|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Features > Update: Iams Stops Using Chicks in Tests!
Update: Iams Stops Using Chicks in Tests!
Thanks to continued pressure from PETA and compassionate people around the world, Iams has stopped using baby chicks in crude protein-digestibility experiments. The company is currently in the process of validating a non-animal test method called “IDEA” that it says should be ready by the end of 2006. Leave it to Iams to use the cruelest research method available for completing the simplest of tasks––namely, testing the digestibility of protein in its pet foods by subjecting 1-week-old baby chicks to severely growth-retarding “protein efficiency ratio” (PER) studies. Iams brags that it conducts “extensive live animal testing” in its PER chick tests to “assure consistent protein quality.” Yet, two of Iams’ largest competitors, Hill’s Pet Nutrition and Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, feel that these animal experiments are completely unnecessary and unreliable. Hill’s uses a high-tech computer program instead that provides “very accurate results,” and Purina refuses to conduct PER tests at all. Iams is truly behind the times––its continued use of the PER chick test flies in the face of objections raised by leading experts who have publicly condemned the PER test as being inhumane and ineffective. TNO Nutrition and Food Research (an internationally recognized authority in nutrition research), notes the following in issue 27 (December 2004) of Leads in Life Sciences: “[T]hese [PER] experiments are extremely slow and give no insight into the availability of the amino acids that are responsible for growth limitation. The test may also result in strong growth retardation due to amino acid deficiencies and therefore has ethical drawbacks. Moreover, this method determines the [protein] requirements of rats and [chickens], not of humans or dogs.” Iams actually funded a study that was published in a 2000 issue of the Journal of Microbiological Methods, in which the authors lamented that PER chick tests “take from 2 to 4 weeks and require special facilities and large amounts of raw materials,” making it a “labor intensive, time-consuming and variable” procedure. Clearly, whether judging by ethical, scientific, or economic criteria, the PER test is a miserable failure. Even basic common sense says that using a baby chick to model the digestive processes of a dog is crazy, not to mention lazy! Several companies have created humane alternatives that address all of these concerns. For instance, TNO developed a computerized non-animal model called FIDO (functional gastro-intestinal dog model) that has been scientifically validated for use as an alternative to the PER test. But, as is usually the case, Iams ignored the existence of FIDO, preferring instead to remain set in its ways and to continue harming baby chicks. Refusing to back down, PETA persisted in pressing Iams to join the company’s major competitors in abandoning the use of chicks in PER tests. And, on February 7, 2005, Iams confirmed that it was looking into another alternative test method called IDEA (Immobilized Digestive Enzyme Assay) to replace the use of chicks. But Iams will be slow to implement this test method as it claims it must “validate” the method against the chick test. Validating a high-tech test against an inappropriate and inaccurate low-tech animal test is never a good idea, for obvious reasons. You Can Help E-Mail Iams or write to the address below. Please ask the company to immediately end its live animal PER experiments in favor of the more compassionate and accurate FIDO system or accept validation data from the IDEA manufacturer (Novus International) and start using that test method immediately: Jeffrey P. Ansell, PresidentLearn more about our feathered friends and why they are worth fighting for. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Update
Update: Iams Stops Using Chicks in Tests!
We Want Empty Cages, Not Slightly Nicer Cages
The Rotten Truth Behind Iams’ 'Dental Defense' Diets
