Looking Back

Hello All!

You may remember we’ve talked about Hartz Mountain Corporation’s TheTruthAboutHartz.com website before.

It was allegedly taken down years ago in the wake of public criticism, but we still managed to unearth Dr. Charles T. Gaskins’ shamefully fraudulent work, due to the fact Hartz is sloppy.

The discovery of Gaskins’ full report was a key factor in our debunking of Dr. Melinda Fernyhough’s nasty little “Executive Summary” document.

Here is what you see if you visit TheTruthAboutHartz.com today:

That may have been the end of the story but, thanks to the Internet Archive, we invite you to hop in the Wayback Machine and take a gaze upon TheTruthAboutHartz.com as it was on May 4, 2009.

Not many remember what this site looked like or the “facts” it contained. Well, as Hartz said, “It’s Time to Set the Record Straight”.

Seeing as how Hartz linked to the following page seven times from their homepage, deemed as “facts”, we feel it pretty safe to say this was what they were most interested in showing to the public:

You may be wondering why we didn’t just use the archive in the first place when looking for information on TheTruthAboutHartz.com. Actually, we had forgotten about this excellent resource until Tiny Timmy brought it up in her tribute to the now defunct BioSpotVictims.org.

Not everything gets archived but, thankfully, Hartz Mountain Corporation’s deceitful “masterpiece” was captured before being taken down.

Enjoy!

=^..^=

The Wonderful World of Search Engine Optimization

We at BH see many interesting search terms used by individuals, causing them to stumble upon our site. We thought it may be best to share some of these and offer assistance to those seeking advice. We hope these answers will help future Googlers.

10) hoax hartz is killing dogs

Perhaps this EPA data will help to settle your question. The following screenshots are from the individual reports for both of Hartz Mountain Corporation’s dog products named in the EPA Public Advisory, Published in March 2010 (EPA Registration numbers 2596-150 and 2596-151)

Of course, you must also remember these are only the deaths Hartz has actually reported for only two of their spot-on products, this has been going on for decades, these reports only reflect 2008, plus it is suspected the majority of incidents go unreported or are left out due to technical limitations. These are the untold numbers.

Comparitively, how did Hartz’ dog products stack up against the other dog products named in the EPA’s Public Advisory?

The following chart shows, if a dog experienced an adverse reaction to any of the Spot-On dog products listed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010, what the likelihood was (based on percentage of reported events) of a dog experiencing Death or a Major, Moderate or Minor event. As you can see, in the case of an adverse event, dogs were 2.5 times more likely to die from a Hartz product than any of the other brands found in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010. Hartz also topped the list for Major events and Moderate events, clearly making it the most dangerous of these products.

Likelihood of Death, Major, Moderate or Minor Event if Your Dog Experiences an Incident With a Manufacturer’s Product Listed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010:

For more fun with charts, click back there.

9) why does everyone hate hartz

We imagine this person now knows the answer to that question.

8) melinda dr. krazy dynotaku

??????????????

7) is hartz campaign by competitors

Umm… no.

6) “i am brokenhartzpets

No, you’re not. We wish to state this next bit is pure speculation, however, this seems like a lame attempt at investigation by an individual resembling the following illustration:

5) why are all these people blaming hartz

Because Hartz is to blame.

4) should i buy hartz flea and tick powder or sergeant’s household flea and tick spray?

Let’s see… there’s Hartzy… or Sarge.

May we kindly offer a third option?

3) is hartz victims for real

2) hartz organization that fights the hartz corporation

Welcome, new BH Warrior!

1) only positive feedback on hartz drops pro for dogs no negative remarks!

Why research the product if you are so thoroughly convinced it’s safe and do not wish to see evidence to the contrary?

We find it amusing you used an exclamation point. It’s almost as if you had lost patience with Google after numerous failed attempts to find the “Holy Grail” you seek.

We also find it quite amusing you broke down and visited our site anyway.

=^..^=

Change the Station

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”.

Meet the Hartz Facebook Flea & Tick Care Station:

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.

As a reminder, here is some of the advice Hartz offers on its Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab, on the topic of appropriate 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.

P.S. – More on Fitch later.

