We hope you enjoyed reading our last post, “Mixed Messages”. We will be re-visiting that topic in today’s post thanks to the latest crap to come rolling down from the “mountain”.
So, Hartz is going to relieve consumer fears about buying the wrong products by offering their suggestions on what’s safe to use?
You probably know where this is going.
The system works like this. You tell Hartz if you have a cat or a dog, how old the animal is, how much it weighs and where you live in the United States. This “sophisticated” app takes all that data, analyzes it, gives you a coupon for good ole Hartz and makes a postcard for you to tell all your friends about the wonderful deal you just got on some reckless poison.
To be fair, the Care Station doesn’t always recommend Hartz. If you tell the app your animal is under the age or weight limit, it cautions you against using the products, employing cutesy animal graphics. Aww.
Of course, Hartz, has also accounted for the combination of underage and underweight at the same time! What attention to detail:
Okay, so, aside from the expected bias towards Hartz products, what’s the problem?
We’re glad you asked.
In our last post we revealed that Hartz has been sending out messages in direct opposition to their EPA approved labeling, specifically on the subject of age.
In this instance, the advice above matches with Hartz’ labeling, though Hartz does not go into nearly as much detail on what they consider elderly on their labels (but that’s a whole other post):
Keeping all this in mind, please watch the following video (for the record, you do not have to be logged in to Facebook to use this app and the music is our addition):
Yep. Although Hartz considers cats to be elderly at 7 years of age and they state on their labeling not to use the products on aged cats, they carelessly tell you to run out and choose from an assortment of Hartz flea & tick “treatments” and apply them to your cat of 10 or more years of age, well over the Company’s definition of “aged”.
If you’re wondering, the same results can be obtained if you select the “7-9 Years” option and, yes, the error occurs on the dog side of the fence too:
As soon as we saw news of this release, we made sure to let Hartz know what was coming:
With today’s post, we believe we delivered on that promise.
Well, Hartz’ pride must have been hurt by this, causing us to put out the next tweet a couple days later:
So, what happened?
We’re not exactly sure but, as we’ve pointed out before; with 25 years combined experience, the Broken Hartz team is well-versed in the field of web design and it does not appear to have been a technical glitch. The section simply went from functional, to broken then back to normal.
The section appears to have been intentionally taken down some time between the conclusion of our “A [sic] Education Tab” series and the day we discovered the discrepancy, only to appear again after we mocked Hartz for this act.
This return sparked our curiosity as we again found ourselves taking in the advice of Hartz’ nefarious drone, Dr. Melinda Fernyhough. In this re-visitation, something previously unnoticed caught our eye.
On the subject of aged animals, both Hartz’ cat and dog product labeling for their flea “treatments” caution against the administration of these products on seniors:
This statement is echoed in the FAQ section of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab:
Despite these cautions, here’s what the “good doctor” had to say on the subject:
In the screenshot above, the question and Dr. Melinda’s answer read as follows:
“I have an elderly dog, is he too old for a [sic] topical flea and tick treatments and, if so, what do you recommend I should do now to control his fleas?
Your dog is not too old. In fact, it is important to provide effective flea and tick control for your senior dog’s health and well-being. However, if your dog has been diagnosed with an illness, consult your veterinarian before using any topical flea and tick product.”
Wow, Mel, that sounds like a reckless statement that may lead to improper use of Hartz’ products and, consequently, more needless injuries or deaths.
In the next screenshots, you’ll notice Dr. Melinda doesn’t flat-out give the green light to consumers to use Hartz’ flea “treatment” products on senior cats, though the sentence following her initial statement seems to suggest she had intended to claim Hartz’ flea “treatment” products for cats are safe to use on elderly cats in the same manner she did when referring to Hartz’ flea “treatment” products for dogs.
We believe Dr. Mel to have been spared from making this deadly error a second time solely due to her poor proofreading skills, which have been well documented, incidentally, throughout our mission’s history.
“I have a 16 year old cat, is she too old for topical flea and tick treatments and, if so, what do you recommend I should do now to control her fleas?
Topical treatments should not be used on senior cats. In fact, it is important to provide effective flea and tick control for your senior cat’s health and well-being. However, if your cat has been diagnosed with an illness, consult your veterinarian before using any topical flea and tick product.”
Well, which is it Hartz? These mixed messages seem to be causing more contradictions between your websites and your labeling which, as we’ve already pointed out, may cause the EPA to declare your products to be inconsistent with the Fedaral Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Since then, our boards have been growing, becoming ever more populated with supporter submissions. We’d like to share some of those submissions with you today.
This first piece comes from less of a BH Warrior and more of a BH Compatriot, HartzKills.org.
We’ve been absolutely thrilled by the level of attention we’ve received from this excellent Hartz protest website that’s been in operation for years, but when this graphic was created in honor of our 13-day Twitter trend, we were over the moon!
Next up, we have a submission from one of our longest standing, strongest supporters; Lulu (@Lulu_Lindi on Twitter). Lulu’s involvement in our mission has earned her the title of BH Ambassador.
Continuing, the revelation Skelanimals has partnered with Hartz prompted active Hartz opponent, Boycott Hartz (found on Facebook and Twitter) to add the following graphic to its prolific body of protest compositions:
Though slightly newer to our mission; BH Warrior, Corina (@Rinarubee on Twitter), has made many contributions to the mission, including this important message for Hartz:
The last example of great Hartz Mountain Corporation protest art we will be sharing today comes from none other than BH Warrior, Guye (@Di_sss on Twitter). When it comes to BH Warrior art, Guye is the grandfather. He pretty much launched the artistic wing of our mission all on his own, inspiring us and others to follow suit. Here is just one of his many excellent creations:
Thank you to everyone out there that keep making Hartz Mountain Corporation protest art to add to the collection. Art has a way of reaching people in a manner other forms of communication cannot and, in the war against Hartz, we believe artistic expression will continue to play a strong role in achieving our goal.
A few weeks ago we were contacted by a Hartz victim in Canada who had applied Hartz Ultraguard One Spot Treatment for Cats and Kittens on two cats. Both of these cats reacted to the product with neurological issues. Chewie, sadly, did not survive:
“We euthanized him after a 20 minute grand mal seizure. We couldn’t even hold him in the room. My boyfriend and I had to go to Chewie in the lab while one girl held him down. The vet said ‘touch his head, tell him you love him, and let’s do this quickly’. It was the worst thing I’ve ever witnessed an animal go through.” – Hartz Victim
Hartz may wish to deny this video, pointing out the public has no way of knowing what product or brand was used, if any, or if the individual that contacted us was just making the whole thing up for no other reason than to try and pin another death on poor old Hartz.
While it’s true we have not met this individual face-to-face, those familiar with our blog should be aware we know our way around the internet and are not in the habit of accepting claims at face value. Immediately upon contacts of this nature, our team of investigators search for corroborating evidence.
Through research, we discovered:
The name given checks out as a real name of a person living in the specific city in Canada this individual claims as their residence.
Through IP address confirmation, this individual reached out to us from the specific city in Canada in which they claim to reside.
Unknown to the individual, they confirmed personal, anecdotal information we had already discovered about the individual this person claims to be.
Additionally, this individual, aside from the video, has provided:
Photos of the Hartz Ultraguard One Spot Treatment for Cats and Kittens package, claimed by this individual to be the culprit. This demonstrates the correct species product was used:
The correct Health Canada number (26491) for the Hartz product claimed to be the culprit (This product matches up with US product EPA #2596-147, used by our affiliates)
A phone number where this individual can be reached
The case number Hartz assigned to this complaint after the victim contacted them
Photos of Veterinarian notes on the case of Chewie:
Additionally, this individual has used their actual name through all correspondences with both us and Hartz. They would have gone to great lengths in order to stage what they claim has occurred and, in our opinion, their story more than sufficiently checks out. By the end of this post, we think you’ll agree.
As we’ve already mentioned, this individual contacted Hartz:
“The first thing the Hartz guy said was ‘I’d hate to think there was some sort of cross contamination or worse, if the wrong product was in the wrong packaging’. I thought that was a pretty random thing to say…” – Hartz Victim
In the following screenshot, you’ll see the individual in question reiterated what Hartz said on the phone to the Company’s Facebook account. The Hartz Facebook team made no attempt to dispute that claim:
You’ll notice in this particular screenshot, at the beginning of corresponding with Hartz, the victim had hopes this would get resolved appropriately, though doubts were already forming. Regarding this conversation, the victim says:
“At this time I was still very upset and did not want to fight, I wanted answers. As you can see, I didn’t get one.” – Hartz Victim
Moving on, you’ll notice in the Veterinarian’s notes above, they assert an opinion that Chewie suffered from what appears to be Permethrin poisoning. There is not supposed to be any Permethrin in Hartz Ultraguard One Spot Treatment for Cats and Kittens (2.9% Methoprene), though it is found in Hartz Ultraguard One Spot Treatment for Dogs and Puppies (2.9% Methoprene, 45% Permethrin).
You’ll also note, in the screenshots above, a toxicologist was consulted who supports the Veterinarian’s opinion concerning this case. It resembles Permethrin poisoning (or some other toxic exposure) despite there being no indication on the packaging of Permethrin’s presence or anything other than Methoprene, an Insect Growth Regulator, widely accepted to be safe.
Because of this, the toxicologist inquired if there was a dog in the house that may have been treated with a Permethrin product or some other toxic substance. The veterinarian consulted with the Hartz victim, then noted:
“Called [Hartz Victim]. Discussed info from toxicologist. Confirmed dog in house, however, he was treated with Revolution (Selamectin)”
Revolution is an FDA-Approved Animal Drug, for use on both cats and dogs. As the Veterinarian notes, Revolution contains Selamectin, which kills fleas and flea eggs, along with treating for mites and a variety of worms. It does not match the profile of a possible culprit in this case.
The Veterinarian and toxicologist’s findings followed in line with the Hartz representative’s readily-offered suspicion that perhaps Permethrin was mistakenly placed into Hartz’ cat packaging, causing the death of Chewie.
This prompted the individual in question to post these notes from their Veterinarian on Hartz’ Facebook wall:
After posting this information on Hartz’ Facebook wall, the individual in question reached out to us.
Here is where this already interesting case takes an even more interesting spin.
“Vet AND Toxicologist agree. The symptoms, timing of onset, even reputation of this product and brand – the only conclusion is that Hartz killed my cat The lab tech even said ‘we see this all the time’” – Hartz Victim
“This picture lasted exactly 7 minutes on the Hartz fb page before someone deleted it” – Hartz Victim
This was followed up privately shortly thereafter with the following revelation:
“I went back and it’s there!! People even slammed them in the comments… so weird. So I posted it, it was removed… then re-appeared?
I asked them in a public forem for a written apology [:)]
*forum
Can you see it from your page?” – Hartz Victim
No, we could not see it from our page, nor could we see it using various control methods.
Clearly, there was a discrepancy.
Here is a portion of what the Hartz Victim (represented in black) was seeing:
Here is what we were able to see:
So, it became apparent we were witnessing a different Hartz tactic. This tactic is a bit more advanced than Hartz’ typical course of action: deletion.
The flaw in this plan is people really don’t take kindly to a product that causes them to inadvertently sicken, injure or kill those they love.
These kinds of people have a habit of finding each other and uniting. Through that, there were individuals watching this case unfold from both sides of the privacy setting, exposing Hartz’ intent to lure this victim into thinking this comment had been left in the public domain when it had, in fact, been hidden.
Unfortunately for Hartz, this individual (represented in black) was on to them.
In the screenshot above, the victim states:
“Isn’t this form a good DM as it is only visable [sic] to some people?” – Hartz Victim
“time dated screen shots from another computer show this is not a public message.” – Hartz Victim
To this, a Hartz Facebook “prisoner”, probably long forgotten, made themselves known:
“[Hartz Victim], Hartz removed this picture from their page, so it’s no longer visible to the public. Basically, they don’t want others to know about how dangerous their products are so they can keep making a profit. Sad.” – [Name Removed]
The likelihood something of this nature would be limited to one package is highly unlikely and we hope Hartz is taking a close look at what is happening with Health Canada product #26491, though we are not holding our breath.
