotape or in his subsequent conduct to suggest that he did not fully appreciate and, indeed, to some extent relish in the cruelty being inflicted upon this cat.”

The National Post offered a chilling description of the tape that, to my knowledge, has not been published before (warning this is rather gruesome),

With the three young men whispering in the background, the camera suddenly comes into focus.

The cat, a pretty creature with a white belly and a striped tail, is alone in a white-walled barren room of a “squat” with Power and friends. It appears nervous from the get-go.

“Killing a raccoon would be a helluva lot more exciting,” whispers one unidentified voice.

“Pillowcase,” whispers another.

“No, we won’t be needing that,” someone says.

A white mouse, atop an empty margarine container, is put before the cat, who barely looks at it.

“Pacifist kitty,” one man says.

“Here they come on the run with their fingers up their bum … on the Tom and Jerry Show,” sings another voice.

The mouse is held by the tail before the cat, who moves away.

“Should I mutilate it now?” someone asks.

A little later, Power asks, “How do you guys feel about being filmed?”, and one of the others asks him, “What are you going to use it for?”

“I don’t even know yet,” says Power.

Wennekers then fashions a noose in the wire that has been affixed to the ceiling.

“Let’s get to work,” he says.

“I want to cut open its belly while it’s still alive and watch everything move around,” someone says.

“Yeah, me too,” someone else replies.

Power suggests they just “slit its throat and let it bleed,” but one of his cohorts says, “We can do both. Gut it and slit its throat.”

They hang the cat, which immediately begins to struggle frantically.

Power says, “Why don’t we just kill it?”, but takes a black glove and a straight razor when Wennekers hands them to him.

Power saws at the cat’s throat, while Wennekers stabs at it with a buck knife, and over the next terrible minutes, with the cat howling in agony and twitching, the trio attack it in various ways.

Once, Power is seen bending close to the animal, staring at it while it cries; another time, he whispers, “Beautiful, man”; once, he wipes the blade of his knife on the cat’s head.

In the final scene, Power slits open the cat’s chest, and appears to inhale deeply.

Surely the appeals court was right that Ontario might want to expand the 6 month maximum jail term for the sort of scum who can do this.

Source:

Cat torture was not art: judges. Christie Blatchford, National Post, June 14, 2003.

Cat Torturer Pleads Guilty

Matthew Kaczorowski, 21, plead guilty earlier this month for his role in the making of a videotape showing the torture and killing of a cat.

Kaczorowski made the tape along with Jesse Power, 22, and Anthony Wennekers, 25. Power and Wennekers were arrested back in 2001 and eventually plead guilty to charges stemming from the videotape, but Kaczorowski remained a fugitive for 18 months until his arrest earlier this year.

Kaczorowski was allowed to plea to a charge of mischief. His sentencing will not take place until the appeal over Power’s sentence is resolved. Power was sentenced to just 90 days in jail and 18 months house arrest. The prosecutor is appealing that light sentence to a higher court.

Wennekers was sentenced to time served and released after 11 months in custody.

Source:

Man pleads guilty in cat torture case. Nick Pron, Toronto Star, April 10, 2003.

Swedish Supplier of Cats for Medical Research Closes

Several animal rights sites reported in late March that Sweden’s only supplier of cats for medical research had closed in part due to pressure put on it by animal rights extremists.

According to a release posted on the web site of Stop Hunting don Animal Cruelty and other animal rights sites,

In Sweden there is only one breeder of cats for vivisection in Halmstad, Sweden. They have a permit to breed 300 cats every year and had bred thousands of cats for torture.

The campaign “Radda Kuskatorpskatterna” had been started to close them down and on Tuesday 25th of March the news came that they had closed down.

. . .

They have closed thanks to the pressure from the animal rights movement and an attempted raid by the ALF to free all the cats. According to the police the breeders are really afraid.

According to this story, the owners euthanized all of the remaining cats and kittens before shutting down.

Source:

Sweden’s only cat farm closed!. Stop Huntingdon Cruelty, Press Release, March 30, 2003.