# Any medical professionals explain why is this done?



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

I was trying to find a garlic study and came upon this horror:

Six month oral toxicity study of trinitrotoluene in beagle dogs


Six month oral toxicity study of trinitrotoluene in beagle dogs

Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the toxicity of the munitions compound 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT; CAS Reg. No. 118-96-7) in beagle dogs when administered daily for 26 weeks by capsule. 

Groups of six dogs per sex received TNT at doses of 0 (vehicle controls), 0.5, 2, 8, or 32 mg/kg/day. 

Toxicologic endpoints included clinical signs, body weights, food consumption, clinical biochemistry, hematology, urinalyses, organ weights, and gross and tissue morphology. 

The major toxic effects following the oral administration of TNT to dogs included hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia, liver injury, splenomegaly with accompanying histologic lesions, and death. Only the highest dose given proved to be lethal.
Hepatocytic cloudy swelling and hepatocytomegaly were apparent at all doses tested. 


======

I am aware of beagle testing. I find it abhorrent. 

But it would make sense to me that eating TNT would be very bad for any creature. 

Why is this done?

Why?

What does it prove that we don't already know?
As an aside, how human beings could go to work every day and do this to a beautiful, floppy-eared, gentle little dog trapped in a cage is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## GSDGunner (Feb 22, 2011)

Sunflowers said:


> Why?
> 
> What does it prove that we don't already know?
> As an aside,* how human beings could go to work every day and do this to a beautiful, floppy-eared, gentle little dog trapped in a cage is beyond my comprehension.*


Beyond mine as well. It makes me sick just thinking about it.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

It's called vivisection and it is wrong. They have unfortunately used beagles in many experiments for a long time. It is something I am very against and have been vocal about in my own community. Believe it or not, beagles are/were (not sure if they still do it) used for testing in dog foods. But not testing by just eating the food and testing if they like it, I mean sick tests. Like surgery and just really weird experiments that just seem uncalled for.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

It is wrong.  And it's not just beagles either. I had a friend who got hired on to a lab not realizing they did animal experimentation. She stayed for a week before she couldn't handle any more and left. But she told me about these people who actually skim places like craigslist, picking up the free and cheap ($10-25) pets which they then turn around and sell to the lab as lab animals. It's why I always tell people if they're going to sell their pet on craigslist, at least ask for a reasonable adoption fee. It could help keep them from becoming a lab animal.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

"As an aside, how human beings could go to work every day and do this to a beautiful, floppy-eared, gentle little dog trapped in a cage is beyond my comprehension."

That kind of paycheck can make an ignorant individual much more brainwashed...


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Pax8 said:


> It is wrong.  And it's not just beagles either. I had a friend who got hired on to a lab not realizing they did animal experimentation. She stayed for a week before she couldn't handle any more and left. But she told me about these people who actually skim places like craigslist, picking up the free and cheap ($10-25) pets which they then turn around and sell to the lab as lab animals. It's why I always tell people if they're going to sell their pet on craigslist, at least ask for a reasonable adoption fee. It could help keep them from becoming a lab animal.


Not to get too off topic but a really good idea is to ask for a substantial rehoming fee, 100-200 dollars, but make them give it you in a cashiers check payable to your favorite animal non profit. Even a gsd rescue  

You know they have money to provide for it and won't be selling the dog to some lab (hopefully), they know you are not just trying to make a quick buck off it.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> Not to get too off topic but a really good idea is to ask for a substantial rehoming fee, 100-200 dollars, but make them give it you in a cashiers check payable to your favorite animal non profit. Even a gsd rescue
> 
> You know they have money to provide for it and won't be selling the dog to some lab (hopefully), they know you are not just trying to make a quick buck off it.


Yup, I've suggested exactly this to people before who didn't want any money off their dog because it made them feel bad, but they still wanted some way to ensure the person was serious about the animal and wasn't just going to flip it for profit.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I have placed private fosters before and am in the process of doing the same now with a pittie I've had for a few months. 

I think it's silly to expect a 100 or 200 dollar fee to deter someone from doing something bad to a dog. 

I don't charge a rehoming fee when I place dogs. I'd rather that money go to some better dog food, training classes and treats/goodies for the new dog. I do a vet reference check and I interview the people in their home. That tells 1000x more about the intent of the people and the living situation the dog will be in than a measly $200 fee.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

DJEtzel said:


> I have placed private fosters before and am in the process of doing the same now with a pittie I've had for a few months.
> 
> I think it's silly to expect a 100 or 200 dollar fee to deter someone from doing something bad to a dog.
> 
> I don't charge a rehoming fee when I place dogs. I'd rather that money go to some better dog food, training classes and treats/goodies for the new dog. I do a vet reference check and I interview the people in their home. That tells 1000x more about the intent of the people and the living situation the dog will be in than a measly $200 fee.


I wish everyone would do that! But unfortunately not everyone wants to put that kind of time into it. So for those people, I'd rather they at least have a fee or required donation for a deterrent rather than just putting the dog up free for whoever wants to pick it up.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

DJEtzel said:


> I have placed private fosters before and am in the process of doing the same now with a pittie I've had for a few months.
> 
> I think it's silly to expect a 100 or 200 dollar fee to deter someone from doing something bad to a dog.
> 
> I don't charge a rehoming fee when I place dogs. I'd rather that money go to some better dog food, training classes and treats/goodies for the new dog. I do a vet reference check and I interview the people in their home. That tells 1000x more about the intent of the people and the living situation the dog will be in than a measly $200 fee.


