On 02/10/09 Wysong surprised us with disturbing news: “WYSONG UNDER ATTACK - NESTLE/PURINA VS THE NATURAL PET FOOD INDUSTRY
Nestec S.A. (better known as Nestle), parent company of Purina, a pet food manufacturer based in St. Louis, Missouri, and Wysong Corporation, a health education and nutritional development company in Midland, Michigan, have filed suits against one another in the Eastern District Federal Court in Missouri. The suits are related to a technology invented by Dr. Wysong in the early 1980’s to enrobe pet and human foods with probiotics – health giving organisms such as found in yogurt.” I reported on the news in “David vs. Goliath in 2009 - Let the battle commence: Nestle/Purina vs. the Natural pet food industry (Featuring: Wysong as "David")”. Since then, in the actual case very little known to the public has come to light. I am sure that behind the scenes both sides are feverishly working on getting ready for show down. Fact is that Wysong has received a lot of support so it seems on its website. We as a business support the cause as well with a special ongoing promo, since we very strongly believe Wysong, a company providing some of the best nutritional pet products available on the market today, should come out as the winner and it is in my opinion ridiculous that the suit was filed in the first place. But, what are these guys actually arguing about? We have learned that it is about who has the right to use probiotics in their products, whom’s idea it was in the first place and who should be paying whom any or all licensing fees to use the technology employed to utilize these probiotics. Since I am more than usually involved in general discussions with my customers about all this, one question typically comes up? What are “probiotics” to begin with? Well, I figured let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth:
“Probiotics
For those unfamiliar with probiotics and their importance to health, here are extracts from Dr. Wysong’s writings that will explain why Wysong has incorporated them in its human and animal foods for almost 30 years. Some may be repetitive, but we offer this to show the extent to which Wysong has been advocating this important food element:
● When an animal eats its prey, it will naturally not only consume the meat, but also the viscera (internal organs). Within that viscera of prey are billions of organisms that populate the digestive tract.
● While some microorganisms are villains, others, termed probiotics, can and do play a very beneficial role in maintaining health. Such probiotic microorganisms mainly consist of lactobacilli, enterococci, lactococci, bifidobacteria and others.
● Probiotic bacteria implant on the mucus-coated walls of the intestine and, through competitive exclusion, prevent colonization of pathogenic or “unfriendly” microbes.
● Certain species of probiotic bacteria are capable of rapid multiplication, competitive inhibition of disease producing microorganisms, lowering of the intestinal pH by the production of lactic acid, and production of bacteriocins (natural antibiotics). The probiotic hypothesis suggests that if sufficient numbers of these bacteria are introduced into the intestinal tract at a time when the balance has swung in favor of pathogens (such as at birth, during periods of stress or disease, or following antibiotic therapy), then disease can be minimized or overcome. Further, lactic acid bacteria have many other mechanisms by which they are able to prevent the growth of potential anaerobic pathogenic bacteria.
● Probiotic Mechanisms of Action That Inhibit Pathogens in the Gut:
1. Produce lactic acid and some fatty acids to help decrease intestinal pH.
2. Form hydrogen peroxide, a bactericide, and antibiotics (bacteriocins) such as acidophylin, acidolin, lactallin, and nisin.
3. Decrease the production of toxic amines and ammonia.
4. Displace harmful pathogens through competitive antagonism by colonization and adhesion to intestinal cells.
5. Initiate non-specific immunostimulation.
6. Produce digestive enzymes and B-vitamins, which aid in digestion and provide necessary nutrition.
7. Produce antienterotoxins. lactalin, anti-enterotoxins, and antienterotoxins.
● In addition to the inhibition of pathogens, probiotics are believed to exert a variety of subtle effects that can enhance overall health and disease resistance. In exchange for the nutrients and comfortable environment provided by the host (symbiosis), probiotics biosynthesize vitamins, essential amino acids, fatty acids, numerous enzymes and unidentified growth factors. Some probiotics also have the capability of inactivating carcinogenic intestinal beta-glucouronidase and nitroreductase. Probiotics also encourage appetite and facilitate the thorough breakdown and absorption of food substances.
● Prebiotics are food elements that serve as a preferential food for probiotic organisms enhancing their growth, proliferation, and competitive exclusion of pathogens.
● The functions of probiotics and prebiotics are just beginning to be revealed. Fermentive probiotic action produce lactic, acetic, and propionic acids, vitamins (such as folic acid and B12), antibiotics, proteases, peptones, and unknown growth factors.
● Probiotics (pro-life), as opposed to antibiotics (anti-life), can enhance the immune system, inhibit pathogens, decrease disease recovery time, and create an overall improvement in health.
Probiotics represent a safe and effective alternative to pharmaceutical methods, which introduce toxic chemicals foreign to biological experience. Probiotic usage is a rational, preventive approach to health care without contraindication.
● Probiotic Nutritional and Health Enhancement Occurs Through:
1. The synthesis of certain amino acids, which are directly assimilated (e.g. lysine from specific strains of L. plantarum).
2. Increasing leukocyte and antibody response to disease challenge.
3. A protein-sparing effect. The Lactobacilli primarily use carbohydrates as a growth medium, while the pathogens use primarily protein. By decreasing the pathogenic population, more protein is made available for assimilation.
4. Decreasing intestinal pH increases gastrointestinal tone and motility.
5. Reducing the number of putrefactive bacteria, which prevents bad breath, gas and bloating.
6. Alleviating antibiotic-induced diarrhea, caused by the indiscriminate killing off of both “good” and “bad” bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract. Lactobacillus can be taken both during and after antibiotic treatment.
7. Reducing the incidence of cold sores by the virus Herpes Simplex Type I.
8. Producing B vitamins, such as folic acid, niacin, riboflavin, B12, B6, and pantothenic acid, which are biocatalysts in food metabolism and help fight stress.
9. Lactobacillus species possess anticholesterolemic and antilipidemic factors, which aid in cholesterol reduction.
10. Inhibition of Candida albicans, which is the primary yeast responsible for Candidiasis.
11. Studies at the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and the University of Nebraska show Lactobacillus to possess a definite anti-tumor activity, and to inhibit tumor proliferation.
● Along with numerous mechanisms of actions that are part of probiotics’ ability to inhibit pathogens, Lactobacilli bacteria actively secrete lactic acid, making the environment about them more suitable for their growth and the exclusion of pathogens.
● The rapid rate at which Enterococcus faecium will grow and multiply enables this probiotic culture to act as an aggressive agent in blocking the growth of pathogenic, toxin-producing microbes.
● Since Pasteur’s germ theory of disease, microorganisms, by and large, have been viewed mostly as an enemy to be vanquished. But increasing evidence indicates that the microbial world is mostly in symbiotic partnership with more complex life forms. Disease may be related more to an organism’s inability to resist illness than to the actual presence of a microbe. Even tragic scourges have been shown to be ameliorated not because of antimicrobials, but rather as a result of the restoration of balances through hygiene and dietary improvements.
