I am the most thankful that Bailey has outsmarted her dogtors and together we’ll celebrate her 4-YEAR anniversary of being cancer-free in early December!!

I’m also thankful I have a job, which brings me to another topic covered in the comments to this blog post. I work for Iams and, with respect, I want to clear up some misinformation quoted above concerning our feeding studies.

More than 70% of our animal “taste testers” are family pets, living in their own homes.

For the studies that require a more controlled environment, we use our company-owned, state-of-the-art Pet Health & Nutrition Center. These studies follow our industry leading research protocol and are the veterinary equivalent of nutritional or medical studies acceptable on people. The studies are monitored by our own staff of veterinarians, behaviorists and independent experts.

Complete details can be found at http://www.IamsTruth.com. Or give us a call at 800-525-4267.

We (Iams) are passionate about cats and dogs, with a deep commitment to their health and welfare evidenced by our Iams Home 4 the Holidays adoption event (www.ih4th.com). For 10 years we have partnered with the Helen Woodward Animal Center and thousands of rescues and shelters world-wide to help orphaned pets find forever homes. Last year, this program helped get 1.2 million pets adopted between October 1 2008 and January 4 2009. This year our goal is 1.5 million. As of November 15, the total is at 401,148 pets adopted. (And if you know of an Iams Home 4 the Holidays shelter, be sure to visit http://www.iams.com/iams/feed-pets.jsp to vote—each month for the next 13 months the shelter with the most votes gets a free month’s worth of pet food!)

Thank you, Gina, for letting me have my say. I’ll get off my soapbox now. Happy Thanksgiving all!

Not no mistakes, ever.

You’ve pilloried Wysong, among others, for PR weaseling, and rightly so.

I’m seeing the same here.

You know here we have praised and trashed many prominent organizations. HSUS has come in for its share of both, and the ASPCA has been on the hot seat this week. PETA … well … the less attention they get, the better.

I’ve known Lucy for many years, and have always been impressed with her very sincere interest in trying to do what’s right. She has gone against the prevailing “wisdom” of her industry in countless ways.

Has she made choices she would change if given a do-over? Mebbe so, and if so, who hasn’t? Frankly, that’s what we’re all trying to do: Figure it out as we go along.

Speaking for myself, I can’t believe how much my own views have evolved in the last 15 years. And I think that’s a good thing.

Again, you are throwing out PR-speak that does not:

1) Acknowledge that donating pet-owning customer money to the pet-killers and pet-haters at PeTA presents a very high-level of conflict with the interests and values of the owners of carnivorous pets and a company that sells meat.

2) Apologize to your customers — who are the people who put food on your table — for the mistake.

3) Promise not to do it again.

“It is not ongoing” is not in any language the same as “We aren’t going to do it ever again.”

The fact that you defend the money sent to PeTA as for a cause “dear to our hearts” and try to convince us that, contrary to what they currently write on their own website and everything they do, PeTA is not anti-breeder or anti-pet-ownership is alarming.

I think potential customers have just as much right to corporate accountability on financial support for a hate group that tirelessly strives for the individual deaths and species extinction of our domestic animals as they do for P&G’s treatment of test animals. Both are excellent grounds for boycotting the company’s products.

And why in God’s name would you go to PeTA for advice about humane meat sourcing?

http://www.certifiedhumane.org/

I’m thankful for my cats, who are so effortlessly beautiful they make me wonder why I think I need to try so hard.

I’m thankful for my dogs, whose “shining bark,” in the words of Mark Doty, “calls me here, entirely now.” (His poem is here: http://bit.ly/3voz3s)

And most of all, I’m thankful for my partner the vet, who brings me pets I don’t know I need, and who cares for animals with a steady, compassionate realism that’s best for everyone, even if I could never muster it.

I did just want to reiterate the following from my statement:

“Our support of HSUS and PETA cannot be taken back, but we can assure you that it is not ongoing.”

With regard to the comment that we are a “…company that sells meat to the owners of carnivorous domestic animals” - the interaction with PETA that is think is being referred to, was in the context of assistance in the procurement of humanely raised meats.

As we stated previously, we do welcome suggestions for charities to donate to in the future. There don’t seem to be too many charities that are completely without some element of contention from one party or another and it’s not of course possible to please everyone all the time but we do listed to feedback and try our best to be considered in our choices!

And it is up to the consumer to find and read the newsletter, research the real facts about each charity, and then take steps to “opt out” of contributing to a charity to which he or she has objections at the time he or she places an order?

I’m glad that you apply humane standards to the trialing of your pet food products.

I think it is a mistake that you not only accept, but publicize, an endorsement from PeTA. A mistake that continues to alienate many potential raw-feeding customers, including myself.

You believe that PeTA is no longer against pet ownership, and cite its endorsement of your products as evidence.

But, for example, the page you point with advice about sheltering outside dogs would seem to indicate that PeTA supports keeping dogs out in doghouses, too, and wants that practice to continue indefinitely. After all, it gives advice on how to do it “the right way.” So don’t think that an endorsement of your practices by PeTA is any more a part of their core agenda than dropping off bales of straw means that they are in favor of kenneling dogs outside. (The truth is, if PeTA could get away with confiscating and “kindly” killing all those chained dogs, they’d do it in a heartbeat. Notice that there are no “after” pictures to follow up the photos of the abused pitties on the first link below. That’s because, after they’d been photographed for fundraising purposes, PeTA killed them.)