I never once said NOT to do these things. I think it is a great idea, and actually I have done this before as well. (A cat I rescued and rehomed) In addition! To a donation for a non profit animal charity. Then you are double sure the pup is going to a good home. We can never be 100% sure someone who adopts the dog won't harm it BUT, with a size able check to a charity, a home interview, reference check, etc... I could feel good about rehoming an animal. (Not that Captain has to worry, I will be keeping him haha)


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Anyway, sorry OP back to the topic, I am not sure if dog food companies are doing these sorts of tests anymore, possibly now they are just doing taste tests, but I think a while back they were doing some other more invasicpve testing on dogs and cats,predominantly beagles.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

There's no reason to think dog food companies test less than they used to. The testing issue is an AAFCO issue I think -- there are two ways to get dog food approved by AAFCO, and testing is one of them (feeding trials). 

Fromm and The Honest Kitchen are on the "cruelty free" list. It's a pretty small list -- smaller than it used to be. So's Bravo. 

Testing can be in those horrendous labs, or done with more care about the dogs. (See the Whole Dog Journal article linked below.) P&G apparently owns their own testing facility, and eventually adopts the dogs out to P&G employees at around age 6. That would cover all the P&G brands of food. Natura built their own testing lab too before P&G bought them (Innova/Evo/Healthwise/Cal Naturals, etc.). Their people told me it was to get control of the conditions for the dogs so that they could ensure they'd be treated well and adopted out. They had no independent verification of that to offer me though. This was _years _ago that I talked to them about it. I don't know if they are now absorbed into P&G's testing center.

This article describes the P&G, Natura, and Hills facilities:
Pet Food Companies and Animal Research: What Do They Do? - Whole Dog Journal Article


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

Guessing about what has been said in that abstract, it sounds like LD50 testing. They are trying to see what would happen if an animal was to ingest the substance, what kind of side effect you would see and what would cause death. It is a sad fact that we have to figure out what would happen if something like this happened. It is how they figured out a lot of different poison levels and what effects they could have. Same kind of thing that they've done with people in the past in concentration camps and insane asylums. 

Purina had the first state of the art animal food testing facility, and before the IAMs one closed (they're bought out by Royal Canin) they had done a lot of improvements to how they housed their animals. 

Show me images or videos from those places and I guarantee that I can explain what you are seeing. Why? Because I was a part of biomedical animal research when I was going to college. I personally saw to the health of animals that were involved in our trials. I also got to help out with a human trial that we did that was basically the same experiment that we did with dairy cows. Though easier since humans only have a true stomach and not 4 chambers (Our dairy had a small cannulated herd to access the rumen and other stomachs).

So nice to know that people can instantly judge someone who has been involved in animal related research and just glump them into one category. I cared about those animals. I made certain I knew what we were doing and why. I was not cruel to any of them. I watched procedures and helped with them. I was there when animals were euthanized (never with an overdose of pentobarbital). I was certain to ask what I was seeing, why it was done and why that particular method compared with others. 

Unless the food says that it was tested, it likely didn't have food trials that met AAFCO standards. Their standards aren't really anything to shout about, but most foods will say formulated rather than tested on them. There's a difference to what the words on the foods mean. -shrugs-

And if you looked down at the date, this study was conducted back in the early 80s. Not something that would need to be or would be done now. There's a huge library of just research studies that have been done. Unless you can prove a need to repeat something and meet the criteria for lessening the animals and types of them used, the procedure refined, you don't get to have money to do it. So properly done research is actually vastly different than the things that PETA and other places still tosses up. From the times before the 90s generally.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

When it comes to testing dog foods on dogs, why? 

Speaking specifically of *large corporate owned* dog food brands.

It is-

Not to improve the overall health and well being of dogs, but rather what cheap additives they can get away with to either market to owners (colorful Beneful) or cheap fillers and on.

Our food chain and by default dogs food as well has been corrupted and steered away from what we already know, whole, clean, healthy and chemical free is what is best. The problem is you can't patent those ideals.

Other then establishing some minimum requirements for vitamins and minerals and such there really shouldn't be testing *purely* for profit margins. 

The need should be based on if it's really needed and meant to save human and animal lives.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Exposure to 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene occurs through eating, drinking, touching, or inhaling contaminated soil, water, food, or air. Health effects reported in people exposed to 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene include anemia, abnormal liver function, skin irritation, and cataracts. This substance has been found in at least 20 of the 1,430 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Source: ATSDR - ToxFAQs?: 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)

There can be a human health risk - therefore the toxicology study..


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

If dog food companies were using whole ingredients and no chemicals at all in their food, would they still have to conduct testing in animals (not taste tests, I mean surgery, etc...)?

If the dog food only had 4 or 5 ingredients and they were meat or peas or sweet potatoes or something to that effect, what is there to test COLLIE CVT? The research you did was for what purpose? Were you all testing dog food or what was it that you were testing? Sorry, I didn't catch that. Thanks.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> If dog food companies were using whole ingredients and no chemicals at all in their food, would they still have to conduct testing in animals (not taste tests, I mean surgery, etc...)?
> 
> If the dog food only had 4 or 5 ingredients and they were meat or peas or sweet potatoes or something to that effect, what is there to test COLLIE CVT? The research you did was for what purpose? Were you all testing dog food or what was it that you were testing? Sorry, I didn't catch that. Thanks.


The very act of cooking food changes it's chemical composition. As well 4-5 ingredient foods would likely be nutritionally lacking.

Then there's prescription food. Which can have very valid effects - urinary s/o for example that dissolves some urinary crystals and stones.

