Posted with the express permission of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, USA - Website: www.navs.org
On May 27, 2001, a British newspaper, The Sunday Express, ran the headline, "Pet Food Cruelty Exposed." The article went on to report disturbing research on dogs and cats by pet food manufacturer Iams (they also produce Eukanuba), owned by Procter and Gamble. We asked our Veterinary Consultant, Dr. Jean Swingle Greek, to comment on this situation.
Response from: Jean Swingle Greek, D.V.M., Veterinary Consultant, NAVS:
IAMS
During my eleven years as a practicing veterinarian, I have used and recommended foods manufactured by Eukanuba and Iams. Indeed, like many veterinary dermatologists, I have been impressed by the efforts that this company has put into developing foods that maximize good health and quality coats.
Eukanuba is known for sponsoring large amounts of research. Some of that research has been excellent. In particular, I recall a clinical trial performed by Dr. Rod Rosychuk at Colorado State’s veterinary school, which showed a marked decrease in itchiness in dogs that had allergies, when they were fed a particular type of food, which was high in omega-6 fatty aids. The dogs in this particular study were pets that had naturally occurring allergies and the owners were induced to participate in the study by being given free dog food. All and all, a win-win situation for dog, owner and dog food company! I agree with Eukanuba, that good research makes good pet food.
But what is good research? Recently the company has been under attack for some of their non- clinical research. Clinical research is performed on patients, be they human or otherwise, who have a naturally acquired disease. This type of research has the potential of helping the individual involved. It also has the advantage of looking at a disease as it occurs in the real world, without the artificiality of trying to mimic what happens naturally and gradually, in the contrived setting of a laboratory. It is this type of non-clinical, artificial experiments that cause me concern, both as a scientist and as a compassionate person.
Chronic kidney or renal failure is a leading cause of death among companion animals. One of my personal cat companions has had some evidence of mild renal failure for many years. I attribute her continued health and happiness in no small part to modifications we have made in her diet. The quality and amount of protein in the kidney patients’ diet seems to be of paramount importance. One set of Eukanuba sponsored experiments that has come under fire involves the induction acute kidney failure in both dogs and cats to study the effects of diet. I have a couple of problems with this. The barest perusal of veterinary literature as it pertains to kidney disease highlights the critical differences between chronic and acute kidney disease. Chronic renal failure is amenable to dietary modification however acute is not. By destroying 7/8ths of the kidney function in a single surgery, one creates a model of acute kidney disease. Do findings from this study have any bearing on the naturally acquired disease? I don’t know and neither do the researchers.
Given the wide spread nature of this problem, it would have been well within the realm of practicality to have recruited client owned animals with naturally occurring disease. This would lend credence to their studies, as clinicians are rightfully more trusting of studies that transpire under natural conditions. It might have benefited the affected animals and their people. Obviously, no one is going to sign up to have Fluffy slaughtered, but that does not preclude a world of other data that could be obtained. Non-invasive to minimally invasive data collection provides reams of useful information. Kidneys can be examined via ultrasound, urine analyzed, blood tested, and so on. Enrolled animals will eventually die. I find that most owners are eager to have their pets autopsied, if they are made to understand that we use what we learn to help other pets.
Why not do clinical studies? They are cumbersome and inconvenient. They make those of us doing the research dependent on the whims of owners, who tend to be less focused on our problems. If I induce allergies in dogs and lock them in a lab, I can be fairly certain that they will all show up for the next part of our study! Clinical research tends to be slower and more expensive. Rather than inducing allergies in thirty dogs, I have to wait for thirty dogs and their co-operative people to wander through my office. Rather than ordering my technicians to feed a particular diet, I must be dependent on the owners to be compliant.
The question becomes, is the extra trouble worth it? I think scientifically it is. As a veterinarian, I am much more interested in how a diet or drug worked in natural situation, than I am in what happened in an artificially induced disease in an artificial setting. Ethically, it’s an even easier call. I would much rather buy dog food from a company that thinks all dogs, not just the ones who are lucky enough to live in my house, are important. I would never ask Eukanuba to stop their quest for new information. I would beg them to consider how best to obtain it.
End of document.
If you would like to share your thoughts with IAMS, please follow the link below:
