We’d like to focus attention on a sparsely mentioned, but extremely important factor in this whole matter: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Here is a very brief overview of this important document from the EPA (found on this page from the EPA’s website):
(This paragraph comes from the top of the page)
“The objective of FIFRA is to provide federal control of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides used in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Registration assures that pesticides will be properly labeled and that, if used in accordance with specifications, they will not cause unreasonable harm to the environment. Use of each registered pesticide must be consistent with use directions contained on the label or labeling.”
(This part comes from the “Overview of FIFRA” section of the page)
“The first pesticide control law was enacted in 1910. This law was primarily aimed at protecting consumers from ineffective products and deceptive labeling. When the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was first passed in 1947, it established procedures for registering pesticides with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and established labeling provisions. The law was still, however, primarily concerned with the efficacy of pesticides and did not regulate pesticide use.
FIFRA was essentially rewritten in 1972 when it was amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA). The law has been amended numerous times since 1972, including some significant amendments in the form of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. In its current form, FIFRA mandates that EPA regulate the use and sale of pesticides to protect human health and preserve the environment.
Since the FEPCA amendments, EPA is specifically authorized to: (1) strengthen the registration process by shifting the burden of proof to the chemical manufacturer, (2) enforce compliance against banned and unregistered products, and (3) promulgate the regulatory framework missing from the original law.
FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to oversee the sale and use of pesticides. However, because FIFRA does not fully preempt state/tribal or local law, each state/tribe and local government may also regulate pesticide use.”
To say FIFRA is a complex document would be an understatement.
We at Broken Hartz continue to examine FIFRA and will get into it more in the future but, for now, you need only focus on these things:
- FIFRA was enacted to protect consumers, but through various modifications along the way it now serves the manufacturers’ interests more than anything. This is due primarily to companies being able to hide many crucial pieces of this puzzle from the public by claiming these details to be Confidential Business Information (CBI). This applies to such things as the identities of “Other Ingredients” in these products as well as sales data.
- FIFRA governs the labeling of these products in an effort to increase public safety.
The reason we are talking about FIFRA today is simple.
If you come to us from the Twitter front, you’ve probably caught this tweet more than a few times:
(The above tweet is available in the Twitter section of the BH Warrior Kit. It has been slightly modified to come from #BHWarriors instead of us.)
The bit.ly link in the tweet above goes to an actual page on Hartz.com.
We hope this webpage is very familiar to all of you by now.
Because it’s the same crap document Hartz’ Resident Veterinarian, Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, submitted to Rite Aid about our case, resulting in “The Hartz Exposé”.
It even still references us:
(The portion we’ve highlighted in the screenshot above is one of the pieces we referenced in “Hartz and Its Nasty Little Habit of Putting Words in the EPA’s Mouth.”)
(The section highlighted in this piece is where Hartz lied about Advantage having FDA-Approved products You can also catch a glimpse of one of Dr. Charles T. Gaskins’ “contributions”.)
(This one is littered with stuff, but check out the highlighted section where Hartz still references us. For more on Dr. Charles T. Gaskins’ and his violently deceptive charts, check out these posts [1,2])
Returning to the tweet above, the screenshot of a warning to Hartz about listing their website on packages comes from Page 4, Paragraph 5 of this labeling amendment document for Hartz UltraGuard Pro Flea and Tick Treatment for Dogs and Puppies (EPA# 2596-150), but it applies to all Hartz products.
In this document, the EPA cautioned Hartz:
“Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency. If the website is false or misleading, the product would be misbranded and unlawful to sell or distribute under FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E).”
Upon hearing this, Hartz made the very interesting decision to remove website references.
We guess they didn’t like the EPA’s terms.
The funny thing is, as usual, Hartz seems to have missed something:
“In addition, regardless of whether a website is referenced on your product’s label, claims made on the website may not substantially differ from those claims approved through the registration process. Therefore should the Agency find or if it is brought to our attention that a website contains false or misleading statements or claims substantially differing from the EPA approved registration, the website will be referred to the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.”
So, seeing as how we know Hartz is lying on its website, why are we posting this on our blog, giving them ample time to delete the evidence?
Because, like the tweet says, we have archives.
If you’ve been around the BH camp long enough, you already knew this but, if not, check out the culmination of “The Hartz Exposé”.
We’ve had Hartzy pinned down for quite a while now.
For an even more in-depth report of what happened after we told Hartz we found what they had done on their website, check out this post.
ATTENTION HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION:
It would seem you have violated the terms of FIFRA.
That may cause a problem.