● Theoretically, if beneficial organisms could be supported by, and/or introduced into the gastrointestinal tract, health could be enhanced and potential pathogens inhibited. The use of organisms for this purpose is termed probiosis, meaning “for life.” This is in contrast to antibiosis (represented primarily by antibiotics) which means “against life.”
● When it is considered that microorganisms within the digestive tract of a human can exceed 100 billion cells per gram, over 100 trillion cells total, 10-fold the total number of eukaryotic cells in the body, one can begin to understand their potential impact. Such an enormous microbiota interacts nutritionally and physiologically in profound ways only now beginning to be understood. Studies have isolated and identified a host of autochthonous microorganisms (native inhabitants) in the gut and have further shown several of these to directly or indirectly affect health.
● In herbivores, such as the horse, these microbes are more fully understood and respected. They constitute the very means by which plant stuffs (indigestible to humans) can be converted to energy and tissue building blocks.
● Normal gastrointestinal microflora play an indispensable role in combating potential pathogenic microorganisms. Certain species of probiotic bacteria are capable of rapid multiplication, competitive inhibition of disease-producing microorganisms, lowering of the intestinal pH by the production of lactic acid, and production of bacteriocins (natural antibiotics). The probiotic hypothesis suggests that if sufficient numbers of these bacteria are introduced into the intestinal tract at a time when the balance has swung in favor of pathogens (such as at birth, during periods of stress or disease, or following antibiotic therapy), then disease can be minimized or overcome. Although microorganisms have long been used in various fermentative industries and are essential to vast ecological cycles, their use for the explicit purpose of building health is a relatively new, but highly promising application.
● In one study using young pigs as a model, Enterococcus faecium, a probiotic culture found in several Wysong products, was fed for ten days after weaning, and total Escherichia coli (a potential pathogen) counts were made of the feces (see Figure 6). Counts in control pigs (no probiotics) rose dramatically in the first five days and then came back down. The test group receiving the Enterococcus faecium maintained a low fecal E. coli count throughout the test period of ten days. The numbers of hemolytic E. coli, those thought to be most pathogenic in baby pigs, were also measured, and the response was similar. Of interest in these tests is the resurgence of E. coli after the Enterococcus faecium was discontinued while there was no similar resurgence of the hemolytic bacteria. This suggests that Enterococcus faecium is particularly effective in controlling the pathogenic forms of E. coli bacteria. This same conclusion may be drawn if weaning-age foals were used as model.
● In addition to the inhibition of pathogens, probiotics are believed to exert a variety of subtle effects that can enhance overall health and disease resistance. In exchange for the nutrients and comfortable environment provided by the host (symbiosis), probiotics biosynthesize vitamins, essential amino acids, fatty acids, numerous enzymes and unidentified growth factors. Some probiotics also have the capability of inactivating the carcinogenic intestinal b-glucouronidase and nitroreductase. The pronounced microbial role in digestion encourages appetite and facilitates the thorough breakdown and absorption of food substances which are essential to favorable growth in foals and maintenance in adult horses.
● The constant infusion of friendly organisms in the diet, as it happens in the wild through contact with the mother’s milk, and then from natural forage, helps prevent the colonization of diseaseproducing bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella and others. Probiotic bacteria implant themselves on the mucus-coated walls of the intestine and crowd out and prevent colonization of pathogenic or unfriendly microbes by competitive exclusion. The lactic acid and altered redox potential produced creates an intestinal environment that is not conducive to the growth of pathogenic bacteria. Probiotic organisms compete for food and are also capable of producing natural antibiotics and hydrogen peroxide, which sharply discourage the growth of enteropathogens.
● Resistance to disease in chickens is actually decreased when increasing the “hygiene” of chicks by removing them from the mothers’ droppings. Resistance (to infective doses of 103-106 cells of Salmonellae, for example) can be actually increased by feeding the chicks these droppings. The droppings are the autochthonous inoculum for establishing probiotic cultures in the chicks’ digestive tracts.
● The results of many research studies have pointed out the possibility of improving the health and performance of cattle and other farm animals including the horse, dogs and cats, and even humans through the use of probiotics (bioregulation). Lactobacilli probiotics have been found, for example, in newborn pigs just four hours after birth. (The inclusion of Lactobacillus acidophilus in the diet of young piglets also decreases the number of E. coli in the digestive tract.) Nature has obviously recognized the importance of providing a healthy start on life by implanting helpful bacteria via colostrum and environmental contact, before harmful bacteria can overpopulate the young’s initially sterile system.
● Optimal health, not just the absence of disease, must be the goal every horseman strives for with each newborn foal. Sound health translates into optimum growth. Probiotics provide an excellent safe, natural, and effective means of helping to achieve these goals. Not only can probiotics fight and resist disease, but they have the capability of bolstering overall health.
● Enterococcus faecium benefits are many: fermentation of carbohydrates to lactic acid thus lowering pH and discouraging pathogenic growth; increased palatability and appetite stimulation; production of antitoxins; microbial insensitivity to many antibiotics; production of hydrogen peroxide which exerts a bacteriocidal effect on pathogens; yielding of a metabolite that has specific activity against E. coli; production of a variety of bacteriocins which act against such pathogenic species as Pseudomonas and Salmo- nella; a significant increase in feed efficiency; improvement in daily weight gain; and a decline in mortality.
● Lactobacillus first implants in the young’s digestive tract via the mother’s milk, then begins to exert a protective and beneficial role which is important throughout life. Lactobacillus spp. increase resistance to stress and resultant disease; increase feed efficiency and weight gain; increase food palatability and appetite; inhibit the growth of enteropathogenic organisms; and have a direct nutritional enhancing effect. Lactobacilli include the following species: acidophilus, lactis, plantarum and casei. These Lactobacillus species inhibit such pathogens as S. aureus, B. proteus, Salmonella, Pseudomonas, and E. coli.
● Prebiotic short-chain carbohydrates are components of yeast cultures, artichoke, garlic and other plants, and are beneficial to the horse in several aspects. Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) are utilized by Bifidobacteria, a probiotic strain of bacteria. Multiplication of these bacteria contributes to the competitive exclusion action of probiotics. Mannanoligosaccharides (MOS) are actual pathogen inhibitors in the gut which act by binding lectin receptor sites on the pathogenic bacteria, thereby blocking implantation on cell membranes (see Figure 8). Digestive function is enhanced by increased digestibility of soluble fiber and fiber-like activity of non-digestible oligosaccharides. Stimulation of specific and non-specific immune responses, including cancer preventing activity, are also benefits. Studies in pigs and turkeys have shown that systemic IgG (immunoglobulin G) and IgA concentrations increase significantly after consuming oligosaccharides, indicating enhanced immune response.
● Bacillus subtilis fermentation products, which have been used for 50 years or more in animal feeding, generate protease and amylase enzymes which promote digestion of proteins and carbohydrates over a broad pH range. Due to the variety of non-enzyme metabolites produced in addition to amylase and protease enzymes, inhibitory effects upon other microbial populations in close regional proximity can occur due to competitive inhibition (see “Rationale for Probiotic Supplementation”). Bacillus subtilis also produces b-glucanase, an enzyme which breaks the b-1, 3-glucose polymer in complex carbohydrate grains: soy, barley, milo, and others. Bacillus subtilis remains active when excreted with manure, resulting in less odor, faster decomposition, and improved reduction of solids in the manure.