The individual in question makes one last point on this posting, regarding Hartz’ request for contact information:
“Hartz has all my info and has been able to ‘reach out’ to me at any time.” – Hartz Victim
It has been days now since the individual in question called Hartz out on their Facebook grouping tactic, with no response:
“I believe I am just being ignored.” – Hartz Victim
We notice Hartz has removed a comment since the time of our last entry. We have accented the comment in question in the following screenshot from June 27, 2012:
Here is a susbsequent screenshot, taken on June 30, 2012, showing Hartz’ decision to remove the comment, which had received 5 “likes”:
“Don’t use Hartz. It’s terrible for your pets” – [Name Removed]
Upon closer inspection, we noticed this posting consists of 7 comments, even though a Facebook glitch notes 10 comments in the preview of this posting:
It would appear Hartz has removed 2 other comments before we got any screenshots of this posting.
As you can imagine, the world of social media can be very scary to a corporation like Hartz that has so much to fear in the manner of public backlash, but they have a “cunning” solution to that problem:
The “Delete” Button
We’d like to take a look at three recent examples of this strategy, the first of which involves a follower who contacted us shortly after posting on Hartz’ Facebook wall about their product making her cat deathly ill 5 yrs ago:
In the screenshot above, this Hartz Victim tells us:
“I just posted on Hartz about my cat getting critically ill 5 years ago from their crappy flea product. I said my Vet said it had chemical in it that were toxic to cats. I asked WHY there are still selling their product. I know several other people whose cats got sick from the flea meds. There cats wer not as lucky as mine, they died. I re-checked their site 10 minutes later and my post had vanished….unbelievable…what sick, unethical bastards!”
Given how often we have seen Hartz delete complaints as well as comments from protestors, we fully believe the individual above despite us having no physical proof of this individual’s claim.
With these next two examples, however, we have documentation.
Here is an individual, unaware of our organization (to our knowledge) that contacted Hartz:
The Hartz Victim in the screenshot above states:
“Can you tell me why my cat is dead the day after applying your flea and tick medication? You portray it as safe, but I don’t think that he has the same opinion as you. The Vet said that all of you that sell this crap ought to be prosecuted.”
Before moving on, we ask you to note the comment underneath the death complaint. You’ll see in the screenshot below, this comment now features a different comment on top of it, proving Hartz’ decision to delete the death complaint rather than respond or allow members of the public to see the truth.
Moving on, we’d like to conclude today’s post with the story of Sangha.
Sangha’s family found us shortly after going through a very traumatic experience.
Through contact with the Hartz Victim above, we learned a picture of Sangha was posted on Hartz’ wall as well, in the interest of calling more attention to this matter of public safety.
Upon learning this, our organization obtained the following screenshot:
By noting the time stamp information offered by Facebook, combined with time stamp information in the bottom-right corner of the above screenshot, you can determine the posting of Sangha to Hartz’ Facebook wall occurred on June 11, 2012 at 10:56pm.
Applying this same technique to the screenshot below, you’ll notice the Hartz Victim did not post any comment on the photo until 5:33am the following morning.
It took Hartz Mountain Corporation until 3:30pm to take note. This cost them, as evidenced by a separate individual taking note and commenting. We are sure others saw this as well.
This time Hartz tried pasting in their form response:
Here is the conversation found in the screenshot above:
[Hartz Victim]:
“This cat, my cat, my healthy beautiful cat, died just over a week after receiving her first dose of Hartz Ultraguard for cats and kittens.”
[Other Individual]:
“I am so sorry. She was a beautiful, sweet kitty.”
Hartz:
“Hi [Hartz Victim]. We are very sorry to hear about the loss of your cat. As pet parents, we know that losing a beloved member of your family can be devastating. We would like to learn more about what happened and ask that you please call us immediately at 1-800-929-3566.”
[Hartz Victim]:
“Based on the amount of complaints you have already received, I’m positive you already know what happened to my cat. Please, stop selling the Ultraguard product.”
Once Hartz knew the jig was up and this Hartz Victim wasn’t going to be silenced, they promptly deleted the posting. This can be proven by looking back at the screenshot of Sangha’s posting before any comments were made.
You’ll note, there is a posting below the Hartz Victim’s post of a small dog in a sink with Hartz shampoo in the background.
