About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
Well, my dog’s not testing it for you.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Kinda like Microsoft using its paying customers as de-facto beta testers. In a just world, the shrink-wrapped package would say something like this:
“CAUTION: Microsoft Vista has not been testedy by … well, anybody, really.”
An animal shop in my street is actually promoting exactly this, dogfood that’s not tested on animals.. Been wondering about it every time I passed by. I’d keep it silent if I were them :D
the point is that they don’t test all the nasty chemical preservatives and stuff on the animals before they use them in the food. Most companies who have pet food that isn’t tested on animals also avoid all the nasties that would need to be ‘proven’ safe before wider consumption. Of course they feed it to animals to make sure it’s tasty enough (which doesn’t count as ‘testing’).
It’s the pet food companies that need to ‘test’ on animals that are worrisome…
priceless!
It’s actually not a joke. Companies like Iams do horrible things to dogs and other animals behind closed doors for so called ‘nutritional studies.’
http://www.iamscruelty.com/
I have always wondered how do animal food companies reach the results to put on their product labels things like “tasty”, “preferred by 9 of 10 dogs/cats” and other catchy phrases. I mean if you are going to sell animal food at least a taste test should be done, right?
This has very flawed quant logic. This says “All worrisome things that are labled ‘not tested on animals’ are dog food.” A subset of that statement is “no worrisome things that are labled ‘not tested on animals’ are not dog food.” What about pet shampoo? It would be much better to put worrisome as an intersection of dog food and things labled “not tested on animals” with a generic universal.
My guinea pig’s animal shampoo says “not tested on LAB animals.” The implication, I think, is that they tested it in the sense of washing animals with it, but not in the sense of making them eat it or putting it in their eyes or anything.
Well put, LunaML. An uncharacteristic error.
Luanml, it doesn’t say “not tested on animals,” it says “‘not tested on animals’ badge.”
thoughtful review guy: lunaml is still right in taht an intersection would have made more logical sense.
as it stands, the diagram says that all dog food labels, including the ones with the “not tested on animals” badges are worrisome.
LOL! Oh Dear.
Odd. The pet food company I work for pays for private “taste tests.” But its also a company that doesn’t use crap like dye or artificial preservatives.
I, too, was confused by this logic.
Iams has cleaned up, but since that controversy a lot of people were worried about other companies. This also means there are no iffy chemicals in it.
And why would all products “not tested on animals” be worrying?
So if it wasn’t tested on animals, how do they know they’d like it? :P
I suppose you should research what “animal testing” really is. I guarantee you that no animal testing has ever been pleasant to the animals, nor does it have anything to do with taste. The final product is almost never tested on animals; it is the ingredients. For instance, Iams removed 7/8ths of the kidneys in healthy dogs, fed them different levels of proteins, and noted which dogs died first. That, my friend, is real animal testing.
http://www.iamscruelty.org
This diagram looks like Mike Wasowski!
Found your site very interesting, full of informative articles, added to my favourites.