● Probiotics – dietary friendly microbial cultures – such as found in Wysong Probiosyn, have also been proven to be effective in arthritic conditions. By populating the digestive tract with beneficial organisms, the digestive process is enhanced, micronutrients are synthesized and absorbed, pathogens are inhibited, and the immune response is modified.
● Probiotics play a vital and beneficial role in health. Intestinal probiotics help digestion and augment overall health by improving nutrient availability, synthesizing enzymes and vitamins, promoting anticarcinogenic activity, enhancing the immune system, and regulating bowel function. Further, one of the best mechanisms for protecting against digestive tract infections is the competitive exclusion of pathogens via establishment of proper intestinal flora. If the digestive tract is populated with sufficient numbers of “friendly” microorganisms, pathogens cannot easily take root. Although the exact mechanism of action is not known, it is believed that probiotic organisms act through nutrient exclusion, competition for attachment sites, production of volatile fatty acids and fermentative gases that inhibit pathogens, and by decreasing the oxidationreduction potential.
● Dentatreat TM probiotics and enzymes provide many internal benefits which have been described at great length in other publications, and also offer benefits specific to dental health. One action is to reduce the number of putrefactive bacteria responsible for bad breath. The probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus aids in optimizing calcium metabolism and produces the amino acid L-lysine, which has been linked to limiting tooth decay. DentaTreat also provides important prebiotic oligosaccharides, which function to nourish the beneficial active probiotics.
● Despite the inclination to regard microorganisms as the enemy, the majority of these tiny life forms favor cohabitation and cooperation – not conflict. While some microorganisms are villains, others, termed probiotics, can and do play a very beneficial role in maintaining health. Intestinal probiotics, particularly bacteria, play an important role in determining the digestive mechanisms and general health of all animals, humans included. In essence, just about anything that changes the natural, quiescent, homeostatic state can create stress, disrupting gastrointestinal flora. Probiotics (pro-life), as opposed to antibiotics (anti-life), can enhance the immune system, inhibit pathogens, decrease disease recovery time, and create an overall improvement in health.
● Wysong Super Flour TM also contains prebiotic fructooligosaccharides (FOS). Fructooligosaccharides are indigestible carbohydrates, which pass intact into the colon where they promote the growth of certain “friendly” bacteria (probiotics). The selective stimulation of probiotic bacteria is accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of pathogenic bacteria via competitive exclusion.
● There is a constant battle in the digestive system between the good and bad bacteria. Probiotics are active (live) yogurt-like cultures of microorganisms that shift the balance in favor of the good guys – thus increasing immune strength and digestive function.
● For over 3,000 years, people in various parts of the world have been making and consuming yogurt. Known for its beneficial probiotic properties (immune enhancement, growth factors, antagonism to disease agents, nutrient production, etc.), the yogurt powder used in WPS contains 34% protein, 12.5% calcium and is devoid of trans fat. The natural fauna of L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus – the healthy bacteria in yogurt, is further enhanced with added probiotics including Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bifidus, Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium.”
So here you have it.
Here is my version: All mammals have “good” bacteria in their gastrointestinal tract. Billions of the right bacteria naturally occur in the small and large intestines. It is estimated that the number of bacteria in the bowel outnumbers the number of cells in the body. When GI bacteria are the correct type and in balance, good things happen, vitamins are made, harmful bacteria are inhibited and toxins are broken down. The balance can be upset or diminished by a high grain diet (fermentation of complex carbohydrates causes growth of yeast and unfriendly bacteria), a weak immune system, toxins from food, artificial food ingredients such as coloring agents, dyes, digest, chemical additives or preservatives and antibiotics. The addition of prebiotics can reestablish the population of these beneficial organisms. Or, shorter yet: Probiotics aid the digestive and immune systems. They also aid in nutrient absorption for a healthier, happier pet.
Stay tuned for part 2 when we take a closer look at the relationship between probiotics and enzymes, also related to this topic.
Contributed in large by Wysong
Showing posts with label Nestle/Purina vs. the Natural pet food industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nestle/Purina vs. the Natural pet food industry. Show all posts
Friday, April 3, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Feeding natural alternatives: Fabulous pet food for Cats & Dogs
The following article reflects in large also my opinion about feeding our pets what I consider technically the only really natural food: Raw. Joan Morris wrote in the Contra Costa Times:
“Old Mother Hubbard might have needed some assistance in managing her household budget, but some pet owners and veterinarians approve her choice of pet food. Giving her dog a bone, one with some meat on it along with a side of fresh vegetables is the best thing, they say, she could do for the pup. A growing number of pet owners are canning the Alpo and tossing out the kibble in exchange for natural and raw pet foods, sometimes called designer pet food, that they say provide the healthiest diet possible for our domesticated wild things. They point to the diets dogs and cats ate long before Morris starting pushing kitty chow or Gravy Train rolled into town. Dogs and cats ate what humans ate or what they could catch on their own, and they were the better for it.
"I have so many clients and so many stories," says Alameda veterinarian Kristina Dallas. "You hate to call them miraculous, but they are. And when you start to see so many miracles, you have to question why." Dallas, who works at Alameda Pet Hospital, is a natural food convert. She's seen chronic intestinal illnesses and skin diseases clear up immediately with the food change, while diseases such as diabetes become more manageable. The coats thicken and shine, eyes clear, energy returns. Little wonder, Dallas says. She thinks that feeding animals a steady diet of processed pet food is something akin to humans eating breakfast, lunch and dinner at McDonald's. In fact, she says, that would be healthier than the pet food. "I don't preach natural diets to everyone," Dallas says. "If the animal looks good, then I don't recommend a change. It's also more expensive to go to natural foods, so you have to take that into account. But when there's a problem, that's where we should look."
A tough battle: Designer pet food purveyors tend to be small companies feeling their way through the mine fields of the highly competitive pet food industry. They battle not only the resources of national pet food manufacturers, but the perception, even among veterinarians, that brand-name foods provide the healthiest diets for animals. Veterinarians receive little training in pet nutrition, Dallas says, and like pet owners, rely on reading the labels and trusting what they read. We look for food made with meat and scan those tiny labels in search of the magical "meets 100 percent of nutritional requirements." But not all meat is rendered equally, Dallas says, and it's hard to say how much of those nutritional additives are being utilized by your pet's metabolism. Most pet foods, even premium brands, are made with meat byproducts, which include everything not fit for human consumption. That, Dallas says, would be feathers, feet, tumors and abscesses. It is all carved from the animals and placed in barrels, which are shipped to pet food manufacturers. Processing it removes any dangers to pets, but it doesn't make it particularly good for them, she says.
Natural foods have their critics, too. Many complain the costs are unreasonably high, about twice that of brand names and that evidence of the food's benefits is, at best, anecdotal. Brand-name companies boast that they've tested their food and conducted nutritional studies that show their foods are healthful, while designer food makers are experimenting in the family kitchen. Those who feed natural and raw food diets also sacrifice some of the convenience that traditional pet foods provide. Designer pet foods remains a niche market, but it is growing. … And some large pet food companies are expanding their lines to include the natural labels, and beefing up their advertising to promote ingredients such as New Zealand lamb.”