There is very valid reasons to test dog food.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Barbie asks a fair question.

I just want to clarify my comment was more general in nature about foods like Beneful made by Purina and more directed to the marketing/profit drivers that override basic food nutrition requirements needed by man and beast.

Beneful for example, why all the colors (and consequently artificial chemical food dyes) for a species that is mostly color blind? So they can sell more of the crap to humans who buy and use color to judge food, healthy green veggies, bright orange carrots and such. Even though some of those dyes are carcinogenic. 

I know someone who worked for a mega corp that owns a bunch of restuarant chains. They will start with high quality food to get customers in and then monitor complaints as they intentionally degrade the quality over time to save money. Basically they are studying how low they can lower the quality to the point of diminishing returns and keep at just that level.

There is no reason to believe that a lot of this 'research' being done by large pet food owning companies aren't doing the same. The difference is the dogs eat pretty much the same food every day so they get dosed over and over again with sub par ingredients and chemicals.

Perhaps in a university setting the reasons are more altruistic but make no mistake, when a good dog food brand gets bought out by a mega corp, it's all about increasing profit margin and marketing, not optimal dog health.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Colie CVT said:


> Guessing about what has been said in that abstract, it sounds like LD50 testing. They are trying to see what would happen if an animal was to ingest the substance, what kind of side effect you would see and what would cause death. It is a sad fact that we have to figure out what would happen if something like this happened. It is how they figured out a lot of different poison levels and what effects they could have. Same kind of thing that they've done with people in the past in concentration camps and insane asylums.
> 
> Purina had the first state of the art animal food testing facility, and before the IAMs one closed (they're bought out by Royal Canin) they had done a lot of improvements to how they housed their animals.
> 
> ...



Thank you for explaining and posting this. 

I also wanted to add that reputable testing agencies have government oversight that would blow your mind. It involves everything from what animals(and why that type of animal is used), how they acquire them (they are no longer allowed to buy dogs willy nilly, they must come approved and tracked resources), how the animal is housed, psychological enrichment, temps, daylight time, it's amazing the oversight. All labs must have a committee overseeing everything about research on animals and that committee must not be involved in the research. 

I can't speak to this study. But I can tell you, if you bought it at a vet. It was tested at some point on animals. And yes, that includes euthanizing the animals and doing posts on them. It's a horrible truth. But it's needed to know certain things. 

While I have never directly worked in lab animal medicine, I did an internship one summer at a facility that DID use them. The veterinarian I was interning with was called to do a post on an animal that died under general anesthesia during a procedure that was not supposed to be lethal. When he found that human error caused the animals death, well let's just say it wasn't pretty and immediate and strong actions were taken to ensure it did not happen again. It was eye opening to me. 

I don't like thinking about it too much. Because it is heartbreaking. But something's cannot be gleaned from computer models.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Barbie asks a fair question.
> 
> I just want to clarify my comment was more general in nature about foods like Beneful made by Purina and more directed to the marketing/profit drivers that override basic food nutrition requirements needed by man and beast.
> 
> ...


PS. This comment is not based on OP study (This thread is getting a little confusing to me 

Well when people want to pay less for pet food this becomes necessary... Inferior dog food is cutting costs everywhere it can.

It is supply and demand at those price points.. They basically are trying to see how they can sustain a dog, and not kill it.. Not necessarily feed it.

Just a side note: I believe this also causes the price of premium foods to go up.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

How did dogs and humans survive for the 10,000 years leading up to this day and age of lab testing? 

Speaking only of nutrition. We've created foods that make money and sick dogs (and people) and then foods and medicine to fix the sicknesses we created.

Ya know what I mean?

Point being is a lot of this lab testing wouldn't be needed in the first place if the quality of the nutrition going in, in the first place, wasn't toxic and pro inflammatory to begin with.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> How did dogs and humans survive for the 10,000 years leading up to this day and age of lab testing?
> 
> Speaking only of nutrition. We've created foods that make money and sick dogs (and people) and then foods and medicine to fix the sicknesses we created.
> 
> ...


Good points. A lot of conspiracy theories in that comment...
Unfortunately they are all probably very true...

But irrelevant of how good the diet is.. Medications have their place...

Its up to us however to get our act together and eat properly. There is no authority telling anyone how to eat, and to eat all the processed junk out there...

As for theories on traditional food pyramid... Paleo diet.. Atkins etc...
Please dont open those worms... Its a huge debate...

Have the pharmaceutical companies mislead us on what is the correct diet? 
Is there enough research into it?
Have we evolved to eat grains (Paleo theory- 'The anthropologist diet')...

Too much to discuss... 
Best to ask a good dietician with an open mind.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yup. This is true. Both pet and human populations have gone up, increasing demand.

It still costs in the long run though, eat cruddy food now, pay later with health problems, shortened active life spans.

I'd like to see a study of what cruddy foods end up costing pet owners in the long run.





Lykoz said:


> Well when people want to pay less for pet food this becomes necessary... Inferior dog food is cutting costs everywhere it can.
> 
> It is supply and demand..
> 
> Just a side note: I believe this also causes the price of premium foods to go up.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> How did dogs and humans survive for the 10,000 years leading up to this day and age of lab testing?
> 
> Speaking only of nutrition. We've created foods that make money and sick dogs (and people) and then foods and medicine to fix the sicknesses we created.
> .



Well, they only lived for 40-50 years for one. The medicines we have created and tested have increased the life span of dogs and humans. A lot. Of course now we all get cancer. We live longer, lots longer. 