However, in the screenshot below, you’ll notice the dog in the sink posting now has a different posting featured directly above it.
Hartz may have deleted the comment in an effort to silence this victim, but they will not succeed.
Not only did this particular victim alert Broken Hartz, they have alerted HartzVictims.org as well with this posting of Sangha’s death.
The actions documented above leave us with further doubts as to the truthfulness with which Hartz approaches its incident report submissions to the EPA, using nothing but the “honor system”.
We will be creating an infographic for Sangha to accompany other Hartz Victim infographics, found in our Warrior Kit and will be distributing this graphic in many ways in order to aid HartzVictims.org, HartzKills.org, TinyTimmy.org and others in combatting Hartz Mountain Corporation’s revisionist history.
To be clear, Hartz does not delete all negative comments and complaints of adverse reactions but, in the case of death, we feel the following chart sums up the Hartz Facebook Team’s position:
We at Broken Hartz wish to extend our condolences to the Hartz Victims highlighted in this post as well as all those throughout the decades who have had the misfortune to be affected by this evil corporation.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS A GRAPHIC IMAGE
It’s become pretty clear to the members of our organization that Hartz Mountain Corporation has made Facebook one of its primary tools of deception.
Hartz not only uses Facebook to mislead the public with its Flea & Tick Education Tab, which we’ve already addressed, but they make some other very interesting claims when dealing directly with the public on this popular social media network.
The following graphic image is reported to be of a dog burned by a Hartz flea product.
It has been shared all over Facebook, including our wall:
As you can see, with 55 likes, 279 comments and 849 shares; the picture above has created a huge amount of interaction in relation to our small organization, but did you know this picture has made its way to Hartz’ Facebook account as well?
With no likes, no shares and only 3 comments, you may be surprised to learn we find Hartz’ interaction to be more interesting than ours:
The comments in the picture above read as follows, with emphasis on an unexpected “revelation”:
[Facebook User]:
“THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU USE HARTZ FLEA PRODUCTS!!!!! DO NOT USE HARTZ PRODUCTS!!!!”
Hartz:
“Hi [Facebook User]. We hold our products to the strictest efficacy and safety standards by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration. If there is no animal standard in place, we hold our products to human standards. In fact, all Hartz flea and tick products are held to the same safety and efficacy testing standards as those purchased from veterinarians. Hartz was one of the first brands to comply with EPA standards when the agency was first established. You can find links to independent studies about our products here: https://www.facebook.com/HartzPets/app_204655519608631. If you would like to speak more about this issue, we encourage you to email us at consumeraffairs@hartz.com.”
[Facebook User]:
“Then explain the photo….. This is [sic] burns from your product.”
[Facebook User]:
“I have workedin.vet [sic] clinics for years and your products are not safe. Please stop producing flea and tick solution, for our pets sake!”
Hartz had no further comment but, as you can see from the portion we highlighted in the screenshot above (and emphasized in the quote), it would appear Hartz is overdue for some congratulations.
Way to go, Hartz.
We didn’t realize your flea and tick products had received FDA-Approval.
We’re not sure how we missed this, though we suspect it has something to do with the fact you are lying through your collective teeth because no Hartz flea products carry FDA-Approval.
Please add this intentionally misleading statement to the ever-increasing list of shameless lies Hartz has fed the public in an effort to maintain control through misinformation.
Hello and welcome to the conclusion of our analysis of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab. Today, we will be addressing the two remaining sections of this “educational” Hartz resource.
First up, the Videos and RSS Feed section:
At one time, we weren’t going to bother with this section, as it only contained videos similar to one we’ve discussed before and a broken RSS link among other typical Hartz articles but, if you give Hartz some time, they’ll give you something crazy.
This particular example of crazy was offered up by Hartz on May 23, 2012:
The last sentence in the first paragraph of this article being offered up as “factual information” by Hartz reads:
“According to the Dayton Daily News, fleas can enter your home through holes in your window screens or attached to your clothing, at which point they can then lay up to 2,000 eggs each day.”