=^..^=

Mixed Messages

Earlier this week, those who follow us on Twitter may have seen the following tweet from us:

The “Ask Dr. Melinda” portion of Hartz’s Ultraguard website was scrutinized in the conclusion of our “A [sic] Education Tab Series” so, of course, we couldn’t resist hitting Hartz more than once on this topic:

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).

That could be a problem.

=^..^=

Penny’s Finds #6

Hai Efurrybodies!

Though my segment has habitually offered a smattering of finds; today, I’d like to focus on one matter in particular.

Our mission is directed squarely at Hartz Mountain Corporation’s deadly flea and tick products because:

1. This is the brand with which our affiliates had an issue
2. We proved their resident veterinarian, Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, to be a dirty liar
3. We found Hartz flea and tick products to be the most deadly by far, in the case of an Adverse Event, based on EPA data from their 2010 Public Advisory
4. The Company is shady as hell

That being said, during our investigations, me and other BH affiliates come upon information concerning not just Hartz, but other Flea and Tick brands as well. This is part of the reason we do not recommend any particular product, advising people to speak with a reputable Veterinarian before applying any product to an animal. More importantly, we seek to drive the point home that all these products are likely to be unnecessary. Vacuuming, laundering, baths with baby shampoo, flea traps and flea combs do an excellent job of protecting your family. We also recommend researching your Vet and any products they recommend. If there’s one thing we’ve learned throughout this mission, it’s that you can never be too careful when choosing a good Veterinarian and products for your furbabies.

To illustrate this point, I’d like to share some findings on Frontline. Frontline is probably the most well-known flea and tick control product on the market, but it is not without problems. Though not as deadly as Hartz, the brand has its own myriad of complaints from consumers:

• Frontline complaints discussion [Amazon]
• More Frontline complaints [Consumer Affairs]

That’s a lot of complaints but, again, Frontline is probably the most popular flea & tick brand on the market. More sales means more likelihood of incidents, which is why we have resorted to percentages in the absence of hard sales data when compiling our charts.

Another matter to consider in the case of Frontline is the knowledge that counterfeits exist, potentially causing many incidents to be incorrectly attributed to Frontline. The counterfeits reportedly contain anything from simply water to toxic pesticides.

• Warning About Counterfeit Frontline [Amazon Discussion Board]
• Information on Counterfeit Pesticide Products for Cats and Dogs [EPA]
• Fact Sheet: Retailers and Counterfeit Pet Products (PDF) [EPA]

Also, I can’t help but notice these negative reports for Frontline seem to come primarily from internet based purchases, even though Frontline is not sold by Merial to anyone but licensed Veterinarians. To assume this means all internet versions of Frontline are counterfeit however would be incorrect. To showcase this point, I call back to a piece from the Veterinary Information Network I mentioned in my first “Penny’s Finds” segment. This piece talks about a Veterinarian who went undercover to expose the illegal sale of Frontline. I only shared Part 1 last time, but did you know this was a 3-part series? It is a very interesting read!

Veterinarian Goes Undercover to Expose Illegal Sales of Frontline:

• [VIN – Part 1]
• [VIN – Part 2]
• [VIN – Part 3]

Funny, we’ve only heard of counterfeit Frontline and Advantage, never Hartz or Sergeant’s. We can’t imagine why. *rolls eyes*

I’d like to finish this week’s Penny’s Finds with a reminder that Truthfairy is very concerned about Frontline.

That’s all for this week!

Tanks to teh BH Warriors fur sending us tips and info. Do you haz news fur me? Meow at me on Twitter @bhpenny or email pennysfinds@gmail.com.

This Sounds Familiar

Around the time of Hartz’ truth campaign, iwatchnews.org (run by The Center for Public Integrity) featured a piece called “Pets and pesticides: Let’s be careful out there”.

The piece is very fair and balanced. If anything, it skews slightly more favorably to the manufacturers. Despite that, the publication of this article did not sit well with Hartz Mountain Corporation, resulting in The Center for Public Integrity publishing a follow-up article:

Hartz Mountain disputes our story on pets and pesticides; the Center responds

This article begins with the following paragraph:

“Earlier this month, the Center received a five-page “open letter” from Hartz Mountain Corporation alleging that our 12/16/08 story, Pets and Pesticides: Let’s Be Careful Out There, contained inaccurate and misleading information about spot on flea and tick treatments for pets.”