Yes there are outliers, famous people that lived into their seventies. But for the most part, simple diseases killed people and dogs. Vaccines and food and medicines, we live longer.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Lykoz, 

While I'm trying to stay strictly on the dog related side of this the commonalities exist. Canaries in the coal mine.

I had no intention of bringing up the human diets you mentioned below, please do not put words into my posts like that.

Further, if I want to open up the human diet "can of worms" in the chat sub forum I *will* do so.




Lykoz said:


> Good points. A lot of conspiracy theories in that comment...
> Unfortunately they are all probably very true...
> 
> But irrelevant of how good the diet is.. Medications have their place...
> ...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

lol sorry, I know how I sounded. Thats what my message read at the end of the day.

I was expressing my comment with a different intention...

Cant communicate sound on a forum.

I didnt mean DONT DO IT...
I meant dont get me started.

I dont know if that makes sense.
Rereading my comment you read it correctly, but thats not what my intention was. 
Worded it wrong.

As for words in your mouth. Guilty there too 
Sorry.
Was my natural inclination of thought.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yes, like plagues and for dogs rabies and parvovirus and such. 

However, it didn't used to be Agro chemicals, pesticides and industrially raised Frankenstein animals that go into both our dogs and our foods.

Again, speaking specifically about nutrition, not vaccines or critical care ( like saving a dog from bloat in emergency) food has become *one* of the reasons for chronic illness like diabetes and obesity. That did not used to be.

Some studies are showing a decline in life expectancies now. 




gsdsar said:


> Well, they only lived for 40-50 years for one. The medicines we have created and tested have increased the life span of dogs and humans. A lot. Of course now we all get cancer. We live longer, lots longer.
> 
> Yes there are outliers, famous people that lived into their seventies. But for the most part, simple diseases killed people and dogs. Vaccines and food and medicines, we live longer.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No worries. Thank you for clarifying.



Lykoz said:


> lol sorry, I know how I sounded. Thats what my message read at the end of the day.
> 
> I was expressing my comment with a different intention...
> 
> ...


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Again, speaking specifically about nutrition, not vaccines or critical care ( like saving a dog from bloat in emergency) food has become *one* of the reasons for chronic illness like diabetes and obesity. That did not used to be.
> 
> Some studies are showing a decline in life expectancies now.



I would love to see those studies. 

And the food is not the reason for obesity. Feeding too much and not enough excersise is the reason for obesity, and that often leads to diabetes, especially in cats. That's an ownership issue. Our dogs are kept and managed different than 40 years ago. Very different from 200 years ago. 

For example, none of my dogs have ever been obese. None of my dogs have ever had allergies, ear infections, chronic UTI, immune mediated diseases. All have been foods from Iams to Nutro, to 4health and ProPlan. 

Have I been lucky? Probably. But if "bad" foods were the cause, then at least one of my many dogs would have been affected? No? I am not against a RAW diet. I see the value. I just don't want to do it. Nor do I want to spend 80 bucks on a bag of food every 20 days. 

I had a cat that got blocked a few times. Thought he was going to need a PU surgery. Put him on Purina One Urinary tract health. No blockage in 10 years. And that food is not high on anyone's list of quality food. But scientifically, it's formula saved my cats life. I could not afford surgery. He was nearly euthanized. 

Yes, people feeding high quality diets are better off now than the original packaged dog foods. RAW and natural feeding is different now then when people fed scraps off the table. As consumers we are more aware. I give you that. 

Client at my last practice, GSD. Fed RAW, very balanced. Used a holistic vet. Very naturally raised dog. With the worst allergies EVER!!! She did everything holistically. ACV, homeopathic supplements, acupuncture, everything to avoid "western" medicine. Had food allergy panel done, adjusted the food, thyroid tested, even treated just in case. Know what helped the dog? Prednisone. 

No one way is perfect or fool proof. I just think people need to be open to the things that will increase an animals quality of life. Even if that means the dog/cat is on a RX diet.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'll try to find them and post them up in chat, since they relate to humans only.

Here's the thing, I said food was *one* of the causes, I put the asterisks around the word one to acknowledge what you went to lengths to explain below. 

The fact is, processed, high sugar, high carb, low fiber, lots of corn and wheat (and low healthy fats) have *contributed* to chronic disease and obesity. Then there are the chemicals and dyes which are often toxic.

It stands to reason that dogs are exposed to the same substances are going to react negatively as well.

I know someone who feeds raw and the dog has chronic ear infections too. His dogs all eat the same diet and only this one dog has the problem so it maybe genetic.

Still these stories don't discount that how we produce food for dogs and ourselves has changed drastically since WWII.

I am speaking specifically to the degradation of our food chain and how it HAS negatively impacted our health.

This is different from vaccines and critical care such as med for infection, life saving surgery and managing chronic disease AFTER diagnosis (such as prescription diets). I am NOT talking about those issues at all.

It's about prevention.










gsdsar said:


> I would love to see those studies.
> 
> And the food is not the reason for obesity. Feeding too much and not enough excersise is the reason for obesity, and that often leads to diabetes, especially in cats. That's an ownership issue. Our dogs are kept and managed different than 40 years ago. Very different from 200 years ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

gsdsar said:


> I would love to see those studies.
> 
> And the food is not the reason for obesity. Feeding too much and not enough excersise is the reason for obesity, and that often leads to diabetes, especially in cats. That's an ownership issue. Our dogs are kept and managed different than 40 years ago. Very different from 200 years ago.
> 
> ...


Quality and type of food is just as important as quantity and exercise with regards to obesity and health.
I dont know what you mean by that comment.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Thanks. I was not trying to be snarky about the studies. I actually love to read those things. LOL. 

