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.

Back to Top