In case you need a reminder as to why this statement is so crazy, we’d like to call back to this warning issued to Hartz from the EPA regarding one of their label submissions in 2009:
You’ll notice in the quoted paragraph above, Hartz has cited this “2,000 eggs each day” revelation as coming from the Dayton Daily News, though they offer no easy route of confirmation of that assertion in their post.
As you can see, Hartz has failed to properly cite the information provided by the author of this Dayton Daily News piece, Dr. Emily Coatney-Smith:
“A female flea can lay up to 2,000 eggs during her lifespan of about three to six weeks.”
Way to go, Hartz.
The day after we hit you up for choosing to reference the upper threshold of possible daily flea egg production, despite a reprimand from the EPA, you carelessly provided inaccurate information, claiming daily flea egg production 40 times greater than the generally accepted upper-most threshold, misrepresenting a Veterinarian and the Dayton Daily News in the process.
Readers will also notice this statement in the article above:
“On-pet protection is the most reliable method in preventing a flea infestation.”
Of course, the EPA has a quite a different opinion than Hartz, regarding the most reliable method in flea prevention and it is definitely not on-pet protection. To the contrary, the EPA stresses the idea these kinds of products may not even be necessary.
Moving on, we’d like to discuss the FAQ section at the bottom of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab:
Here is the third question in this section:
As you can see, whomever is responding to this question is trying to mislead the public into thinking the problem of Adverse Reactions to these kinds of products are not anything to get too concerned about, choosing only to cite the possibility of a “slight transitory redness of the skin”.
This comment is made despite the fact that, if your animal experiences a “sesnativity [sic]” issue with a Hartz product, it is 2.5 to 3 times more likely to end in death than any other product analyzed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010.
This tactic gets not only repeated, but amplified in the 5th question under the “Dogs” section and the 1st “Cats” question in this FAQ portion of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab:
These two responses take the misleading information from the first answer we’ve shared and go a reckless step further by trying to imply a mild skin irritation is rare and the only possible negative outcome. As with the first answer dicussed, whomever is responsible for these two answers is clearly bent on presenting deceptive information.
Continuing, the 5th “Cats” question reads as follows:
The advice in this response, if followed, will likely cost individuals valuable time in the race to save their beloved companion animal from harm.
By suggesting individuals wait until the incident progresses before consulting a Veterinarian, Hartz is putting animals at even greater risk of permanent damage or death. They are correct, drooling and foaming occurs in these products due to their taste (bitter), but it is also a clear sign the product has been ingested to some extent.
The proof of ingestion should be a red flag and a Veterinary Office or Emergency Animal Care Facility should be contacted immediately upon witnessing such a sign. We at Broken Hartz feel strongly that, if you choose to use a product on your animal, not only should you consult a reputable Veterinarian before doing so but, in the event of any adverse sign, you should quickly seek a professional Veterinary opinion on whether further action is necessary.
To suggest someone not take every precaution with the safety of their companion animal family members is typical of Hartz’ negligent trajectory, but is there any way of knowing who is behind these reckless answers?
Those of you more inclined to do their own investigating beyond what we present may already be aware of the answer to this question. It was first made available in Part II of this series, but you might not have seen it.
Take another look at this screenshot from the first “From Hartz” link on their Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab, “The UltraGuard ‘Cause’”:
If you click the “Ask Dr. Melinda” link, circled in the screenshot above, you come to the following page:
The questions and answers in this section of Hartz’ website should look very familiar:
While the above questions and others on this “Ask Dr. Melinda” page mirror the “FAQ” section of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Education Tab, you’ll notice the answer to this next question is worded differently, but still attempts to gloss over the very real possibility of your animal suffering far worse reactions than just a skin irritation, should a problem occur, despite the inclusion of the qualifying term, “generally”.
How responsible of Dr. Melinda Fernyhough to advise individuals to immediately contact a Veterinarian… after waiting a couple of days first or letting the problem get more dangerous before consulting a reputable Veterinarian.
Way to go, Mel! You’re one in a million.
Before we conclude this segment, we’d like to point out, if the information we’ve been presenting has caused you to have questions of your own for Dr. Melinda, you’re in luck!
Hartz has provided a simple online form, allowing you to do that very thing!