And yes, you are right, genetics does play a part as well. 

I think overall we are a more educated consumer, at least some of us are(won't speak for Joe Schmo). And that questioning the status quo is important.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Also, the only reason I brought this aspect up was because Magwart mentioned the large dog food manufacturing concerns like P&G.

*“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” ~ Hippocrates.*


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

:thumbup:

I plan on starting a thread in chat, for us humans.



I will try to include the studies, I heard them discussed on the radio.



gsdsar said:


> Thanks. I was not trying to be snarky about the studies. I actually love to read those things. LOL.
> 
> And yes, you are right, genetics does play a part as well.
> 
> I think overall we are a more educated consumer, at least some of us are(won't speak for Joe Schmo). And that questioning the status quo is important.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

I've read that the life expectancy of humans is estimated to increase to 120 yrs within the next 50 years...


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Regardless, live studies are a necessary evil to truly save lives. So when I have an animal come in for a toxicity, I can call aspca poison control and speak to a toxicologist and know exactly what symptoms to watch for, toxic dose, treatment, etc....

You unfortunately don't know these things without testing these things...

Human medicine is a whole different ball park. I'm not even going to project my opinions on that one


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Lykoz said:


> Quality and type of food is just as important as quantity and exercise with regards to obesity and health.
> I dont know what you mean by that comment.



What I meant was that, a dog will not get fat "just because" he is fed a bad food. A dog gets fat because he is eating more calories than he burns. More in than out. If you are feeding an appropriate amount of ANY food and your dog is getting appropriate exersise,(barring medical condition like thyroid) you dog will not be fat. 

As for health. I stand by what I said. I think a lot is genetics. Not food. I have seen as many dogs die at 16 bring fed Beneful as I have seen dogs die early being fed RAW. I don't think one is the cause of the other in ALL cases, basic I it causation or correlation.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

gsdsar said:


> As for health. I stand by what I said. I think a lot is genetics. Not food.... I don't think one is the cause of the other in ALL cases, basic I it causation or correlation.


100% agree. I haven't read the thread but I see people blaming longevity, or lack of, on food and vaccines. Our Boxer lived to be 13. She ate Purina the first 10 years of her life and switched to raw the last 3. 13...Boxers don't usually live past 10 and she was one of the oldest the practice has ever had. Our other Boxer will be 9 this year. Zero health issues. Fed Purina until recently switching to Victor. My collie, fed crap Dad's, was 15 when we euthanized him due to arthritis pain. All his organ functions were perfect.

Genetics, IMO, play a much larger role than environment in longevity.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

gsdsar said:


> What I meant was that, a dog will not get fat "just because" he is fed a bad food. A dog gets fat because he is eating more calories than he burns. More in than out. If you are feeding an appropriate amount of ANY food and your dog is getting appropriate exersise,(barring medical condition like thyroid) you dog will not be fat.
> 
> As for health. I stand by what I said. I think a lot is genetics. Not food. I have seen as many dogs die at 16 bring fed Beneful as I have seen dogs die early being fed RAW. I don't think one is the cause of the other in ALL cases, basic I it causation or correlation.


Eh. Diet is not a simple in/out calorie count.
Simplify it like that to your peril.

If we lived on mostly a sugar diet.. We would have huge sugar dumps, and eat more and more...

Now I guess you could just cut a dogs calorie count..
But essentially the dog is never reaching satiety (Dog always hungry) or meeting his nutritional needs.

But I see how you could be right.. After all we control what they eat to the gram.. They dont have much choice to eat more or less..

It is a balance of all the things mentioned.
What a person, dog eats does have an effect on obesity.. An important one too...

In fact if dogs were on high quality diets/exercise/good genetics... (See what I did there? Used the variable you called 'not important', and replaced it with one you might consider 'not important')
There would be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to CONTROL FOOD INTAKE in most cases... (Except maybe for training considerations).
They could eat to their hearts content.

Your whole hypothesis relies simply on the fact that you control the amount they eat completely.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Lykoz said:


> Eh. Diet is not a simple in/out calorie count.
> Simplify it like that to your peril.
> 
> If we lived on mostly a sugar diet.. We would have huge sugar dumps, and eat more and more...
> ...



Actually I control everything. Their diet/excersise and genetics. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. 

Final point, some dogs will self limit food. Some dogs won't. My Lab for example. She would eat until her stomach burst. I don't allow it. I control what she eats. I also control and decide the minimum I am willing to feed her to keep her at a good weight. If she is not getting enough physical activity, I won't decrease her food, I MUST increase her activity to keep her at a good weight. This also adds in the intact/speutered debate. I don't have fat dogs, no matter their reproductive status. And they all have good muscle tone and are generally long lived. 

I guess I should correct and say nothing is irrelevant. Everything is relevant. I just won't say that only one thing is the cause of obesity. It's too multi factored to be blamed on feeding a "bad " diet.


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

The OP posted a study that was NOT involved in dog food testing. It was published in a Toxicology journal. So it was focused on the study of toxic substances. This study has zero to do with dog food. Absolutely zero. It was likely a study done so that they could learn what TNT does to animals and how much is considered a lethal dose. 

I did not work in dog food testing. I know about the testing because I was involved in research dealing with animals. I have also done a lot of research on animal nutrition and made sure I understood how the AAFCO standards work. The way that food bags are labeled is very telling if you know how to read them. Each word has a special meaning that tells you how things are formulated. They cannot say that a food was tested unless they did research that fits the standards that AAFCO set. Which as I said is nothing special. Something like a certain amount of dogs have to eat the food for 6 months and not get sick/die. Companies can do more research but if it isn't published in a national journal dealing with animal science it isn't exactly what I would consider peer reviewed research. 

