They are very big on animal testing and vivisection, even now. They say they have cut down on it but inside information says not.

Some of the worst animal testing ever recorded, and the animals kept were/are treated very badly inbetween procedures, kept in squalour, rough handled, shaken and kicked/beaten just for being afraid.

And the worst part is most of the testing has been pointless.

Just how they claim to care about animals, when you see the footage, they obviously don't give a flying ****.

JMHO

I too heard bad reports about the way they tested for a veterinary diet for dogs with kidney problems. Personnally I have used another brand of food for ages with good results, and as the old saying goes "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Ah I have heard so many storys in the dog world some true some not, but I dont think I will change the way I feed the pups, I personaly think all dog food companys must test there stuff, imagine if they did not and thousands of dogs dropped dead, just think euk seem to get the brunt of the bad publicity, I have not seen any footage of animal cruelty by them and prob best I dont, thanks for the answeres guys, the other thing I had been told at crufts was somit to do with growth hormones being added to the meal, again I have no idea if its true or false.
shona x

I dont know if its ture or if its not, I posted this as I tought some people might find it useful and might send off for one for the food and or whatever else they send, I did not wish to start a debate.

cool no prob

I feed it as I know the reps and I value there opinion. The food suits mine and I'm sure if we go back far enough most dog food manufactureres tested on animals

I would hope all dog foods are tested on dogs at some point but hopefully just by feeding it to them lol! That's the reason I use Arden Grange. Firstly it's been developed by a dog breeder and not some huge company who thinks pet food = profit and hence the ingredient quality is less, secondly it has no artificial additives or colours, thirdly they are one of the few companies approved by the BUAV because they don't do invasive animal procedures during testing and fourthly (if that's a word) it's cheaper because they don't do 'gimmicks' like other brands which have to be paid for somehow hence high prices!
Becky

Why should any dog food manufacturer add an ingredient to dog food which might prove to be toxic? Do I assume from your comment that they add unnecessary ingredients which might then prove to be harmful?

Proctor & Gamble make other things besides animal food and they use animals unnecessarily to test their other products.

Tests are alleged to have included (evidence taken from documents submitted to US environmental agency in the 1990s):

'an acute toxicity test where dogs were force fed large amounts of a chemical cleaning fluid (Diethylene glycol hexyl ether) by stomach tube'

'long term poisoning tests in animals for colouring agents'

and a whole host of evidence that animals are harmed through a basic lack of care whilst being used for such experiments.

Hi, I did not say they added anything toxic. I assume that you have prior knowlage of this though and are talking about some case against them?

I thought you mentioned something about it not looking good if dogs dropped down dead after eating their food...suggestive of toxicity otherwise why might they drop dead?