In any case, I can certainly see why you would question any dog food ingredient labeled corn (or wheat) protein. I too would suspect that item to be something akin to corn or wheat gluten.

However, Wysong takes a controversial approach… calling this long held industry-wide definition nothing less than “pet food mythology”. They argue the starch portion of wheat and corn should be considered a by-product… whereas the protein component should be thought of as the nutritious part of a cereal grain.

Maybe so. Yet no one we know refers to corn or wheat gluten as a “by-product”. But many consider pet food glutens (and other vegetable proteins) inferior in quality to meat proteins.

Although we respect Wysong’s position, the evidence still supports the fact that plant-based proteins possess a lower biological value than animal proteins.

Mitzie, as a consumer, you have every right to question the meaning of Wysong’s listed ingredients… and you also have every right to expect your question to be answered with tolerance and respect.

I have communicated with Wysong over their new Epigen food and received very condescending replies over questions about the “wheat protein” and “corn protein” (which I believe are glutens) used in Epigen. Based on the “Rick’s” response, the tone and wording of the e-mail sounds like something written by someone from their company. If you read their website Q&As you will know what I mean.

Rick, although I certainly agree with your critical assessment of the pet food industry, I find no other way to help people see through the exaggerated claims, hype, fancy packages, and inferior “profit-first” dog foods on the market. These mirages of so called science held in the minds of innocent consumers are the direct result of the “marketers, lackeys of corporate boards beholden to profit hungry stock holders, partners of greedy venture capitalists…” etc. you mention in your post.

I only use the Guaranteed Analysis and the ingredients lists because they are regulated and standardized. They help me organize the dog foods reviews into five different categories. Sometimes I struggle deciding which classification best suits a particular food. It’s not always so easy.

As I have mentioned, “it has never been my goal to base my ratings on a company’s merits but rather on 2 important criteria of their finished goods. I rate dog foods on (1) quality of ingredients and (2) the estimated dry matter meat content of their nutrient profiles.”

Rick, I’m in no way claiming label information to be superior to your (or anyone else’s) “direct empirical experience”. But for those of us without your knowledge and experience with Wysong, it’s all we’ve got.

Regarding liability, what would the world be like without free speech… the ability of anyone to review music, art, movies, books, restaurants, products, food… even dog food? As long as those opinions are not based upon lies or false statements the law protects the rights of all who choose to post their views publicly.

Rick, I’m sorry you have taken my reviews so personally. For in many ways, we both agree on many issues. I hope in the future you will not see my opinions as a personal attack on your favorite products but rather just what they really are… an opinion (good or bad) posted by just one well-meaning person.

Thank you for your reply. You are the one that says on your site that you are an affiliate for products.

I am a PhD scientist and breeder. If you are suggesting that my direct empirical experience over some twenty years with Wysong products should be set aside because of lack of controls (or disobedience to your hypothetical criteria), how exactly would you design controls that prove the health, long life, and championships of my animals on Wysong is not true? Also, it is misleading to suggest that controlled studies are the only route to truth. For example, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on drug studies yet drugs are released on the market that maim and kill. Also, you must be aware of the value of even the N of one study.

Additionally, why don’t you follow your own advice? No double blind cross over studies have been performed proving the assertions and criticisms made on your site. I do not see the citations. If you have them, I would like to see them.

You place way too much trust in labels, as if that somehow cuts to the truth. It has to be more than that since my results deny your analysis. The absurdity of your rankings is typified, for example, by you rating “evo” high, and yet this company claims their starch-based heat processed foods are “just like raw.” That’s enough for me to rank them zero stars, I don’t care what their label says.

I find Dr. Wysong the only consistent glimmer of light, both intellectually and in the results he has blessed my animals with, in the entire pet food arena. The rest seem to me to be just marketers, lackeys of corporate boards beholden to profit hungry stock holders, partners of greedy venture capitalists, home brewers who think they are nutritionists, and slogan pushers. I do not trust them or their products regardless of their “labels.”

You might consider liability. I would not think that self-appointed expert pet food rankers have the freedom to libel and damage companies (and breeders like me who recommend Wysong) using information that is mere opinion and has not been proven.

Thanks for your email. I’d like to address your comments.

First of all, I am NOT an affiliate of ANY dog food company. And I am not a veterinarian. However, I am a chemist and a doctor of dental surgery.

Second, it has never been my goal to base my ratings on a company’s merits but rather on 2 important criteria of their finished goods. I rate dog foods on (1) quality of ingredients and (2) the estimated dry matter meat content of their nutrient profiles.

As I have reviewed more and more dog foods my relative judging criteria have evolved. And my database averages and means have also grown. So, like all the foods in my database, I will be revisiting Wysong sometime soon (within the next 60 days?). And I expect to be making a few changes in some of the ratings to reflect my collective (historical) rating experience.

Your personal experience is certainly of value. But in science and medicine we refer to this type of experience as anecdotal evidence… since they are not scientific double blind evaluations.

I have spent a great deal of time and effort creating these reviews as unbiased as I can. But like all things in life, nothing is perfect.

I will try to do a better job as I go.

I also created a blog so that discussions like these would be in the open forum… where your comments can be viewed and shared with others.

I would invite you to post your future comments directly associated with a review so that others can read your comments (as well as my responses) and participate for th4e good of all.

The end result will be a collection of more and more information to help all of us develop a better understanding and recognition of good (and bad) dog foods.

Mike Sagman

Thank you for your efforts to bring thoughtful information about pet feeding.

I will say I am surprised by your ranking of some of the Wysong. I have fed their foods and followed Dr. Wysong’s sage advice for over twenty years. I have used his foods (the ones you rank low) and supplements through many litters and for entire lives. All I have seen is remarkable results, disease reversal, and champions, not what would be implied by your review. An argument never defeats direct experience.

You are obviously missing something and evidently not using the correct criteria for measuring a company’s merits.

You should take a look at their new patented no-starch kibble, Epigen, unlike anything in the market. I think it is truly a revolutionary product, in terms of a kibble.

Keep up the good work, but be careful of all the sensational myths circulating about pet food ingredients that have little or no basis in science or empiricism.

I bet you are not an affiliate of Wysong!