The research I was involved in during college involved cows and rats. I worked in the lactation biology lab. My boss focused on CLA and its uses/ways to increase production of it. The trials we did in dairy cows involved giving a concentrated amount of different CLA precursors passed the rumen to see if the bacteria within the rumen were a big key in it or if it could be manipulated that way. We got blood, milk and adipose tissue samples at different times. We cannulated the animals for the dairy, and took care of them afterward. We also were contracted to test a fat additive for a company. The rodent trials dealt with cancer and seeing if diets with CLA helped reduce it. They also did some research with the weight loss CLA aids in. 

I also did some lameness scoring for another research professor at a dairy down where I went to tech school. The animals we used in tech school were considered research animals and because of it, I am extremely familiar with animal care rules, restrictions and the amount of paperwork involved. We had to justify all we did and we had to answer to authorities about the animals in our care. They were very well treated and each one was extremely important to us. 

It grinds my gears to see people instantly toss everyone involved in research into one boat. I know some places are bad and some time ago it was really bad. But they have made huge strides toward increasing the care and housing for research animals. I have even seen research done on environmental enrichment for laboratory animals. So I will always stand up and cry foul at people who toss out the outdated information and instantly start shouting cruel words about us. I have met some wonderful people in research. They love those animals and they will not stand for their mistreatment. 

So again, see it and ask about it yourself if you have questions. The Internet is full of misinformation that preys on the ignorance of the average person. I used to believe it myself until I stepped into the world and saw it all first hand. It was truly eye opening.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Colie CVT said:


> The OP posted a study that was NOT involved in dog food testing. It was published in a Toxicology journal. So it was focused on the study of toxic substances. This study has zero to do with dog food. Absolutely zero. It was likely a study done so that they could learn what TNT does to animals and how much is considered a lethal dose.


Yep I figured that out from the get go. My first post kind of shows relevance, earlier in thread. I thought there was some sort of secondary mini-debate going on with regards to food. Haven't read the actual study... But I posted earlier that their are effects of TNT poisoning over time to contaminated: Soil, Food, water etc.

I think the purpose of the study was to study the effects of TNT toxicity and how it effects animals over a long duration. (I believe the study went on for 6 months)...

People misunderstood the intentions of the study...
They were assuming that there is 'no reason to test an obvious poison' i.e. nobody would eat it...

However you do not need to physically take a block on TNT and eat a spoonful to be effected.

I think they wanted to observe the effects of different dosages and see what type of threat and contamination possibilities there would be.
I have no idea how TNT is used... But I imagine there are people around the blasts sights that could have secondary health consequences.

I am pretty sure they had a good reason if people actually read the study.
Tried to look at it, but I could not get access to that journal. Just read the abstract. Was quite interesting.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

gsdsar said:


> Actually I control everything. Their diet/excersise and genetics. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this.
> 
> I guess I should correct and say nothing is irrelevant. Everything is relevant. I just won't say that only one thing is the cause of obesity. It's too multi factored to be blamed on feeding a "bad " diet.


No need to disagree on anything.
You agree with me now 

Much of what I said was to highlight the point that food quality/type of food is an important variable in controlling obesity.
I just took out a different variable to show more clearly the importance of food type/quality. I was not trying to assume that restriction of intake plays no role. 

We both agree that everything plays an important role. There is no such thing as a 'perfect diet' 'perfect genetics' etc.. Then we have sterilisation's, health complications..

So everything comes into play. 
My only point that I was really pressing is that food quality/type etc. is a very important part of the puzzle with regards to obesity.


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

I was mentioning it since someone else made it seem like they thought it had something to do with dog food. You seem to have more understanding about it than others, Lykos.

Type and quality of food does have something to do with how the dog can utilize the food, however the amount does still have some importance. People have to look at what they're doing with their dog and what kind of foods have a higher calorie content compared with others. Every dog is an individual. Feeding what works for them is important. There's plenty of choices if anything with how the dog food market goes.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Sorry. I will probably get a lot of heat for this but it is my opinion. I have heard your explanations, I heard your background collie cvt and your hands on experience. I heard others opinions. I just don't agree. I STILL don't agree. I think maybe I am more stubborn than I like to admit haha. I just don't believe animals should be ours to test on. I try very hard to prevent using products tested on animals in my own home. I'm not perfect and I am sure I have used items tested in animals, but I try to avoid as much as possible. No one can have the perfect diet or the perfect life or perfectly avoid everything that was tested on animals, but I just don't like animals being tested on period. I don't know if any amount of explanation or studies will change my mind.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

Barbie, if you feel strongly about helping lab beagles, you might consider volunteering with Beagle Freedom Project (I _think _they are based in San Diego, but have a nationwide foster network). They do pretty fantastic work, taking beagles when labs are done with them and willing to release the dogs to the rescue. They generally can't talk about where they came from or what they went through--that's the deal they make to get the dogs out. Groups like this never have enough fosters, so it's a good way to make a difference for the dogs in their new lives.

http://www.beaglefreedomproject.org/about

Here's their You Tube channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/user/BeagleFreedomProject


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

Not all animal testing is for humans. There is a lot of testing going on to benefit the animals. The amount of money that goes into research for dairy cows or other livestock is pretty insane. Dog food is tested on dogs because that way they can tell how it effects their health and well being. -shrugs- I know what I was helping with and how the animals were treated while I was helping on those projects. I was not cruel to them. I stepped in if I felt that someone was doing something wrong. Those animals were important to us. The school would keep any cows that were cannulated far longer than any other because they were valuable.

