This is why animal rights groups are often so utterly unbearable to deal with, even when you agree that testing cosmetics products on animals is probably not a good idea.
IAMS is up there which is… also a dog food company?
Honestly if a company boasts about how they didn’t test their dog food in a process that involved actual dogs, I’m never fucking buying it.
I wouldn’t claim to have the greatest understanding of these things, but I suspect the issue is how the testing is being done, the condition of laboratory animals being tested on for pet food companies, rather than the testing itself.
For example, investigators looking into a research facility contracted by Iams found malnourished, abused, disfigured and deceased animals.* Even when the animals are not mistreated, these large scale feeding trials are often conducted using laboratory animals that, in many cases, are bred to live their entire lives in small cages. Natural Balance,
Purina, Blue Buffalo (!!!) and many others still use the sorts of large scale, invasive testing that often leads to mistreated animals, while other brands, like Halo, Burns and The Honest Kitchen, use smaller scale, more humane trials that are considered cruelty free but are still AAFCO compliant.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think the reason those particular dog food brands are present on the sign is likely because of how the testing is conducted, not because testing occurs. Other brands are able to ensure that their food is safe in a way that is considered more humane, so they don’t make an appearance. Just putting the ‘questionable’ brands on the sign with no context is pretty confusing though.
I’m not sure what’s up with Soundcloud…to google!
*For the record, Iams was never charged with anything, and the company cut ties with the research facility immediately.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 