Allow me to comment on a couple points here: Talking about cost: I have my serious doubts about that. However, to show my thought process on this and documenting it with real, factual and cash numbers requires some more serious effort and also would be too lengthy to talk about it in this comment today. But stay tuned as I will bring you more details on this particular topic within a separate comment to follow soon. So much up front: Get ready for a big surprise.
Now let’s discuss what Morris calls a “designer” food. Her article dates back quite a few years. Reason why I decided to share it with you here is simply that she is talking about some major facts on natural and raw feeding, which I consider worthwhile to be discussed. However, at this point I believe we are far beyond that point of considering healthy food designer food. They have in the meantime become and grown into a substantial, undeniable factor in the pet food industry and definitely are here to stay. Example: Pet Product News International, a monthly news magazine distributed within and published for the pet supply retail industry writes in its March 2009 issue:” Prepare for the unprepared: The raw food demand just might exceed a retailer’s expectations. According to David Lummis, senior pet market analyst for Packaged Facts in Rockville, MD, raw is still only about 1% of the overall pet food market. However, retailers unfamiliar with the uncooked concept may be interested and surprised to learn it is currently experiencing double digit growth. It is growing about 20 to 30 percent annually, Lummis discloses. It is very big, especially compared with the pet food industry overall, which is growing by maybe 5% at best. And a lot of that (5%) is coming from price increases.” Veterinary Practice News in its January 2009 issue addressed veterinarians as follows: “Alternative diets still riding high. Nearly two years after the massive recall of melamine tainted pet food, veterinarians are still fielding pet owners’ questions about alternative diets. “Even prior to the recall we were seeing a shift in pet owners who were interested in alternatives to conventional pet foods, such as natural or organic pet foods, raw pet foods and home cooked diets,” says Sally C. Perea, DVM, Dipl.ACVN. The recall accelerated the trend, Dr. Perea says, as pet owners began to look for what they perceived to be safer dietary options. … Perea was formerly a consultant with Davis Veterinary Medical Consulting, Inc. in Davis, CA and now is a senior nutritionist for Natura Pet Products in San Jose, Ca.” Natura is known for it’s Innova, Evo, California Natural, HealthWise, Karma and Mother Nature brands. Veterinary Practice News: “Perea considers alternative diets to fall into 3 categories: Alternative commercial pet foods, home cooked pet foods and raw pet foods, either commercial or home prepared.”
Let’s go back to Morris’ writing: “Natural vs. raw: But even within the growing market of designer pet food there are cat fights between the naturals and the raws. Some owners favor natural pet food, which is made from the same meat and produce that might otherwise find its way onto your dining-room table, 100 percent human grade, they call it. Others opt for raw food, saying that while natural is better than brand-name foods, they still are over-processed, robbing them of important nutrients. Opponents of raw food worry that improper handling could poison the pets and maybe their human owners with salmonella and E. Coli. Stephen Barone, co-founder of Primal Pet Food, says he worries about serving raw meat to pets are exaggerated. People only need to take the same precautions they take in preparation of their own food.
Primal, based in San Francisco, ships frozen raw foods to customers throughout the country, although the Bay Area has been the company's primary market since the company began in 2001. The food also is sold in area stores. Prices vary, depending on type of meat and size… . Barone, 36, and his partner, Matthew R. Koss, 33, started the business after Koss' own pets began suffering from health problems. Koss, a graduate of the San Francisco Culinary Academy, used his own knowledge of nutrition to concoct a raw formula for his dogs, which responded immediately, he says. Koss began talking with animal nutritionists and eventually developed a line that combines raw meats -- beef, lamb, chicken, duck, venison and fresh vegetables. He partnered with Barone, his longtime friend, to market the meals to other pet owners. In the three years since they began, they've expanded their line to include cat food. Koss and Barone named their food plan B.A.R.F., "bones and raw food." They comb the countryside looking for fresh meats and produce, buying from farmers and ranchers who also supply fine restaurants. The products are sold frozen and include the popular "medallion" form, which packages the food in one ounce nuggets, which makes serving and handling easier. Primal's business has grown substantially. Barone and Koss set up tables at dog and cat shows, and club events. Their customers are devoted to the B.A.R.F. diet.
Primal instinct: Ellen Brooken of Walnut Creek started feeding Primal to her two Cavalier King Charles spaniels, Maddie and Paige, about two years ago. One of her dogs had chronic health problems and she was spending $100 to $200 a month at her vet's office. At a dog show, she picked up a sample of Primal and a testimonial from a fellow pet owner. She was skeptical, but she gave it a try. "Within two days, her digestive problems were completely gone," Brooken says. "That was pretty astounding. And we've had no problems since." The clincher, Brooken says, is when she took both dogs in for their annual check-up and her vet commented that it had been a long while since they'd been in. The dogs got perfect marks on their exams, but Brooken could see the improvements for herself. Their coats are glossy and their eyes shiny, she says. Brooken supplements Primal with her own recipes and raw foods. Her vet wasn't totally supportive of the diet plan, Brooken says, so she switched doctors to one who is. The raw food is more expensive, Brooken says, but she considers it a trade-off. "I've never done a side-by-side comparison, but I know I'm not spending hundreds a month on vet bills," Brooken says. "And my dogs are extremely healthy. I'm convinced."”
“Old Mother Hubbard might have needed some assistance in managing her household budget, but some pet owners and veterinarians approve her choice of pet food. Giving her dog a bone, one with some meat on it along with a side of fresh vegetables is the best thing, they say, she could do for the pup. A growing number of pet owners are canning the Alpo and tossing out the kibble in exchange for natural and raw pet foods, sometimes called designer pet food, that they say provide the healthiest diet possible for our domesticated wild things. They point to the diets dogs and cats ate long before Morris starting pushing kitty chow or Gravy Train rolled into town. Dogs and cats ate what humans ate or what they could catch on their own, and they were the better for it.
"I have so many clients and so many stories," says Alameda veterinarian Kristina Dallas. "You hate to call them miraculous, but they are. And when you start to see so many miracles, you have to question why." Dallas, who works at Alameda Pet Hospital, is a natural food convert. She's seen chronic intestinal illnesses and skin diseases clear up immediately with the food change, while diseases such as diabetes become more manageable. The coats thicken and shine, eyes clear, energy returns. Little wonder, Dallas says. She thinks that feeding animals a steady diet of processed pet food is something akin to humans eating breakfast, lunch and dinner at McDonald's. In fact, she says, that would be healthier than the pet food. "I don't preach natural diets to everyone," Dallas says. "If the animal looks good, then I don't recommend a change. It's also more expensive to go to natural foods, so you have to take that into account. But when there's a problem, that's where we should look."