The story of someone debating Hartz, then receiving an insulting, crap document in response is quite familiar to us. Though our affiliates’ crap document came from Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, this particular dispute was led by Hartz Mountain Corporation’s Dr. Marta Draper. We’d love to get our hands on this letter, but it is no longer available.

The Center for Public Integrity discusses Dr. Draper’s disputes and categorically dismisses her false accusations. This case is just one more instance of Hartz accusing others of being misleading when, in fact, they are the party guilty of this deplorable conduct.

We strongly encourage readers to take a moment to read both pieces from The Center for Public Integrity, one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations with a mission statement quite near to our hearts:

“Our mission: to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first.” – The Center for Public Integrity

Check out these articles today:

“Pets and pesticides: Let’s be careful out there”

Hartz Mountain disputes our story on pets and pesticides; the Center responds

=^..^=

BH Playlist

 

Hello and welcome to the BH Playlist!

Over the months, there has been much discussion concerning different songs that could be used in association with our mission against Hartz Mountain Corporation.

These talks have resulted in the playlist we present today.

Without further delay, let’s start it off:

 

10) Michael Sembello – Maniac:

We’ve decided to kick off our playlist with a tribute to Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, a real maniac.

 

9) Public Enemy – Shut Em Down:

The reason for this song’s inclusion should be self-explanatory.

 

8) Curtis Mayfield – Pusher Man:

This song was brought into the fold by #BHrogue, A. Guye (@Di_sss on Twitter)

 

We included the video above so the whole song was presented, but here is Guye’s video in protest of Hartz’ negligent actions:

 

7) The Flying Lizards – Money:

Speaking of videos that have been specifically made for the act of protesting Hartz, here is another tribute to the one and only, Dr. Melinda Fernyhough.

Congratulations, Mel! You made the list!

 

6) The Bee Gees – Stayin’ Alive:

Ahh, yes, where would a BH Playlist be without including the personal favorite of our BH Ambassador, Lulu?

Lulu (@lulu_lindi on Twitter) first referenced this song when the @HartzPets Twitter team, run by Banyan Branch, asked the public which song best described their animals. Hartz was experiencing some good interaction on this tweet, then Lulu responded with “Stayin Alive”, due to the fact she does not put Hartz products on her animals. She then stated her preference for a competitor product.

This comment bothered Hartz so much, they thought it best to delete their original tweet altogether.

Well done, Ambassador!

R.I.P. Robin Gibb

 

5) The Police – Every Breath You Take:

95% of the words in this classic can directly apply to our relationship with Hartz.

We first made reference to it in the BH post, “#Schooled” and the dedication of this song is what began the whole discussion on songs that could represent our mission.

 

4) Lauryn Hill – Lost Ones:

As Lauryn says, Hartz, “You might win some but you just lost one”:

 

3) Seether – Fake It:

This song, suggested to us by Shawnie (@CandyCanes2012 on Twitter), does almost as good a job as the #1 song in this playlist of addressing the “difference in opinion” we share with Hartz on this matter. Thanks, Shawnie!

 

2) John Farnham – You’re the Voice:

The following video uses John Farnham’s song, “You’re the Voice”, and was created by TinyTimmy.org (@TinyTimmySpeaks on Twitter).

It does an excellent job of communicating the problem and showing just how powerful individual action can become when combined with others.

Please check it out:

 

1) Cage the Elephant – Judas:

And so, we have arrived at the end of our playlist. This powerful song is a perfect dedication to both Dr. Melinda Fernyhough and Hartz Mountain Corporation.

Please make sure to check out the lyrics we’ve provided underneath the video.

