 2 rating(s)
Current Members: 31
Bookmark URL: http://my.billingsgazette.com/Groups/Animal_Crackers |
|
|
Do Dogs Go To Heaven?
Posted by: jn at 3:55PM MT on April 3, 2009
Posted by: jn at 3:34PM MT on April 3, 2009
An LA reporter investigates over-the-counter flea and tick products for pets, a subject that has been thorns in the sides of millions of pet owners in over a decade.
Embedded in the story is a link (pdf file) to Hartz Mountain Corp's statement to the reporter after he inquired about the safety of their products, based on on-going complaints from consumers, and the EPA's lack of action. It should come as no surprise to read the statement from Hartz. After all, this is a repeat in history going back to 2002 when thousands of pet owners demanded the EPA investigate reports of serious injuries and deaths associated with over-the-counter spot-on flea and tick products, most notably, Hartz Mountain pet products. Hartz is notorious for attempts to thwart pet owners' concerns about the toxicity of their products, making absurd claims their company has been in business for so long that their products must be highly repectable, to claims of irresponsible owners misusing the products. Only after a comprehensive investigation lead by the EPA with the contributions of poison control centers across the nation and other pesticide information groups in 2003, did Hartz have to answer to the EPA. The EPA's response? Require Hartz to re-label products with minimal changes to the label, that is, require a graphic depicting appropriate administration of the product. Hartz, in no way, took responsibility to ease pet owners' fears about safety of their products. A short time later in 2005, the EPA asked Hartz to voluntarily stop the production and sale of two spot-on products for cats, but not before Hartz argued the products were safe and only after Hartz cooed to the public it was a "voluntary" action, not that they were responsible in any way. The products remained on the market for over 9 months until retailers could get them off the shelf. Then, they came out with a new product to replace those taken off the market, with, yep you guessed it, another toxic ingredient; Etofenprox, a pyrethroid. And, the EPA approved it. If you read the statement Hartz made to the LA reporter, it's clear Hartz intends to bypass the real issue and make claims their products are the safest on the market, and doesn't hesitate to claim adverse reactions to their products are far lower than the veterinary brands, which is, pure B.S. The two most popular flea and tick medications sold by veterinarians (Frontline and Advantage) are the top sellers in the nation, and are purported by veterinarians and pet owners alike to be the safest and most cost-effective for flea and tick control. They do NOT use permethrin, or pyrethroid derivatives, which Hartz Mountain pet products do, and have, for over a decade, despite their known history of toxicity in domestic animals, particularly cats. Hartz goes on to cite toxicity ratings with their EPA cohorts but fails to define those ratings, since the EPA currently does not require specific testing in domestic animals to rate pesticide use for such products. Essentially, these tests and ratings mean nothing because they are not specific to cats or dogs and manufacturers don't have to submit such specific tests to obtain registration of the product. Human and rat studies are not comparable, but allowable to use for such registration. When the EPA has in its possession years worth of data suggesting obvious harm to domestic pets from the use of permethrin and their derivatives, there is simply no excuse to continue to give leeway to manufacturers with no other agenda but to profit from clearly unsafe products. Hartz continues to downplay the serious side effects their products can leave on pets, conveniently leaving out the fact that permethrin products and their derivatives are well known in literature for having serious side effects. Some of those side effects include: irritation of skin and eyes; irritability to sound or touch, abnormal facial sensation, sensation of prickling, tingling or creeping on skin, numbness; headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive salivation, fatigue; in severe cases, fluid in the lungs and muscle twitching, seizures. (1) (1). PAN Pesticide Information In pets, all of those symptoms including others, have been reported. Death included. As is customary for Hartz, they ask the reporter not to report on stories unfounded, because frankly, all reports from pet owners or the media are just....false. Sorry, Hartz, it's much too late for that. I suppose the ASPCA's Poison Control Center database, other poison control centers across the nation, the watchdog groups on pesticide use, the veterinarians reporting adverse events, and even your cohort the EPA are also wrong? Next, along with the Hartz statement, are three supplemental pages given to the reporter. Let's examine the first (word document): In "Determining the Safety of Active Ingredients", Hartz compares the safety of their products (containing permethrin