A tough battle: Designer pet food purveyors tend to be small companies feeling their way through the mine fields of the highly competitive pet food industry. They battle not only the resources of national pet food manufacturers, but the perception, even among veterinarians, that brand-name foods provide the healthiest diets for animals. Veterinarians receive little training in pet nutrition, Dallas says, and like pet owners, rely on reading the labels and trusting what they read. We look for food made with meat and scan those tiny labels in search of the magical "meets 100 percent of nutritional requirements." But not all meat is rendered equally, Dallas says, and it's hard to say how much of those nutritional additives are being utilized by your pet's metabolism. Most pet foods, even premium brands, are made with meat byproducts, which include everything not fit for human consumption. That, Dallas says, would be feathers, feet, tumors and abscesses. It is all carved from the animals and placed in barrels, which are shipped to pet food manufacturers. Processing it removes any dangers to pets, but it doesn't make it particularly good for them, she says.
Natural foods have their critics, too. Many complain the costs are unreasonably high, about twice that of brand names and that evidence of the food's benefits is, at best, anecdotal. Brand-name companies boast that they've tested their food and conducted nutritional studies that show their foods are healthful, while designer food makers are experimenting in the family kitchen. Those who feed natural and raw food diets also sacrifice some of the convenience that traditional pet foods provide. Designer pet foods remains a niche market, but it is growing. … And some large pet food companies are expanding their lines to include the natural labels, and beefing up their advertising to promote ingredients such as New Zealand lamb.”
Allow me to comment on a couple points here: Talking about cost: I have my serious doubts about that. However, to show my thought process on this and documenting it with real, factual and cash numbers requires some more serious effort and also would be too lengthy to talk about it in this comment today. But stay tuned as I will bring you more details on this particular topic within a separate comment to follow soon. So much up front: Get ready for a big surprise.
Now let’s discuss what Morris calls a “designer” food. Her article dates back quite a few years. Reason why I decided to share it with you here is simply that she is talking about some major facts on natural and raw feeding, which I consider worthwhile to be discussed. However, at this point I believe we are far beyond that point of considering healthy food designer food. They have in the meantime become and grown into a substantial, undeniable factor in the pet food industry and definitely are here to stay. Example: Pet Product News International, a monthly news magazine distributed within and published for the pet supply retail industry writes in its March 2009 issue:” Prepare for the unprepared: The raw food demand just might exceed a retailer’s expectations. According to David Lummis, senior pet market analyst for Packaged Facts in Rockville, MD, raw is still only about 1% of the overall pet food market. However, retailers unfamiliar with the uncooked concept may be interested and surprised to learn it is currently experiencing double digit growth. It is growing about 20 to 30 percent annually, Lummis discloses. It is very big, especially compared with the pet food industry overall, which is growing by maybe 5% at best. And a lot of that (5%) is coming from price increases.” Veterinary Practice News in its January 2009 issue addressed veterinarians as follows: “Alternative diets still riding high. Nearly two years after the massive recall of melamine tainted pet food, veterinarians are still fielding pet owners’ questions about alternative diets. “Even prior to the recall we were seeing a shift in pet owners who were interested in alternatives to conventional pet foods, such as natural or organic pet foods, raw pet foods and home cooked diets,” says Sally C. Perea, DVM, Dipl.ACVN. The recall accelerated the trend, Dr. Perea says, as pet owners began to look for what they perceived to be safer dietary options. … Perea was formerly a consultant with Davis Veterinary Medical Consulting, Inc. in Davis, CA and now is a senior nutritionist for Natura Pet Products in San Jose, Ca.” Natura is known for it’s Innova, Evo, California Natural, HealthWise, Karma and Mother Nature brands. Veterinary Practice News: “Perea considers alternative diets to fall into 3 categories: Alternative commercial pet foods, home cooked pet foods and raw pet foods, either commercial or home prepared.”
Let’s go back to Morris’ writing: “Natural vs. raw: But even within the growing market of designer pet food there are cat fights between the naturals and the raws. Some owners favor natural pet food, which is made from the same meat and produce that might otherwise find its way onto your dining-room table, 100 percent human grade, they call it. Others opt for raw food, saying that while natural is better than brand-name foods, they still are over-processed, robbing them of important nutrients. Opponents of raw food worry that improper handling could poison the pets and maybe their human owners with salmonella and E. Coli. Stephen Barone, co-founder of Primal Pet Food, says he worries about serving raw meat to pets are exaggerated. People only need to take the same precautions they take in preparation of their own food.
Primal, based in San Francisco, ships frozen raw foods to customers throughout the country, although the Bay Area has been the company's primary market since the company began in 2001. The food also is sold in area stores. Prices vary, depending on type of meat and size… . Barone, 36, and his partner, Matthew R. Koss, 33, started the business after Koss' own pets began suffering from health problems. Koss, a graduate of the San Francisco Culinary Academy, used his own knowledge of nutrition to concoct a raw formula for his dogs, which responded immediately, he says. Koss began talking with animal nutritionists and eventually developed a line that combines raw meats -- beef, lamb, chicken, duck, venison and fresh vegetables. He partnered with Barone, his longtime friend, to market the meals to other pet owners. In the three years since they began, they've expanded their line to include cat food. Koss and Barone named their food plan B.A.R.F., "bones and raw food." They comb the countryside looking for fresh meats and produce, buying from farmers and ranchers who also supply fine restaurants. The products are sold frozen and include the popular "medallion" form, which packages the food in one ounce nuggets, which makes serving and handling easier. Primal's business has grown substantially. Barone and Koss set up tables at dog and cat shows, and club events. Their customers are devoted to the B.A.R.F. diet.
Primal instinct: Ellen Brooken of Walnut Creek started feeding Primal to her two Cavalier King Charles spaniels, Maddie and Paige, about two years ago. One of her dogs had chronic health problems and she was spending $100 to $200 a month at her vet's office. At a dog show, she picked up a sample of Primal and a testimonial from a fellow pet owner. She was skeptical, but she gave it a try. "Within two days, her digestive problems were completely gone," Brooken says. "That was pretty astounding. And we've had no problems since." The clincher, Brooken says, is when she took both dogs in for their annual check-up and her vet commented that it had been a long while since they'd been in. The dogs got perfect marks on their exams, but Brooken could see the improvements for herself. Their coats are glossy and their eyes shiny, she says. Brooken supplements Primal with her own recipes and raw foods. Her vet wasn't totally supportive of the diet plan, Brooken says, so she switched doctors to one who is. The raw food is more expensive, Brooken says, but she considers it a trade-off. "I've never done a side-by-side comparison, but I know I'm not spending hundreds a month on vet bills," Brooken says. "And my dogs are extremely healthy. I'm convinced."”
