We exchanged a total of three short E-mails.
I would like you to read them and give me your feedback.
NOTE: I am showing the following E-mail messages in the order I received and sent them. Please excuse any typo's and misspelling's. All E-mail between us is presented here uncut and has not been edited in any way.
|
E-mail message #1 (Received by William D. Cusick) From: "Beowulfs Natural Feed Remote" To: "William D. Cusick" Subject: well done Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:11:31 -0500 X-Priority: 3
I am an employee of a pet food company. It is my sole task to research information such as ingredients and nutrition and of the many sites I have found, yours is one of the best. I think you would do well to look at their site found at
Thiers is a company who only uses human grade ingredients. On top of producing the highest quality food available on the market, their second function is to educate the public as to what is actually bieng fed to most animals.
They spend large amounts of money to send me to trade shows to promote, not only the food but, to educate the public. I do not make a commission and they sent me out with the sole purpose of informing the public. In my training, they could not stress enough that my job was secure if not a single customer was gained from any given show.
This is a company that truly cares about animals and the quality of food they consume and with the vast amount of garbage available on the market, perhaps visiting their site will be a breath of fresh air.
I would love to hear any responce you may have as to the content of the site. I must admit that you and i do not see eye to eye on every aspect of the information you have on your site but, I commend you efforts to make a better world for our pets. Please view this site with an open mind as it is constructed with a strongly holistic influence. I feel that you will be very happy with what you find.
You may contact me at
Sincerely,
George Nicholas
|
|
William D. Cusick's Reply to the above E-mail Sent 10:20 AM 1/26/01, Re: well done To: "Beowulfs Natural Feed Remote" From: "William D. Cusick" Subject: Re: well done Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments:
Dear George Nicholas,
Thank you for visiting my web site and sending me an E-mail requesting me to visit your companies web site at http://www.beowulfs.com.
You stated: "I feel that you will be very happy with what you find."
I visited the URL you provided and am appalled at the way you are selling your products. At this time it appears that you will sell your dog food to the owner of any breed of dog. While a few breeds may be able to assimilate some of the ingredients being used in the two foods your company sells, some of the ingredients can cause some very nasty nutritional allergenic reactions to many breeds of dogs. This is because different breeds have genetic nutritional differences. There are also preservatives listed as ingredients in the foods you are selling that have been *PROVEN* to harm the glandular system, cause nerve damage or promote cancerous cell growth in some breeds.
Your company makes many claims in the advertisements for their foods which are not backed up by the listings of ingredients of those foods. To me, this places your company at the same level as all the others who are misleading dog owners to make a sale of a product that can harm the owners companion pet.
You should be ashamed of yourself and the company you are employed by.
Yours truly,
|
|
E-mail message #2 (Received by William D. Cusick)
From: "Beowulfs Natural Feed Remote"
Dear Mr. Cusick,
I was very surprised to read your letter. You were very general in your own response and if you could elaborate (with references) on these statements I would greatly appreciate the gesture. I am most interested in your "breed specific" material as I was under the impression that all dogs had the same nutritional needs, as do black children and white children, tall people and short people. Unless this is not the case...
Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my intent. I approached you with the hopes of learning something new and I received a slap and a harsh reprimand in response to an extended hand. The tone of your letter was certainly not warranted and you sir should be the one who is ashamed at your sordid treatment of a stranger who would approach you with interest.
George Nicholas
|
|
William D. Cusick's Reply to the above E-mail Sent 12:49 PM 1/27/01, To: "Beowulfs Natural Feed Remote" From: "William D. Cusick" Subject: Re: your last E-mail Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments:
Dear George Nicholas,
Your point is well taken. I did issue a slap and a harsh reprimand.
In your last E-mail you stated "I am most interested in your "breed specific" material as I was under the impression that all dogs had the same nutritional needs, as do black children and white children, tall people and short people. Unless this is not the case..."
I suggest you read the articles at my web site. You will see that it has been PROVEN that the different breeds have different nutritional needs. i.e. in the article Documenting the claims it shows the studies done that prove this is not a theory but a fact. The results of the studies were available to the "experts" at your company before the company was founded and formulated their first pet food. They have made the choice to not do their homework or ignore the documented facts and bring out a line of all-breed/any-breed foods that can harm many dogs. They chose to add Ascorbic Acid to their all-breed/any-breed food. In the article Supplementing Dog Food With Vitamin C I list the documented studies which show the damage that this can do. You in turn made the choice to promote their food selling it to unwary dog owners without taking the time to learn about the industry you are making your living in or the unscrupulous practices of the company you are getting paid by.
Please take the time to read the articles at my web site and check out the FACTS. At my web site I provide a list of unbiased sources so that you can read about these issues and do not need to take my word for any of this.
As far as ". . . the same nutritional needs, as do black children and white children, tall people and short people. Unless this is not the case..."
