It looks like I'm alone on this, but I don't find this balanced or journalistic AT ALL. Rather, I find it vicious, sarcastic, immature, and vengeful. It reads *very* strange and mind-controlling to me....in other words, if this doesn't read like this person has an agenda, I don't know what does.

I really don't think so. It's just the writers opinions like it would be any ones opinions. I think it brings up some very valid things people seriously need to think about. But that's just my opinion.

Can we get dogfoodadvisor.com on that list as well as Misa Minnie? Lol

To me, it's not just "the writer's opinion" that matters here, it's the manner in which he expresses it that makes it sounds very immature, angry, emotional, and overly biased to one side. When I read a real opinion article, I prefer the writer to maintain a professional distance to the subject so there can be some objectivity and balance. I don't see any objectivity here at all...mostly just weird/bizarre anger or something. I mean "tendrils of woo", "the furry lovelchild of Deepak Chopra" and "empire of bullsh*t"....really? Not the kind of writer whom I feel maintains an open mind...quite the contrary in fact. It's just plain disrespectful and disdainful as well, and I find that kind of "journalism" highly distrustful.

While DFA can't be called a peer-reviewed, fully scientific, or even fully factual source -- many, many people actually find it very helpful as a jumping-off point for their own education, if you know what I mean. It can be a helpful place to just get listings of ingredients or whatnot. When I was first learning about dog food in general, I actually found the site extraordinarily helpful. I haven't used it now in years and years, but still, I think it's impassioned a lot of dog owners to learn more and explore more about dog food/nutrition in general and to me, that's a positive thing. People who don't have time/passion to learn more will still, at least, often end up w/ their dogs on a better food than, say, Ol Roy's after reading DFA. And for those who are inspired to learn more than what DFA actually represents, kudos to them for questioning what DFA is totally about, and then learning even more.

I viewed those comments as being attempts at humor, but you're right, the author does seem to have some deep-seated anger. It could be that is because he or she feels strongly that these people are harming pets with their advice. I agree with you though, it could be written more thoughtfully and logically, and less emotionally. I would certainly not take the article as the most definitive critique of these individuals, but rather as just another opinion, even though I happen to agree with it.

I agree, the dog food advisor is a good starting place, and it summarizes vast quantities of information about dog food ingredients. He dismisses some ingredients that are probably healthy sources of nutrients and underrates some brands, but overall, I think he does much more good than harm.

My largest issue is he is rating prescription food and I feel that is wrong. I feel there may be people with seriously ill dogs who need the prescription food to live yet there owner goes home and looks at there ratings and says oh no it's rated with only 2 stars no way can I feed that so the dog continues to suffer. Another thing is he just rates on ingredients and some ingredients that may seem super awesome for us humans may not always be that great for our dogs their systems are different then ours. I look at it from Callie's perspective she has IBD was throwing up and has diarrhea badly and went to the vet twice for fluids before it was diagnosed. After the second time before I could get back in the vet I took her off he regular food and put her on a limited duck ingredient diet and although it helped it didn't completely take care of the issue and my vet recommended the Royal Canin Hypoallergenic prescription food and said even when a dog food says it doesn't have certain ingredients in it, it is manufactured in a plant that produces other foods that do have it so there is always some cross contamination with it and that with prescription foods there is no cross contamination. If I went home after getting the food the vet recommended I would see her food on his page was rated 3 stars so that would make a lot of people go no way not feeding that and then the poor dog is still left to suffer. We have had many people who's dog had health issues ask for a better food like the one there vet prescribed but that is rated higher. It's just not a great thing. There are foods on there that are rated very highly but the science and quality control is not there and that food could potentially be a health risk but it's rated hight so lots of people are going to use it.

I think some of it is in a joking tone but I feel that maybe the writer is seriously worried about false info some of these sources are putting out and we have all seen how false info can badly effect dogs. I know when certain false info is said about things I often get angry and can have a hard time keeping my cool.

The author of this article purports to have a PhD in ethics.

DFA doesn't rate RX food: Prescription Dog Foods | Frequently Asked Questions

That must be a semi new change because he used to. I remember very well ours was rated 2 or 3 stars.

Found her twitter if anyone is interested https://mobile.twitter.com/dogsandethics/tweets

LOL....I never said that it was a journalistic article. This is a blog post. If you would have looked at the very top of the link it gives the name of the blogger. Her Blogger name is dogsandehtics. I enjoyed her opinions pretty much the same way that many people follow the Dog Food Advisor and his opinions. ;) His site is just a blog as well and is also very biased by his opinions of the subject of dog foods. Let me also add this to the mix, there are plenty of other things posted on YT and elsewhere that are mocked up to look like something they are not. For example the Press Release (paid advertisements) that have been posted as "breakthrough" science advances.

I love watching Dr Oz, just to see what craziness he is supporting for the day. If you took and did every non evidence supported thing he recommends you would need a 25 hour day.

TV station 4 in NY just reported on the letter to Columbia. It seems a shame that he would ruin his reputation as a renoun cardiac surgeon with non supported practices for fame or profit. IMO