Originally Posted by chico2
I suppose the torture and maiming of a few hundred former pets is easily forgotten with a few handouts :sad:...
...the fact is other animals are suffering so we can feed our Fido and Fifi foods that are relatively safe.The fact the report came from PETA does not make it any less real,whether we support PETA or not.The animals and their un-ending suffering is very real
I agree, it doesn't matter where the evidence comes from, and again, I am not arguing because of how I feel about PETA. I'm only trying to debate the point from both sides. I've worked for large corporations before, and I've seen what happens when the public gets a hold of negative information. No matter what they do, it becomes "of course you say that. You don't want to lose millions of dollars". While this is quite often true, it isn't always the case. I've been on the inside while the company tries to right a wrong, for the right reasons, but the media and the public only see the "evil corporation". Also, owning a pitbull and fighting the negative perceptions and now the BSL, I know how one-sided arguements can seem in the media. And I'm a fan of bodybuilding (I say fan, because a few too many bulges in the wrong spot to feel like a bodybuilder!
), and I've fought negative perceptions there. ("All bodybuilders are on steroids" is one that always got to me. I think what really got to me though, was the doctor who kept asking me if I was on anything, and finally when I said, "If I was taking steroids, I'd want my money back" and he looked me up and down, and kind of went "good point". But I digress...)
Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make is that Iams states that the animals they do trials on already have the afflictions they are trying to cure, and they use public animals who have owners and are returned afterwards. That is no different than human trials of medication. Other than a video of a research facility which belonged to an outside company, which was used by several food companies, and that Iams stopped using because of thier treatment, there has been nothing to refute them except to say, "They're lying" and "They have a lot of money, they can pay people off". If we are going to push a boycott of a company, then I don't think it is fair to base it on that.