In my books on canine nutrition I point out "As an interesting side light I note: The source of the vitamin C that a human should use in their dietary intake also can be an important factor. A recent study conducted by the University of Oregon (1987), discovered that the American Eskimo people are unable to use the synthetic forms of vitamin C. This includes ascorbic acid, or even those natural forms found in fresh fruit to prevent the onset of scurvy. However, they are able to prevent scurvy by eating seal blubber that contains a special and unique molecular form of vitamin C. The seal produces this form of vitamin C in much the same way that a dog does by synthesizing trace minerals in the liver. The seal then stores this "fat soluble" form of vitamin C in the blubber, just under the skin. This fat soluble form, which is stored in seal blubber, is also different in its molecular structure than ascorbil palmitate, a commercial synthetic "fat soluble" vitamin C." The study done with the American Eskimo people showed that they have different nutritional requirements than the English in the fact that the English can eat limes to prevent scurvy.
We know that black children suffer from diseases that are not found in white children and that white children suffer from diseases that are not found in black children. This is not racism or a racist statement - only a statement of FACT. We also know that male members of a species have different nutritional needs that female members of a species. Go to any health food store and see the different products produced for male or female humans because of this FACT.
Ignorance is not an excuse (your " . . . as I was under the impression that all dogs had the same nutritional needs . . .") to sell a product that will harm those consuming it when the facts have been established showing this to be the case. The products produced by the company you are working for will harm a dog just the same as a cigarette will harm a human. Cigarettes were produced by people who had access to studies showing the harm that would be inflicted to the unwary consumers by the ingredients they were adding to their product, and they advertised their products by lying, etc. - JUST LIKE THE COMPANY WHO'S PRODUCTS YOU NOW PROMOTE. So yes I reacted to your first E-mail with a harsh reprimand - one that in my opinion was well deserved.
Yours truly,
|
|
E-mail message #3 (Received by William D. Cusick) From: "Beowulfs Natural Feed Remote" To: "William D. Cusick" Subject: Re: your last E-mail Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:57:12 -0500 X-Priority: 3
I feel that it is no longer in my interest to pull my punches. You fail to cite any scientific findings more recent than 14 years. Lest we forget all of those "studies" that *PROVED* that breast milk was bad for babies, we should bear in mind that the medical community is fallible and today's "new research" is often tomorrows embarrassment. Your information is grossly outdated and your claim to fame book, which is out of print within 10 years of its publication, I'm sure was acclaimed by all and well respected by many of the scientific community. No doubt a reference in colleges today.
You, sir, are a whistle blower and one who will take the exception to the rule and run to the ends of the earth with it. Truly an exhausting past time for those with any thing better to do. However, you appear to be running at full steam. Hmmm...
Your breed specific drivel was such a breakthrough that no graduate student clamoring for a thesis has even bothered to carry the banner for you. I would think that a lonely burden for you to bear by your self. I suppose it is tough to live in a room without equals- surly you are a martyr in the making. There is no doubt in my mind that your passing will be grieved by many.
If you wish to respond I would openly welcome it. I have already forwarded our correspondences to many colleagues and friends. After all, a good joke is best shared.
|
|
William D. Cusick's Reply to the above E-mail Sent 11:55 AM 1/29/01,
To: "Beowulfs Natural Feed Remote"
Dear George Nicholas,
Thank you for your invitation "If you wish to respond I would openly welcome it."
I would love to respond to your last E-mail and will take the subject mater listed one statement at a time:
Your "You fail to cite any scientific findings more recent than 14 years. Lest we forget all of those "studies" that *PROVED* that breast milk was bad for babies, we should bear in mind that the medical community is fallible and today's "new research" is often tomorrows embarrassment. Your information is grossly outdated . . ."
Newton's discovery of gravity also happened over 14 years ago. Gravity is still real. It has never been proven that gravity does not exist through "new research" just the same as the "scientific findings" I have cited have never been proven to be wrong.
Your "and your claim to fame book, which is out of print within 10 years of its publication, I'm sure was acclaimed by all and well respected by many of the scientific community. No doubt a reference in colleges today."
The reason the first edition is out of print is because the second edition is in print. This is a common practice in the publishing industry. As for the reception it has received, you may want to check with the Deans of the Colleges and Universities where my book is on the Required Reading List for many different departments. I will leave it up to them to tell you if it is well respected or not.
Your "You, sir, are a whistle blower and one who will take the exception to the rule and run to the ends of the earth with it. Truly an exhausting past time for those with any thing better to do. However, you appear to be running at full steam. Hmmm..."
It is my hope to be everything you described: "a whistle blower and one who will take the exception to the rule and run to the ends of the earth with it." If blowing a whistle is needed, as it is in the case of the pet food industry, then I'll be happy to blow that whistle with all of my breath and "run to the ends of the earth with it." I am very proud that I spend my time and money trying to improve the health and well being of our companion pets. You are so right when you state that I do not have "any thing better to do." This is by choice and I will gladly continue "to be running at full steam" for the animals I love.