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
David vs. Goliath in 2009 - Let the battle commence: Nestle/Purina vs. the Natural pet food industry (Featuring: Wysong as "David")
While the business of natural and healthy pet food is at one side tremendously interesting and can be highly rewarding, it is at the end of the day for all parties directly involved what some would call “the same story day after day”. Sure if taken seriously, it makes us learn every day something new, just like the saying goes: One never stops learning. And it most certainly makes you feel good when you see that with the knowledge obtained you can indeed make a difference in a pet’s life. But aside from pet food recalls, which unfortunately have become an almost daily occurrence it is a pretty quiet life. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t need any sensations, but a little spice once in a while certainly would be welcome as a refreshing change. And since I am not expecting any breaking news and events, it came as a big surprise when this past Friday I received an e-mail from Wysong. Now here’s something happening what you don’t see every day. For starters, see for yourself what it was about, here is a reprint:
e-mail received from Wysong Friday 02/09/09 Part 1
WYSONG UNDER ATTACK
Let’s say you were trying to find a way to wean the kids off sweets to stop the cavities and dentist bills. So you spent a lot of time researching and experimenting and came up with a sugarless cookie that if sprinkled with a little herb you discovered, stopped the cavities.
You decided to set up a little bakery and sell the cookies so other parents could benefit. You made your discovery no secret, in fact you wrote articles and books describing how you did it.
Years passed and you noted that other bakeries were copying you. Nevertheless, you knew that kids were benefiting so you didn’t fret about that too much, even when they tried to convince their customers that they were the inventors. Besides, you didn’t have the resources to go through the patent process, so really everyone had a right to it.
Then one day you received a letter from an attorney on staff at a mega-billion dollar corporate conglomerate cookie bakery. He said he had a patent on your cookie. What? You do a little investigation and discover that their patent came fifteen years after you made the discovery and were selling cookies all over the country.
So you write back and tell him this. He responds and says that if you do not pay him a commission on your last six years of cookie sales, and a commission on all your sales into the future, he will sue you in federal court. You again remind him that he can’t do that because you were first. He can’t steal your idea, patent it, then demand a ransom using the threat of suit.
He says, oh yes he can, and that you better settle up or face two to three million dollars in legal fees for patent litigation. After all, he says, what you are being asked to pay him is not as much as the legal fees will be, so why not just pay him and be done with it.
The other companies that had copied you actually were infringing on the patent since they began baking the cookies after the date of the patent. Thus they had no defense other than to rely on you to prove the patent invalid. But that would mean you could incur huge legal costs and really not gain anything other than to continue what you had always been doing. The only real winners would be the companies who had copied you, since without you they would either have to stop selling the cookies or pay the six-year penalty and commissions to the patent holder.
If you capitulate and pay, you get branded as a patent infringer. You will also have to increase the price of your cookies, as will all the other companies, to cover the commissions. That means that all the parents buying the cookies will now have to pay an inflated price. It will also stick in your craw that although the mega cookie manufacturer suing you describes in detail in their patent how kids’ cavities can be prevented, they don’t even use your invention in their own cookies! They just want to make money off other companies doing it.
What would you do?
Believe it or not, this is the exact dilemma Wysong now faces.
We appreciate any encouragement or thoughts you may have about our David and Goliath battle. And do not fear, we are here to stay and you will continue to receive out best efforts to give you good health information and products like you have come to expect.
e-mail received from Wysong Friday 02/09/09 Part 2 Official Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wysong Corporation 989.631.0009 / 989.631.9280 Wysong site
NESTLE/PURINA VS THE NATURAL PET FOOD INDUSTRY
Midland, Michigan – Nestec S.A. (better known as Nestle), parent company of Purina, a pet food manufacturer based in St. Louis, Missouri, and Wysong Corporation, a health education and nutritional development company in Midland, Michigan, have filed suits against one another in the Eastern District Federal Court in Missouri.The suits are related to a technology invented by Dr. Wysong in the early 1980’s to enrobe pet and human foods with probiotics – health giving organisms such as found in yogurt. Although Wysong did not seek a patent, it has used the technology in both animal and human foods since the early 1980s. Due in large part to Wysong’s educational efforts and product development, probiotics have become a part of the collective health consciousness of the public and food industry. Of late, many natural pet food companies have begun using Dr. Wysong’s technology as well.
Nestle/Purina obtained a patent granted in 1999 for the same technology. To this date, however, Purina has not incorporated probiotics in its own products. Instead, it is attempting to prevent Wysong and other companies from enrobing dry extruded pet foods with probiotics unless a licensing fee is paid to Purina.
A patent is not valid if the invention (prior art) exists in the public domain prior to the patent. The evidence of Wysong’s prior art for over fifteen years before the 1999 Nestle patent was granted is, according to Wysong, incontrovertible and ample. In fact, within the last few years just a portion of Wysong’s prior art evidence swayed a European patent review board to deny Nestle/Purina a like European patent. The decision was upheld upon appeal.These facts have been repeatedly made known to, but ignored by Nestle/Purina in their suit filed against Wysong. Purina’s ultimatum is that Wysong either pay sales-based licensing fees (essentially, royalties) going back six years and forward into the future, or pay for expensive patent litigation. Wysong, a small family owned company, is unwilling to pay licensing fees to the multibillion dollar Nestle/Purina for what amounts to Wysong’s own invention, and consequently now finds itself being sued by a company literally hundreds of times its size. Purina takes the position that since they were granted a patent they have a right to enforce it. Wysong argues that the patent should have never been granted, is invalid and unenforceable, and that any attempt by Purina to use the threat of litigation costs to force licensing fees is unethical and illegal. Since Wysong publicized and used the technology in products distributed nationally for more than 15 years prior to the patent, Wysong claims that the patent holders copied Wysong art and did not reveal this to the patent office when filing. Thus, Wysong has either filed or is exploring the filing of claims against Purina for Sherman Act violations/patent misuse, misleading the United States Patent Office, failing to comply with the U.S. Patent Laws, including 35 USC §101-103, 111-113 and 133, improper attempts to monopolize the market, unfair competition, antitrust violations, false advertising under the Lanham Act, state claims for deceptive trade practices, RICO violations, and punitive damages under the Clayton Act.
Wysong Corporation
You see now what I was talking about? I am pretty sure you agree with me, this is big time news. As you all know, I am a very enthusiastic fan not just of Dr. R.L. Wysong, D.V.M. himself with his extremely informative publications and books, but also of his company with its products, a true treasure chest of resources for optimal health. In addition I like the company’s philosophy and mission to encourage pet owners to think on behalf and in the best interest of not just their pets, but also for themselves. “Wysong uses business as a tool to do good, not as a mere opportunity for profit. In every way possible, Wysong attempts to make a better world and prevent disease and suffering by wise holistic approaches that respect nature and treat humans and pets as higher ethical and thinking creatures.” (Wysong as a holistic company). Simply said, a company offering products conceived by common sense, grounded in science and proven with results. Products that work, as I have proven to many of our customers time and time again.
Let’s just take a look at the mission statements of the 2 opponents:
Nestle/Purina states on their website:
Quote: “At Purina we're passionately committed to making pets' lives better.
At Nestle Purina PetCare, we're passionately committed to making pets' lives better. As the pace of change in pet care accelerates, our challenge is to lead with fresh, innovative approaches to making the lives of dogs and cats better. We are proud of our heritage, and we are constantly exploring new trends and ideas that define the future of pet care and of Nestle Purina.
Purina is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nestlé S.A., Avenue Nestlé 551800 Vevey, Switzerland. “ End of quote.