You can be against it. That's your prerogative. I won't stand by and watch people bad mouth people who I know put their everything into keeping the animals healthy and happy while they're a part of the research projects. Saying that people who work in these facilities have no care is being extremely short sighted and frankly ignorant and rude. I missed being on the dairy so much after the large feed trial was done that I went out a few times a week to help with feeding calves because they were short handed at the dairy. I love dairy cows because of that job. I learned a lot and I feel that I got a lot out of it. And I know the research that we did has benefited both animals and people alike. 

Heck, to this day, I still have pictures of every cow who was in the last few trials that I was a part of because of how long I worked with them and how much I came to appreciate them and their antics.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

I appreciate that you cared for these animals. I guess maybe some would consider me on the extreme end but I just disagree with animals being used for testing whether for our benefit, theirs, etc... Animals never asked to be used in testing. Even if they were treated nicely it is the principal for me. I have been involved in efforts I would rather not discuss because it would be a whole other thread but I don't even agree with testing on dairy cows either. I don't even consume dairy for that purpose and don't eat meat etc... I know I am in the minority. *shrug* all I can say if it is legal, people and corporations will keep doing it while I keep boycotting and being against it. To each their own I guess. In the meantime I will Continue to rescue animals or help in rescue efforts because it is what is in my control.


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

I see what I did as more proactive than boycotting it. I actively made certain those animals had a good life. I made sure that they were fed, that they were handled correctly. I spent time petting them, taking care of them after minor surgery, learning how to draw blood and place central lines. Spent time grooming them, watching them as they interacted. My heart broke when we lost one of the cows to mycoplasm mastitis. Taking care of those animals was my job, and I have made it my life mission to continue taking care of animals, seeing to their health and well-being. 

To me, that is doing far more for them than sitting on an opposite side with no real knowledge of what is happening, saying this is wrong and not coming up with ways that could replace the use of them. How else do we know that food is healthy for animals if not testing it? That medications will help with illness? We have to test it. Plain and simple. Otherwise we end up potentially poisoning or hurting thousands of animals as a result of just trying to toss a product out there without being certain it is safe. Same thing with surgical procedures to help make lives better or simply save them. 

There is purpose to research. It isn't simply done willy-nilly. When done properly, you have to prove the reason behind it, why you have to use what animals you want to, how you could do it better if its been done before and the paperwork would make your head spin. The people in charge of the overall lab were some of the strictest people I've ever met. The animal's health and well being was always top priority. Truth is, most research animals that I've known were treated better than ones owned by the average person, especially in the case of livestock. If you haven't actively been in the world, you don't really have a leg to stand on. You don't actually know what's involved. You have only seen pictures and stories written with the intent of preying upon emotions. Usually fairly old stuff too.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

LOL!

$6 million dollar man, we can rebuild him.



There's life expectancy and then there is quality of life.

I'd rather increase the *healthy* life expectancy of dogs. They don't live long enough.......



Anubis_Star said:


> I've read that the life expectancy of humans is estimated to increase to 120 yrs within the next 50 years...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm not as against animal testing as Barbie but I really think animal testing for things like cosmetics should stop. How long does mascara REALLY need to stick to eye lashes? Should an animal suffer for a new chemical that makes mascara stick for 48 hours without the persons eyes turning into raisens? 

How much animal testing is for things that serve only for marketing and for profit incentives?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Except we are seeing new diseases become more predominant in the span of one generation of humans. That's way too fast to be a genetic change. It would follow that the same effect is occurring in dogs.

Back when Purina was a stand alone company Purina dog chow was a good dog food. The problem is as the quality foods sold into larger mega corps the quality of the food decreases concurrently with the type of ingredients.

It's multi-factoral.

If a dog is being fed a lower carb, hence lower glycemic, diet it will be easier for the owners to maintain the dog at a healthy weight.

If you combine poor food, poor health habits and then genetics too, the problem is worse.

The problem is holistic.





Jax08 said:


> 100% agree. I haven't read the thread but I see people blaming longevity, or lack of, on food and vaccines. Our Boxer lived to be 13. She ate Purina the first 10 years of her life and switched to raw the last 3. 13...Boxers don't usually live past 10 and she was one of the oldest the practice has ever had. Our other Boxer will be 9 this year. Zero health issues. Fed Purina until recently switching to Victor. My collie, fed crap Dad's, was 15 when we euthanized him due to arthritis pain. All his organ functions were perfect.
> 
> Genetics, IMO, play a much larger role than environment in longevity.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

One more thought, when it comes to food chain animals like dairy and meat. Agra business is huge and testing is done to see how much more of "product" the animal can produce. My Grandfather was a dairy farmer, his Holstein cows lived up to 15 years. Now the same breed of cattle live about 7 years. They are studied, studied on how to push max milk production, producing more of their natural hormones while being injected with hormones. Meanwhile the quality of the milk has gone down. Every milk carton label assure us the Rbst is not harmful to humans....

Feed lot meat cattle, crammed into small lots, eating a diet that is not natural to them and producing meat that is way too high in omega 6 (pro inflammatory thanks in part to the corn) all supported by studies that serve the purpose of Agra business, not small family farms, but mega corps. 

TNT was created by the name sake of the Nobel Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel. While conjecture remains he did not create dynamite with the intention that it be used for violent purposes, such as war. 

