Dogfoodadvisor Reviews

Not trustworthy

Dentist Michael Sagman editor and owner of this site doesn t have any real credentials in dog nutrition and his co-workers Shawna Noffsinger Marie Shavasta Danzell Janice D McCollan with nicknames Shawna Inked Mary Betsy Greer and JanMom2Cav as well as those others hiding their identity such as Hounddog Pattyvaugn among most others should have been more humble because it turns out the majority of them are housewives and none of them have careers in real life and NONE of these contributors have ANY real credentials in DOG NUTRITION as of this date yet they have been making ridiculous claims about it When you look though the posts it is striking with what arrogance and rigidness they bully outsiders and mistreat others but brown nose Mike In the end he deletes unwanted posts and leaves those that suit him and makes outrages accusations threatening people with legal action for speaking the truth but the legal action or accusation are not based in fact and or law They will twist and turn facts as they please and talk and bully as they please kind of mean kids in high school at times It is very unjust the way they judge dog food based on a questionable bias on such a surface level If you want a good dog food look for a holistic brand and make sure they don t use any ingredients from China and most is USA sourced How the food is made is important not just the ingredients list that can be VERY misleading The aforementioned website is not to be trusted and their star-rating system is wrong It doesn t take into consideration the companies practices sources of ingredients the question if it is human grade type quality recalls how the food is made and where etc Several of their 5-star foods have had several recalls I think that says it all The information is indeed BIASED and NOT unbiased as claimed A lot of veterinarians challenging the flawed studies and erroneous data have been unfairly blocked from the site and Mike Sagman is not shy about making up stories in order to defend and construe facts not based in law When the vets come back with an alternative email address he threatens to put them in prison or with other malicious acts that cannot be legally taken But he cannot do that and it was for them not unlawful to re-post their honest posts that have been deleted unfairly it is not unlawful to post with an alterntive name just like some of his co-workers do it All the veterinarians wanted was to provide HONEST not DISHONEST information and correct the false and misleading data Also their calculations of ingredients is not accurate often they take averages and the points could be off by as much as 4 yet if a food has 1 less meat protein it gets less 1 star so that is just ridiculous The website is not a trusted source of information Just look at the credentials the people posting have that says it all