It can be found on the right-hand side of every page in the “Ask Dr. Melinda” section of the Hartz Ultraguard website.
How convenient.
This concludes our series on Hartz’ attempts to “educate” consumers on the “truth” about these kinds of products.
We hope we have shown what Hartz Mountain Corporation and Dr. Melinda Fernyhough refer to as “a [sic] education tab” to be more precisely thought of as a sick education tab.
“We are unimpressed by Hartz Mountain Corporation’s claims their adverse event incident numbers are on the decline over the last few years.
We can think of a very good reason, other than increased safety, for your numbers to be dwindling, Hartz.”
Before we get to our idea as to why Hartz’ numbers are on the decline, we’d like to share the EPA’s opinion regarding the overall decline of Adverse Events across the industry.
The following comes from the Veterinary Information Network News Service:
“The EPA attributes the decrease to a variety [sic] factors, including increased public awareness that flea and tick treatments can induce negative and sometimes life-threatening side effects in pets, especially if used incorrectly.”
Though we feel it valid to assume this statement means, in part, individuals are exercising more caution when using these products, we feel the more common result of this increased awareness is people researching non-pesticide solutions to the problem, seeking the advice of a reputable Veterinarian and/or simply avoiding these needless “treatments” altogether.
The likelihood of decreased sales leads us to a small detail Hartz has been trying to gloss over.
Large drops in sales have been seen across a vast range of industries throughout the world and we at Broken Hartz feel it a safe bet the flea treatment industry has not been spared.
Hartz would have you believe they are the leader in sales and, therefore, their incidents-to-sales ratio would be respectable.
Of course, they and others refuse to release sales data, under the claim of “Confidential Business Information”.
What we at Broken Hartz wish to point out is, if this information had any chance of clearing Hartz’ name, they would eagerly share it. We would not be surprised to find Hartz’ sales figures concerning their Flea & Tick “treatments” to be abysmal, resulting in even more appalling figures that one could dream.
ATTENTION HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION:
Your incidents are down because sales have been down almost everywhere due to the recession, combined with the fact people are getting wise to your game.
Additionally, those who still choose to use flea treatments are probably not choosing you as often as they used to.
You have done nothing to earn kudos for your lower incident numbers.
Aside from that, as we’ve had to remind you time and again, a comparison of the absolute numbers in the EPA’s reports is not appropriate:
“A comparison of the absolute numbers of incidents among the different spot-on products in this report is not appropriate. This is because some products may have more incidents than other products because more of that product is sold and because incident information is voluntarily submitted by pet owners, with varying levels of detailed information, and routine reporting is sometimes lacking. The incidents have not been verified and may have causes other than exposure to the pesticide.”
If you wish to dispute our allegations, kindly supply the backing data responsible for these charts.
Without that, the public has no cause to believe you, especially considering your decades-long history of abusing consumer trust and the last batch of charts submitted by Dr. Melinda Fernyhough with help from her shameful accomplice, Dr. Charles T. Gaskins, turned out to be nothing but flagrantly reckless lies.
We’re quite confident the EPA data backing these charts would reflect the same, if not worse, results for Hartz as freely available data from the EPA Public Advisory, Published in March 2010.
The data available from that Advisory revealed you to be the deadliest by far.
Yes, Readers; as sales dwindle, so will incident rates.
Naturally, Hartz will try to be applauded for this.
Congratulations on your lower “incident rates”, Hartz.
We look forward to the day they reach zero.
This concludes Part V and our analysis of the top half of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab.
PLEASE NOTE:
We will be taking a short break, in honor of Memorial Day weekend, but will be back on Thursday, May 31 to discuss the bottom half of this very “educational” resource in the conclusion of our “A [sic] Education Tab” series:
Welcome to Part IV of our assessment of Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab, referenced by Dr. Melinda Fernyhough in her shameless response to our affiliate’s claims.
These two pages are near twins, so we will discuss them together.
Both make sure you know how important it is to surround yourself and the ones you love with Hartz’ dangerous poisons all year round in order to defend against fleas.
This product is registered under EPA# 2596-149 for use on both dogs and cats.
You may also find it interesting to note it’s been cancelled since 2010.