I’ll believe that PeTA is no longer opposed to pet ownership when they stop killing damned near every animal they can lay their hands on.

When they stop screaming for the death of pitbulls. When they stop advocating breeding bans, as (just one small ferexample) here:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/abc/

Some pit bull fanciers out there seem to think that PETA is “against” pit bulls because we don’t oppose breed-specific measures to address what is obviously a breed-specific crisis. Au contraire. If someone proposed a ban on breeding Labrador retrievers or Chihuahuas or poodles (you get the picture―any dog), we’d be for those too.

When they stop running television ads and generally proclaiming that “Breeding Animals Is Killing Animals — NEVER BUY” (http://www.petacatalog.com//pr.....196-0.html)

All cites from the PeTA blog from just the past few months.

PeTA’s PR machine knows that it has to beguile pet lovers with lies and dissembling in order to continue to fund its agenda. People who don’t like animals and want to be with them don’t, in general, send money to PeTA — though quite a few of them have determined the philosophy and underlying political agenda of the organization. That agenda is not a better life for domestic animals. That agenda is individual death and species extinction.

This does not surprise me, but the fact that a company that sells meat to the owners of carnivorous domestic animals still defends its donation to PeTA as appropriate and non-problematic continues to surprise and appall me.

The Honest Kitchen is mentioned on the PETA web site through our policy not to test our products on animals. PETA has conducted a campaign to warn people about the testing that the Iams Company conducts on its pet foods http://www.iamscruelty.com/notTested.asp and as a result, a number of pet food companies such as ourselves, are being showcased by PETA, for refusing to conduct laboratory testing. We use alternative methods in our product development projects, which involve pets who live in their own homes, not animals residing in laboratory kennels. In addition, we did contribute to a PETA project in December 2006 which provided sturdy weatherproof dog houses for dogs who were confined to yards without a kennel during the cold winter months. A little more info on this initiative can be found at http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-winterWatch.asp

In addition to this, our company did consult briefly with both HSUS and PETA for assistance in our search for humanely raised meats to use on our products, which is an important goal that we have worked to accomplish for several years and were able to achieve this year. Their consultation to us on this matter was free of charge and not provided in exchange for any donation.

It is my understanding that while PETA did years ago, take a stance against pet ownership, their policy has changed significantly now. The fact that they do in fact support responsible pet ownership evidenced by their Iams Campaign which highlights cruelty free pet products (even those such as ours, which contain meat). In addition, their goal of trying to abolish puppy mills and target those who breed hundreds of animals a year for profit, is not directed at responsible breeders who work hard to further their breed. We all wish that there were no homeless animals on the streets and in shelters, but there is certainly a happy medium on this, as with most things and out company does not of course believe that all breeding should be illegal.

I’d also like to take a moment to point out that the PETA Dog House Project is by no means the only non-profit initiative we have contributed to since 2002. We also donate regularly to the local Humane Societies, SPCA, Heifer International (which provides livestock such as cows, goats and llamas to impoverished families overseas to help them become self sufficient), UNICEF, and the HSVS Visiting Pets Program which is spearheaded by CJ Puotinen, an author & writer for the Whole Dog Journal, Baja Animal Sanctuary and many others. There is a link on our web site, which explains more about our various contributions to animal welfare, humanitarian and environmental causes if you are interested to read more. http://www.thehonestkitchen.co.....back.shtml

We do select a new charity to support each month and if our customers have a specific charity in mind that they would like to nominate, we are always delighted to consider them. Our company is not radical or extremist in its products, values or charitable contributions; we try to contribute to a variety of causes and the Dog Houses Project was dear to our hearts. We have not (and not do we intend to) donate to PETA or HSUS on an ongoing basis and there are many other worthy charities on our list to receive a portion of our profits, going forward.

To try to clarify our position further - My own two Rhodesian Ridgebacks are from a reputable breeder here in California whose policies are to breed rarely, dedicate herself to producing healthy, happy dogs, track every puppy for the rest of its life and take back any dog immediately if the owner can no longer keep it for any reason at all and regardless of its age. This is the type of breeder we strive to support, and to allow to represent our products. As a company, we are not ‘anti’ responsible breeding, though we do refrain from dealing with mass-scale puppy mills who breed for profit and sell their dogs through retail outlets and web sites without meeting prospective owners first.

We are not ashamed to have been involved with a specific project that supplied warm dog houses to dogs who had no shelter, nor of the fact that we do not conduct laboratory animal testing; and we are proud to have commenced using humanely raised, cage free and free-range meats to use in our products. Our support of HSUS and PETA cannot be taken back, but we can assure you that it is not ongoing.

Our company has tried to promote the importance of purchasing from responsible, ethical breeders rather than puppy mills, as well as highlighting the importance of responsible pet ownership, since it was founded in 2002. We do understand that the Humane Society is not a shelter, though we feel it does provide some educational resources on finding a responsible breeder, on its web site, http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_a.....og_breeder .

We do also operate an ‘exclusion list’ so that if, in any given month, a customer would like to have proceeds from their order be withheld from our chosen charity, we can do that. Our chosen charity is always listed in our e-newsletter. If you’ve placed an order online, simply send us the order number and we’ll ensure that it is not factored into our donation calculations. We feel that this is the fairest way we can make charitable donations without causing offense to those who may not agree with a chosen cause.

If any of this still isn’t clear I would be glad to answer any other specific questions, also.