Science can be used for good, but is often used for purposes that don't serve animals or people for optimal health purposes.

The point should be to *reduce* the need for animal studies, be it for humans or animals. 

Instead for profit incentives use chemicals like TNT and then the liability of determining exactly how much of this chemical it takes to kill a human or animal is put onto society, tested on animals, so the chemical can be continued to used ...for profit.

It's one of those vicious circle type of situations, which abound in our modern lives.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Thank you to all who replied. I learned a lot and changed an opinion or two


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Here is the crux of the argument. Animals have been and are very likely still severely mistreated. 

Research from a veteneray standpoint probably has much better measures to look after the animals which is their ultimate goal, as opposed to other research.
People get an opinion of the far right or left and then confirm their beliefs by reading more about, or taking part in things that already is part of their moral code, what they already believe. (Confirmation bias).





So is it important to improve quality of life of those animals? I am completely for that.

Am I against research? No way..
What people dont understand is that new advances always require research weather it is on animals or humans.. In fact any product that passes animal testing will eventually go through human trials also. Should we skip the animal trials and go straight to humans?

Some of the biggest advancements in medicine happened during Nazi Germany, where they could not care less about their human participants in their studies.

Many of the biggest medical advancements had a significant animal testing phase... And even if they did not... Essentially there were human trials..

Then there is the cosmetic industry. Do we need animals being tested for that?
I dont believe in it. Yet a person who uses a product and finds she has a huge rash all over her face might feel otherwise.
The other side of the arguement do we really need cosmetics? lol...
Bit of humour with regards to make-up:





The fact is people need sensitivity they need to improve conditions. Yet to abolish animal testing would just mean more first tier human testing.
There is no question that terrible things happen to tested animals.. Some however have much better ethical practises.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Sunflowers said:


> Thank you to all who replied. I learned a lot and changed an opinion or two


As did I. 


http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/chat-room/537417-dont-read-book-if-you.html


.


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

The 3 Rs of Research

This should answer a lot of the things that you guys are bringing up. 

This was the principle of all the research that I was a part of. This is why they have a national library of research that has been done. Why? Because they don't want to be repeating things. And if they have to be for some reason, they don't want it done the same way. They want it done better with less animals, if not "lesser" forms of it. The way of correct research has the animal's health and well being in mind. If you don't have these in mind, you will end up having your results skewed, plain and simple. All animals respond to stress with an increase in corticosteroids, that can really severely impact their overall health. My female shepherd is allergic to chicken due to the level of stress she had over the years with a diet made primarily of chicken.

The research that I was seeing done with dairy cows and feed was to figure out how to increase the milk fat and the milk protein. The area where I am feeds in a lot to the cheese market. Idaho also is mostly family farms. The only factory farm is the Horizon Organic one. I've been onto many different farms in this region, worked with dairy vets and researchers all up and down Idaho. These people care about their cows and want to figure out how to raise them up right. The vast majority of producers stopped using growth hormones because of the negative public impact. 

The lameness scoring that I was a part of is one of the things that impacts the lives of dairy cows greatly. They try to figure out what is the best kind of environment for them to be within that is not so hard on their legs, but still fairly easy to be cleaned up. Outside of small hobby farms, you need quite a few thousand head to make a decent profit. Those animals are split up into ones who are dry, ones who are actively milking, those who are pregnant and those who are still too young to be bred. Dairy farmers do try to keep their cows in a cycle where they are pregnant each year, but to be honest, that is one of the big things that they are trying to figure out how to do. Most of the time, the cows aren't going to get pregnant as the farmers want. Which leaves them in the position of how many times to try, and when to decide that that particular cow can't be in the herd any longer. 

Most cattle that are beef cows in Idaho are also free range. I think I could stretch this to say the majority of ranches in the Northwest are run like this. They only ever are in a feedlot for the last month of their lives. Otherwise, they live on range, only seeing people if they come out to feed them or round them up when its time to move locations. Vaccines and deworming once a year. They're some of the meanest things you can run into out in the wild. Beef cattle do not play around. They're not usually friendly to people because they don't have much interaction with people.

I don't like cosmetic testing personally. But the main reason why is because all the ingredients that are being used in them have been tested already. Unless something new comes along, we already have the data about what kind of side effects could be. I also am not a person who uses make-up generally. The stuff that says cruelty free is kind of semi-false advertising. They may not have tested the final product, but anything in them has been pre-tested before. 

However, I do believe in research overall. It is needed. We cannot further medicine without progressing forward and testing theories that could potentially be the next cure for a deadly disease, or perhaps a new surgery to give patients who are crippled the ability to walk again. Medicine will not move forward from where it is without research. That's just the plain and simple truth. We cannot have new technologies or medicines without research and testing. 

It is a far better thing, in my opinion and experience, to actively try to help come up with better techniques, housing, food for those animals who are involved in research than simply sitting and crying out against it. You likely don't honestly know anything about it. What you see on the internet is a small portion of the truth. You're seeing something edited for the emotions they want. It's why I say, GO SEE IT YOURSELF. Get out there, ask about it, try to make an actual change -with- what you can. 

Temple Grandin didn't get all the changes she did to how livestock were treated, how chutes and alleys were manufactured by sitting there and telling people they were wrong. She went out and PROVED her way was going to be better over all and the livestock industry changed because of her. Until someone can show me that they themselves were actually there, I am going to stand up for the people I know, the people who I worked with and the industry that I was personally a part of. 

Because frankly there's a lot of days that I miss working in research. I miss the people, I miss the animals and I miss the feeling that I was doing something that could make a big change in the world.


----------