We do not know the details of this cancellation except that it was done voluntarily. The evidence of that can be found near the bottom of this screenshot from PestcideInfo.org:
Aside from being a recommendation in this “educational” resource, this cancelled product is featured in an advertisement at the bottom of both of the pages we are currently discussing:
If you click on the foaming shampoo icon, however, you are met with an error:
After a little backtracking, we found Hartz’ current shampoo offerings for both dogs and cats. The foaming shampoo is absent from both pages.
Following the rules of voluntary cancellation, Hartz is probably permitted to keep peddling this product for a few years but, whatever the problem with this product was, they have made sure to remove it from their online catalog.
Moving on, the foaming shampoo isn’t the only odd product reference made on these pages.
Strangely, the EPA claims to have no label data for either of these products.
There are countless EPA product registration documents out there. We’ve only seen about 50, but we’ve yet to come upon product records with no data until the above listed Hartz products. We see no ingredient information, no approval date, nor any record of cancellation.
Given our knowledge of the EPA’s registration numbering system, we can see these two Hartz products are actually housed under larger registrations but, we imagine there still must be individual labeling submitted for all products approved under these larger registrations.
For reference, here are the parent registrations for the Hartz UltraGuard Plus Flea & Tick Home Spray (EPA# 2724-401-2596) and Hartz UltraGuard Plus Home Fogger (EPA# 1021-1674-2596).
To find these parent registrations, one only needs to chop off the third set of digits, in this case “2596″ (the EPA’s registration code number for Hartz).
The information linked to from this page serves to get the public good and concerned about the dangers of fleas, mites and others by making statements like this:
The highlighted text in the screenshot above says:
“Female fleas start producing eggs 24 to 48 hours after taking their first blood meal and can lay up to 50 eggs per day.”
This comment gets repeated on the equivalent cat page:
We at Broken Hartz found this little “tidbit” quite surprising, considering Hartz received the following reprimand from the EPA for one of their label submissions in 2009:
Hartz must have really disagreed with the EPA on this one, or perhaps teenage flea pregnancy has been on the rise, because Hartz repeatedly claims much higher flea-egg production rates than the EPA acknowledges on 4 of the 10 “educational” references provided on this page.
The real problem here is Hartz exercising one of its favorite tools, “vague truth”.
There are differing reports on fleas, but it is generally accepted that fleas are indeed capable of laying up to 50 eggs per day. This, however; is the upper threshold, not the average.
Seeing as how the average rate of flea-egg production, per the EPA, is 25 per day; logically, many fleas lay less than 25 eggs per day. That is why the EPA would view statements such as those made by Hartz to be misleading.
Additionally, it is not fully clear, but Hartz seems to be suggesting a 100% flea-egg success rate, as opposed to the generally accepted 75%-80% survival rate.
The previous two examples are causing some miscommunication of facts, but seeing as how Hartz isn’t exactly lying, perhaps you think we are being a little excessive on this point.
These next two examples however add a new layer to the “vague truth” tactic.
The highlighted text in the pair of screenshots above read:
“Female fleas start producing eggs within 24 to 48 hours after taking their first blood meal and can lay up to 40 – 50 eggs per day.”
Again, Hartz has not technically lied, but we at Broken Hartz feel the act of placing a range of “40 – 50 eggs per day” on the equation will “inadvertently” lead the public into thinking fleas lay between 40 – 50 flea-eggs per day as opposed to an average of 25 flea-eggs per day, as preferred by the EPA.
Interesting wording, Hartz.
What you call “factual information about flea and tick products”, the EPA considers “false and misleading”.
We wonder who to trust.
Stop back on Thursday as we expose even more of the real story behind Hartz’ efforts to “educate” the public in Part IV of our “A [sic] Education Tab” series.
RT @paige_doss: @BrokenHartzPets Put Hartz collar on my adult cat. She spiked a high fever, lost clumps of fur, vomited, refused to eat, ... 3 months ago
Happy New Year to all who've supported our mission in some way, shape or form. Without all of you, we would never have a chance of success. 4 months ago
@Di_sss Thank you very much, Guye. We look forward to a great 2013 together! =^..^= 4 months ago
The lab tech even said ‘we see this all the time’” – Hartz Victim