Nestle on its website claims:
Quote: “Nestlé is committed to the following Business Principles in all countries, taking into account local legislation, cultural and religious practices:
Nestlé's business objective is to manufacture and market the Company's products in such a way as to create value that can be sustained over the long term for shareholders, employees, consumers, and business partners.
Nestlé does not favor short-term profit at the expense of successful long-term business development.
Nestlé recognizes that its consumers have a sincere and legitimate interest in the behavior, beliefs and actions of the Company behind brands in which they place their trust, and that without its consumers the Company would not exist.
Nestlé believes that, as a general rule, legislation is the most effective safeguard of responsible conduct, although in certain areas, additional guidance to staff in the form of voluntary business principles is beneficial in order to ensure that the highest standards are met throughout the organization.
Nestlé is conscious of the fact that the success of a corporation is a reflection of the professionalism, conduct and the responsible attitude of its management and employees. Therefore recruitment of the right people and ongoing training and development are crucial.
Nestlé continues to maintain its commitment to follow and respect all applicable local laws in each of its markets. End of quote.
Wysong says in it’s “Statement of Purpose” (Wysong Resource Book for Thinking People Page 2)
Quote: “Wysong is an organization dedicated to enhancing the health of humans, the animals in their care, and the environment in which we all live. Throughout the world, the short-sighted and selfish inclination to exploit the Earth as a limitless raw material is steadily unraveling the delicate natural web which is critical to healthful living. The mercantilist ethic of privatizing gain but commonizing consequences is incompatible with a sustainable healthy planet. We believe humankind has a fundamental fiduciary obligation to protect and ensure a better world for future generations. Wysong is actively engaged in research, product development, and environmental and nutritional health education. Research is intended to offer responsible alternatives which promote health as a number one priority, and products are designed in accord with the logic that ultimately all healing comes through nature.” End of quote
Now, let me ask you this: Your pet is suffering from disease. You are having problems with the commercial products available at mass merchandise marts and grocery stores. It appears to you as if your vet is not able to help you with his approach of prescribing “his” food. And now you are looking for a new beginning with an all new approach to health and well being. Which company would you follow? I think there is no need for me to say any more.
My initial response to Dr. Wysong, published on his site, was as follows:
“Hi Doctor: We will support you as much as we just can. To start with I will be commenting on our Blog and see if we can get the word out. Also included will be announcements in our monthly e-news. As a relatively young, but fast growing holistic pet nutrition on-line store we cannot afford any of the much needed financial support, however we will back you morally. Being a holistic pet food store offering only the healthiest and best pet products available on the market today, we proudly carry and quite successfully promote the entire Wysong pet product line. We have had great success in helping many pet owners who came to us asking for help for their unhealthy pets. In most cases, thanks to your products we were able to make a huge difference and today every Wysong customer of ours is a very pleased and satisfied one owning very healthy and happy pets. I think at this point it would be repetitive to say I am one of your greatest fans. We are sure that the current events will strengthen your position in the market even more and open many more eyes. This, at the end would be a victory on your part. Always remember, it was David who won. Please let us know if there is anything you want us to do to support you even more. Please feel free to add our site to your "List of other websites talking about David vs. Goliath"
Good luck and keep up the great work. Paul, The Pet Food Examiner”
Other responses on the Wysong site as of tonight so far range from being emotional to more factual, but all are common in one point: Undivided support for “David”.
Stay tuned as in nearest future I will discuss this “case” in more detail. The facts, the truth, the reactions. It is going to be very interesting. I also invite everybody to actively participate and express your very own opinion about this subject matter. Show your support for “David”. And if you don’t support him, sound off anyway. We love lively discussions. After all, I am convinced it is to benefit a very good purpose and supports one cause only: Regardless of whether it is Wysong or anybody else following the same holistic principles, it all is in the best interest of our beloved companion animals.
e-mail received from Wysong Friday 02/09/09 Part 1
WYSONG UNDER ATTACK
Let’s say you were trying to find a way to wean the kids off sweets to stop the cavities and dentist bills. So you spent a lot of time researching and experimenting and came up with a sugarless cookie that if sprinkled with a little herb you discovered, stopped the cavities.
You decided to set up a little bakery and sell the cookies so other parents could benefit. You made your discovery no secret, in fact you wrote articles and books describing how you did it.
Years passed and you noted that other bakeries were copying you. Nevertheless, you knew that kids were benefiting so you didn’t fret about that too much, even when they tried to convince their customers that they were the inventors. Besides, you didn’t have the resources to go through the patent process, so really everyone had a right to it.
Then one day you received a letter from an attorney on staff at a mega-billion dollar corporate conglomerate cookie bakery. He said he had a patent on your cookie. What? You do a little investigation and discover that their patent came fifteen years after you made the discovery and were selling cookies all over the country.
So you write back and tell him this. He responds and says that if you do not pay him a commission on your last six years of cookie sales, and a commission on all your sales into the future, he will sue you in federal court. You again remind him that he can’t do that because you were first. He can’t steal your idea, patent it, then demand a ransom using the threat of suit.
He says, oh yes he can, and that you better settle up or face two to three million dollars in legal fees for patent litigation. After all, he says, what you are being asked to pay him is not as much as the legal fees will be, so why not just pay him and be done with it.
The other companies that had copied you actually were infringing on the patent since they began baking the cookies after the date of the patent. Thus they had no defense other than to rely on you to prove the patent invalid. But that would mean you could incur huge legal costs and really not gain anything other than to continue what you had always been doing. The only real winners would be the companies who had copied you, since without you they would either have to stop selling the cookies or pay the six-year penalty and commissions to the patent holder.
If you capitulate and pay, you get branded as a patent infringer. You will also have to increase the price of your cookies, as will all the other companies, to cover the commissions. That means that all the parents buying the cookies will now have to pay an inflated price. It will also stick in your craw that although the mega cookie manufacturer suing you describes in detail in their patent how kids’ cavities can be prevented, they don’t even use your invention in their own cookies! They just want to make money off other companies doing it.
What would you do?
Believe it or not, this is the exact dilemma Wysong now faces.
We appreciate any encouragement or thoughts you may have about our David and Goliath battle. And do not fear, we are here to stay and you will continue to receive out best efforts to give you good health information and products like you have come to expect.
e-mail received from Wysong Friday 02/09/09 Part 2 Official Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wysong Corporation 989.631.0009 / 989.631.9280 Wysong site
NESTLE/PURINA VS THE NATURAL PET FOOD INDUSTRY
Midland, Michigan – Nestec S.A. (better known as Nestle), parent company of Purina, a pet food manufacturer based in St. Louis, Missouri, and Wysong Corporation, a health education and nutritional development company in Midland, Michigan, have filed suits against one another in the Eastern District Federal Court in Missouri.The suits are related to a technology invented by Dr. Wysong in the early 1980’s to enrobe pet and human foods with probiotics – health giving organisms such as found in yogurt. Although Wysong did not seek a patent, it has used the technology in both animal and human foods since the early 1980s. Due in large part to Wysong’s educational efforts and product development, probiotics have become a part of the collective health consciousness of the public and food industry. Of late, many natural pet food companies have begun using Dr. Wysong’s technology as well.