 

“The time has finally come you get a mouthful / You only act on greed and by your actions this is proof / And can’t you see the flowers dying all around you / Got your hands in the devil’s pockets, got everything to lose

And so you lash out, to crush the ones below / Or all the ones that you fear most / And you call this crowd control / Well let me break it down for you

The fire in your veins is just a joke you tell yourself / Another way to cut the cost, hide your face from all the guilt / And it’s a shame you had to say you had to kill to gain control / But at least you made some money, hey, let the good times roll

It’s your dream to be the king of all creation / As far as I’m concerned you hung your shadow on the wall / And though your fingers never really pulled the trigger / Your hands are just as guilty, you’re the one who brought the blood

Again you lash out, to hush the ones who know / Cause they’re the ones that you fear most / And it’s called damage control / Well, let me break it down for you

The fire in your veins is just a joke you tell yourself / Another way to cut the cost, hide your face from all the guilt / And it’s a shame you had to say you had to kill to gain control / But at least you made some money, hey, let the good times roll

Oh my the greed has now consumed you / Your eyes fade as you fall into the ocean / You move fast to feed your lust for money / You dive down now you’re caught in the commotion

All this and you trade it in for nothing / A cheap lie, you put it in your pocket / All this and you trade it in for nothing / Oh my, I can see you heart has met its end

Say Hello to Judas (7x)
Ohh”

We hope you enjoyed the BH playlist and that this post will spur even more discussion on the subject of good protest songs to describe the mission against Hartz.

=^..^=

“A [sic] Education Tab” Part VI: Straight to the Source

---

Click this link for “‘A [sic] Education Tab’ Part V”

---

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:

 

---

(EPA Registration #2596-150 Amendment, Dated January 13, 2009 Page 4, Paragraph 2)

---

 

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.

No matter, we tracked it down:

 

 

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.

=^..^=

 

“A [sic] Education Tab” Part V: An Incidental Decline

---

Click this link for “‘A [sic] Education Tab’ Part IV”

---

We’re nearing the end of our report on Hartz’ Facebook Flea & Tick Education Tab:

 

 

Today, we discuss the last of the “From Hartz” links on the right-hand side of the above screenshot, entitled “Analysis of EPA Reported Adverse Events”.

Upon clicking the link, you are brought here:

 

 

The above charts are no strangers to us.

The last time BH referenced them was when Hartz added a link to these charts at the bottom of their web posting of the “Executive Summary” document. We called attention to this in the BH post, “Status Report”.

In that post, we said:

“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:

 

---

 

(New labels for spot-on parasite treatments expected
posted on news.vin.com on May 16, 2012, by Marc Selinger & Jennifer Fiala, Paragraph 8)

“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.

The United States has been in a recession since December of 2007.

This of course, became a global recession.

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:

(EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, Page 4, Paragraph 3)

“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:

 

 

We’ll see you then.

=^..^=

 

---

Click this link for “‘A [sic] Education Tab’ Part VI”

---

 

“A [sic] Education Tab” Part IV: You’ve Got to Try Our Cancelled Product!

---

Click this link for “‘A [sic] Education Tab’ Part III”

---

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.

 

 

We’ve arrived at the following two links:

Importance of year round protection – Dogs

 

Importance of year round protection – Cats

 

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.

Apparently, Hartz has seen fit to gloss over the easy, non-pesticide preventative measures recommended by the EPA like vacuuming, steam-cleaning and laundering.

To continue, we’d like to focus on some oddities found on these pages.

You’ll notice, both pages recommend the Hartz UltraGuard Plus Foaming Flea & Tick Shampoo

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:

 

 

Of course, we all know about Hartz’ “voluntary recalls” by now, don’t we?

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.

Hartz also recommends the Hartz UltraGuard Plus Flea & Tick Home Spray and the Hartz UltraGuard Plus Home Fogger.

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).

Here they are:

 

EPA# 2724-401

 

EPA#1021-1674

 

Help us out here, Hartz. We seriously think we’re missing something here.

You must have submitted labels for these products, right?

We see small mentions on Wellmark International’s labeling amendments for EPA# 2724-401 of “Marketing text for Hartz”, but that’s it.

Additionally, we see no mention of you anywhere on Mclaughlin Gormley King’s submissions for EPA# 1021-1674.

If you could leave a comment, clearing this issue up, we’d greatly appreciate it.

This concludes Part IV of our “A [sic] Education Tab” series.

Please stop by on Saturday for Part V.

=^..^=

 

---

Click this link for “‘A [sic] Education Tab’ Part V”

---