Your "Your breed specific drivel was such a breakthrough that no graduate student clamoring for a thesis has even bothered to carry the banner for you."
What do you base this statement on? I have heard from many graduate students that have picked up the banner and written their thesis on the nutritional morphologies of a species. Because of their work we are learning more and more every day. I have received THANK YOU's from many of them, some with copies of their thesis, for opening their eyes to a subject that needs a lot more research. And by-the-way, none of the research they have done has disproved the fact that different breeds of dogs have different nutritional requirements per pound of body weight, just the opposite. There are some very intelligent people who are learning more and more about this subject every day. Their work is being written up in many scientific journals, books and some of it has been published on the Internet. I am not alone carrying the banner.
Your "I would think that a lonely burden for you to bear by your self. I suppose it is tough to live in a room without equals- surly you are a martyr in the making. There is no doubt in my mind that your passing will be grieved by many."
This is an unwarranted personal attack and I would like to respond with an "I feel" statement. I feel that I am just one in an army of people who care about our companion pets so I do not feel "lonely" or that I am carrying a "burden" by myself. From my perspective our numbers are growing and we will accomplish our goals of educating the average dog owner.
I feel that dog owners should know the company you work for advertises MEAT but list MEAL as the ingredient on the label of the product they sell. I note that the products produced by the company you are working for list (be it chicken or pork) as a "meal" as the first ingredient on the dog food label's list of ingredients (see your companies Internet web site at http://www.backtobasicspetfood.com/Ingredients.htm or look on any bag of their dog food). The only place where they mention MEAT is in the advertising. As I state at my web site The Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated defines "Chicken Meal" as consisting of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered poultry, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs, and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidably in good processing practices. The only MEAT that might be in "Chicken Meal" is what could be left on the necks after becoming clean rendered By-products of meat production. This is not enough that it can be measured and thus have an ingredient listing showing any CHICKEN MEAT to be in the food.
It has also been shown that a food can also contain euthanised dogs and cats in the "meat meal" listed on a foods label . . . no matter what the company advertising claims may be. PLEASE NOTE: I can back up what I say, I am not making an attack without doing my homework first. i.e. When Herschel Pendell was the president of AAFCO, he appeared in a King 5 Seattle Washington television news interview and was asked if he can tell if a pet food contains euthanized pets just by reading the label . . . he responded with: "If the ingredient list meat or bone meal, you don't know if it is cattle or sheep, or horse, . . . or fluffy." (I have a copy the newscast and if you would like to have one just let me know, I'll put it on a CD and snail mail it to you). I also used, as a basis for my statements in this paragraph a statement by Roger Hoestenbach, who wrote in response to a question about pet food advertisements and labeling when he was President of AAFCO, ". . . the large manufacturers are protected by the Constitutionally guaranteed right of speech, which doesn't require that speech to be truthful or with reason."
You can not convince me that what your company claims in their advertisements is what is actually in the food you are selling. There NEEDS to be laws governing the labeling of pet food products in this country. The company you work for can become a leader by joining us and DEMANDING laws be written that will prove what they claim in their ads is what is in their foods. You too, as an employee of a pet food company who's sole task is to research information such as ingredients and nutrition can work for full and complete disclosure of all the ingredients - FOR ALL PET FOODS - not just those produced by the company you are working for.
I see a growing number of people who recognize the NEED for honest labeling of pet food ingredients and are working to make it happen - so I do not feel at all "lonely" or that I am carrying a burden by myself.
As for my passing on and the number of people who will grieve, I have a sign in my office that I believe keeps this in the correct perspective . . . for me. It reads: "No matter how important you are, the size of your funeral depends a heck of a lot on the weather."
I also feel that in the future when you decide to take a punch at someone (your opening line in the last E-mail "I feel that it is no longer in my interest to pull my punches.") you may want to do some research before throwing that punch. In your first E-mail you stated "I am an employee of a pet food company. It is my sole task to research information such as ingredients and nutrition and of the many sites I have found, yours is one of the best." My web site has not changed nor has my stand on the pet food industry's use of harmful ingredients or misleading labeling changed in the week since I received your first E-mail. I respectfully submit that it may be in your best interest to read what is at a web site before sending off comments or accolades that you may later regret.
Finally, as for your " I have already forwarded our correspondences to many colleagues and friends. After all, a good joke is best shared."
I too think that our E-mail correspondence should be shared and not because I take them lightly or as a joke. Since you have set the precedent, I will follow and share uncut and uncensored copies of all our E-mail correspondence at my web site. We will both be able to tell our friends that they will be able to view them all - for whatever reason they want - at my web site later this week.
Yours truly,
|
|
|
|
|