derivatives) to that of their competitors. In other words, let's shift the blame and use the EPA's less than credible testing standards to absolve responsibility for your products known to contain toxic substances. The second (word document) supplement page contains snippets of a case history of two cats who died as a direct result of using a Hartz flea product for cats according to the owner (and supported by her veterinarian). Hartz claims the product in question only contained one "active" ingredient (s-methoprene, which is an insect growth regulator) and could not possibly be the cause for the deaths of the two cats. Hartz goes on to say their own independent laboratory findings indicated some other permethrin product had been applied, but it could not have been the Hartz product the owner claimed. To ad insult to injury, in Hartz' exact words following the findings: "Hartz, of course, does not and has never marketed a cat flea & tick product containing permethrin, a powerful pyrethroid flea & tick pesticide that should never be applied to cats." Well now, Hartz, you've just been caught in a blatant lie (pdf file). Perhaps you don't even understand your own product, since you're using pyrethroids (permethrin derivatives) in your products, and permethrin and derivatives all have the same mechanism of action, they all carry the risk of the same toxic symptoms, and since you're not going to reveal all the inert ingredients used with the pyrethroids, how can you say this with a straight face? The product in question in the cats' case was Hartz UltraGuard® One-Spot Treatment The ingredients? s-methoprene 2.9% and OTHER INGREDIENTS 97.1% Of course, since Hartz is protected under the "proprietary ingredient" umbrella, they don't have to list inert ingredients, the consumer has no way of knowing what compromises the other 97.1% of the ACTIVE ingredients. Yet, Etofenprox (which is a pyrethroid), 40% by weight and s-methoprene, 3.6% is in many of their other cat products. But let's be fair and not single out this product alone, let's see what else is in many of your pet products that are as you say, incapable of causing adverse effects: Etofenprox – pyrethroid D-Phenothrin – pyrethroid Tetrachlorvinphos (which is an organophosphorous pesticide) D-Lanalool - which are citrus extracts/derivatives known for toxicity in cats Allerthrin or D-trans Allethrin - pyrethroid ester insecticide The third supplemental page I choose not to comment on, since there is not enough evidence to conclude whether a Hartz product was or was not in some way responsible for a dog's death. Without more evidence, including the owner's own veterinarian's input and test results, it is only open for interpretation. It's notable however, that the mere mention of seizure activity should have been compared. Hartz and other manufacturers love to include the terms "sensitivity" and "body tremors" on their labels, but an inexperienced pet owner may not differentiate a full body tremor from a seizure (seizure activity, by the way, is among the top symptoms reported by pet owners). Unfortunately, this is how too many of these cases end up. It's more or less "case closed" by Hartz. Hartz makes it extremely difficult for pet owners to sue the company and often requires them to sign a waiver that allows them to communicate with Hartz on their individual case but prohibits them from filing suit. Complaints, records, database information from the EPA have yielded absolutely no result or recourse for pet owners. Please note Hartz isn't the only one marketing dangerous flea and tick products. Sergeant's, Farnam and others are as well. Learn More: Are Over-the-Counter Flea-and-Tick Treatments Really Safe for Dogs and Cats? Organophosphate Toxins:Poisons on Pets-Health Hazards from Flea and Tick Products About Synthetic Pyrethroids (pdf file) AVMA comments on permethrin toxicosis What You Should Know About Flea and Tick Products Small Animal Toxicoses - Insecticides EPA National Pesticide Information Center Note: in the orginal story above, the link to www.hartzvictims.org should be taken with a huge grain of salt. While reports of injuries or death in pets treated with OTC products should never be ignored, this site in particular contains posts from anonymous sources, making it impossible to determine accuracy or validity. |
About This Blog
Because life ain't worth living without the dog who sniffs the guests and the cat who shreds the toiletpaper. All things fun and educational in the crazy world of pets.
Older Posts
Current Entries
August 7, 2009 July 31, 2009 July 29, 2009 July 26, 2009 July 20, 2009 July 18, 2009 July 15, 2009 July 13, 2009 July 9, 2009 July 2, 2009 July 1, 2009 June 27, 2009 June 26, 2009 June 21, 2009 June 19, 2009 June 17, 2009 June 15, 2009 June 13, 2009 June 12, 2009 June 11, 2009 May 28, 2009 May 25, 2009 May 24, 2009 May 21, 2009 May 20, 2009 May 19, 2009 May 7, 2009 May 6, 2009 May 4, 2009 April 24, 2009 April 23, 2009 April 21, 2009 April 18, 2009 April 16, 2009 April 11, 2009 April 9, 2009 April 6, 2009 April 5, 2009 April 4, 2009 April 3, 2009 April 1, 2009 March 31, 2009 March 30, 2009 |