Nestle/Purina obtained a patent granted in 1999 for the same technology. To this date, however, Purina has not incorporated probiotics in its own products. Instead, it is attempting to prevent Wysong and other companies from enrobing dry extruded pet foods with probiotics unless a licensing fee is paid to Purina.
A patent is not valid if the invention (prior art) exists in the public domain prior to the patent. The evidence of Wysong’s prior art for over fifteen years before the 1999 Nestle patent was granted is, according to Wysong, incontrovertible and ample. In fact, within the last few years just a portion of Wysong’s prior art evidence swayed a European patent review board to deny Nestle/Purina a like European patent. The decision was upheld upon appeal.These facts have been repeatedly made known to, but ignored by Nestle/Purina in their suit filed against Wysong. Purina’s ultimatum is that Wysong either pay sales-based licensing fees (essentially, royalties) going back six years and forward into the future, or pay for expensive patent litigation. Wysong, a small family owned company, is unwilling to pay licensing fees to the multibillion dollar Nestle/Purina for what amounts to Wysong’s own invention, and consequently now finds itself being sued by a company literally hundreds of times its size. Purina takes the position that since they were granted a patent they have a right to enforce it. Wysong argues that the patent should have never been granted, is invalid and unenforceable, and that any attempt by Purina to use the threat of litigation costs to force licensing fees is unethical and illegal. Since Wysong publicized and used the technology in products distributed nationally for more than 15 years prior to the patent, Wysong claims that the patent holders copied Wysong art and did not reveal this to the patent office when filing. Thus, Wysong has either filed or is exploring the filing of claims against Purina for Sherman Act violations/patent misuse, misleading the United States Patent Office, failing to comply with the U.S. Patent Laws, including 35 USC §101-103, 111-113 and 133, improper attempts to monopolize the market, unfair competition, antitrust violations, false advertising under the Lanham Act, state claims for deceptive trade practices, RICO violations, and punitive damages under the Clayton Act.
Wysong Corporation
You see now what I was talking about? I am pretty sure you agree with me, this is big time news. As you all know, I am a very enthusiastic fan not just of Dr. R.L. Wysong, D.V.M. himself with his extremely informative publications and books, but also of his company with its products, a true treasure chest of resources for optimal health. In addition I like the company’s philosophy and mission to encourage pet owners to think on behalf and in the best interest of not just their pets, but also for themselves. “Wysong uses business as a tool to do good, not as a mere opportunity for profit. In every way possible, Wysong attempts to make a better world and prevent disease and suffering by wise holistic approaches that respect nature and treat humans and pets as higher ethical and thinking creatures.” (Wysong as a holistic company). Simply said, a company offering products conceived by common sense, grounded in science and proven with results. Products that work, as I have proven to many of our customers time and time again.
Let’s just take a look at the mission statements of the 2 opponents:
Nestle/Purina states on their website:
Quote: “At Purina we're passionately committed to making pets' lives better.
At Nestle Purina PetCare, we're passionately committed to making pets' lives better. As the pace of change in pet care accelerates, our challenge is to lead with fresh, innovative approaches to making the lives of dogs and cats better. We are proud of our heritage, and we are constantly exploring new trends and ideas that define the future of pet care and of Nestle Purina.
Purina is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nestlé S.A., Avenue Nestlé 551800 Vevey, Switzerland. “ End of quote.
Nestle on its website claims:
Quote: “Nestlé is committed to the following Business Principles in all countries, taking into account local legislation, cultural and religious practices:
Nestlé's business objective is to manufacture and market the Company's products in such a way as to create value that can be sustained over the long term for shareholders, employees, consumers, and business partners.
Nestlé does not favor short-term profit at the expense of successful long-term business development.
Nestlé recognizes that its consumers have a sincere and legitimate interest in the behavior, beliefs and actions of the Company behind brands in which they place their trust, and that without its consumers the Company would not exist.
Nestlé believes that, as a general rule, legislation is the most effective safeguard of responsible conduct, although in certain areas, additional guidance to staff in the form of voluntary business principles is beneficial in order to ensure that the highest standards are met throughout the organization.
Nestlé is conscious of the fact that the success of a corporation is a reflection of the professionalism, conduct and the responsible attitude of its management and employees. Therefore recruitment of the right people and ongoing training and development are crucial.
Nestlé continues to maintain its commitment to follow and respect all applicable local laws in each of its markets. End of quote.
Wysong says in it’s “Statement of Purpose” (Wysong Resource Book for Thinking People Page 2)
Quote: “Wysong is an organization dedicated to enhancing the health of humans, the animals in their care, and the environment in which we all live. Throughout the world, the short-sighted and selfish inclination to exploit the Earth as a limitless raw material is steadily unraveling the delicate natural web which is critical to healthful living. The mercantilist ethic of privatizing gain but commonizing consequences is incompatible with a sustainable healthy planet. We believe humankind has a fundamental fiduciary obligation to protect and ensure a better world for future generations. Wysong is actively engaged in research, product development, and environmental and nutritional health education. Research is intended to offer responsible alternatives which promote health as a number one priority, and products are designed in accord with the logic that ultimately all healing comes through nature.” End of quote
Now, let me ask you this: Your pet is suffering from disease. You are having problems with the commercial products available at mass merchandise marts and grocery stores. It appears to you as if your vet is not able to help you with his approach of prescribing “his” food. And now you are looking for a new beginning with an all new approach to health and well being. Which company would you follow? I think there is no need for me to say any more.
My initial response to Dr. Wysong, published on his site, was as follows:
“Hi Doctor: We will support you as much as we just can. To start with I will be commenting on our Blog and see if we can get the word out. Also included will be announcements in our monthly e-news. As a relatively young, but fast growing holistic pet nutrition on-line store we cannot afford any of the much needed financial support, however we will back you morally. Being a holistic pet food store offering only the healthiest and best pet products available on the market today, we proudly carry and quite successfully promote the entire Wysong pet product line. We have had great success in helping many pet owners who came to us asking for help for their unhealthy pets. In most cases, thanks to your products we were able to make a huge difference and today every Wysong customer of ours is a very pleased and satisfied one owning very healthy and happy pets. I think at this point it would be repetitive to say I am one of your greatest fans. We are sure that the current events will strengthen your position in the market even more and open many more eyes. This, at the end would be a victory on your part. Always remember, it was David who won. Please let us know if there is anything you want us to do to support you even more. Please feel free to add our site to your "List of other websites talking about David vs. Goliath"
Good luck and keep up the great work. Paul, The Pet Food Examiner”
Other responses on the Wysong site as of tonight so far range from being emotional to more factual, but all are common in one point: Undivided support for “David”.
Stay tuned as in nearest future I will discuss this “case” in more detail. The facts, the truth, the reactions. It is going to be very interesting. I also invite everybody to actively participate and express your very own opinion about this subject matter. Show your support for “David”. And if you don’t support him, sound off anyway. We love lively discussions. After all, I am convinced it is to benefit a very good purpose and supports one cause only: Regardless of whether it is Wysong or anybody else following the same holistic principles, it all is in the best interest of our beloved companion animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
