Penny’s Finds #5

Generic Over-the-Counter Flea and Tick Medication Containing Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) Kills Family Dog [Video]
Derek Demo of CBS 12 News is warning the public that chemicals in over-the-counter flea and tick medications can be dangerous.

The CBS reporter spoke with Jessica Mentz, who recently lost her 1 1/2 year old Boxer, Rocky, after applying less than the recommended amount of a generic over-the-counter flea and tick spray. The main active ingredient in this spray was none other than tetrachlorvinphos, a chemical to which we have previously called attention. See: Tetra-who-vin-what?

Naturally, the manufacturer of the product takes no responsibility.

“They just told me they can guarantee it wasn’t their product. They’ve tested on their animals and it’s never happened.” -Jessica Mentz

Dr. James Esh, a local Veterinarian, strongly disagrees with the manufacturer:

“There are a number of products that are actually the older chemicals we had 30 years ago, when I became a veterinarian and some of those are very, very toxic.”

Broken Hartz applauds Mr. Demo on this piece for its clear public safety message. [KHSL TV]

Speaking of Old, Toxic Chemicals and Shady Companies
June Buggie the cat’s mom, Jen, experienced a close call due to some poor advice given to her from a PetSmart employee. She had come in for Frontline, but the clerk steered her away from it, recommending she treat her medicated dog DeDe with First Shield, the official flea & tick product of PetSmart’s in-house clinic, Banfield Pet Hospital. This treatment, which contains permethrin, is the same active ingredient in Hartz UltraGuard One Spot for Dogs and Puppies. Permethrin, as many of you know, is toxic to cats and, therefore, reputable Veterinarians will not even send someone home with a permethrin product if there is a cat in the house.

Thankfully, Jen knew about permethrin too and noticed the clerk’s error before using the product. First Shield is a Summit Vetpharm LLC product and, at one point, Summit was a direct sibling to Hartz Mountain Corporation, when both brands were primarily owned by Sumitomo Corporation. With Sumitomo selling off primary shares of both companies, the relationship has distanced, but Sumitomo still holds quite a bit of stock in both. In case you’re wondering, Sumitomo is a chemical manufacturer that, among other unsavory patents, holds the rights to none other than permethrin. For the record, recent studies have shown permethrin and all other pyrethrins, pyrethroids and pseudo-pyrethroids to not be as safe for dogs as once believed either.

Be sure to check out June Buggie’s full story on her sibling Rumpy’s excellent blog. [Rumpy Dog]

Meanwhile, on the subject of Banfield, we have nothing good to say. We became aware of them by chance during an incident with a detractor, who just so happened to be a Banfield employee, and were horrified by what we saw:

• Banfield complaints [Consumer Affairs]
• More Banfield complaints [Pissed Consumer]
• Here’s some more, including the comments [Lyzardly]
• Oh, what’s this? A complaint? [Crusty Orange]
• This is getting ridiculous [Yorkie Talk]
• Someone even made a Facebook page! [Banfield Pet Hospital is the Wrong Choice]
• Two pages into my Google search. Hopefully, the point has been made. [The Cat Site]

Note to Pedigree: Plastic is Not Part of the Food Pyramid
A voluntary recall was issued by Pedigree for a limited range of three varieties of their weight management canned dog food due to the discovery of pieces of blue plastic in the varieties cited. While we’re not applauding Pedigree, we feel it’s important for animal product manufacturers to receive some level of merit for having the willingness to acknowledge a problem, with seemingly little or no pressure from a government agency, rather than attempting to sweep the problem under the rug. Consumers can and should return the product for a full refund. [Life with Dogs]

For great information on manufactured pet food, please remember to check out Poisoned Pets. [PoisonedPets.com]

Tainted Chicken Jerky Treats from China and Product Liability
The Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog offers some information on product liability and pet supplies, pointing out it’s challenging to determine damages after a family loses their animal companion to a faulty pet product, since the law currently views animals as “personal property”. Damages are based on the animal’s fair market value and that is sad, to say the least. [Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog]

Lennox’s Family Will Not Continue Legal Action
The family of Lennox the dog released a statement saying they have chosen not to prolong Lennox’s suffering fighting a battle they cannot win. This is a sad, yet understandable, course of action and all of us at Broken Hartz thank the family for the attention they brought world-wide to Breed Specific Legislation so it may inspire change. [Examiner]

Website Shocked to Discover People Will Not Pay for Free Information
On a side note, the North Country Gazette has dedicated a lot of time to covering the story of Lennox. Broken Hartz, along with other organizations and tens of thousands of Lennox supporters, had been thankful for this service, but the editor is seemingly pissed off that their plan to draw more attention to this story succeeded, dubbing loyal, repeat visitors to their website as being nothing more than common thieves. Here’s why:

The “paper” is, apparently, a pay service with no pay wall wherein the “company” has chosen to employ a hysterical combination of the honor system, mixed with passive-aggressive threats (less passive, more aggressive) to extract “donations” to their organization. They even go so far as to blame the “abuse” of Lennox supporters for threatening the website’s livelihood. The editor launches into a tirade, claiming Google to be anti-Lennox due to NCG’s AdSense account being disabled seemingly as a result of the website receiving an overwhelming amount of traffic from Facebook. We guess NCG hasn’t figured out how to capitalize on their recent spike in traffic without Google’s AdSense service.

We cannot stop laughing at how bizarre this is and wish we had looked into this more when we first recognized their red, mid-article donation demands. The following article points to a case where North Country Gazette was up-in-arms with another website for sharing an article that turned out to have been “borrowed” from a Florida news organization by NCG. [PI Bill Warner]

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.

Behind Closed Doors

We wish to expand on our discussion from Thursday’s posting.

While Hartz was busy lying to someone on Facebook, another conversation was taking place, hidden from view.

---

---

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

Of course, that statement isn’t so random if you know Hartz has had packaging mix-ups in the past for Hartz Ultraguard One Spot Treatment for Cats and Kittens.

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]

So, we come back to Hartz claiming other sites are guilty of misleading the public while, at the same time, they hid Veterinary documents pointing to the very serious possibility of a deadly packaging error.

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

In the meantime, we checked back on the posting that led to Thursday’s piece.

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.

We wonder what else they chose to censor.

=^..^=

Penny’s Finds #4

In case you missed it
The chihuahuas in the video above, DJ & Gizmo, are two of Hartz Mountain Corporation’s newest victims. They were treated with Hartz UltraGuard Rid Flea & Tick Shampoo, purchased at Walmart. Neither animal survived. The video of these two victims has been shared on HartzVictims.org by the family as well. Here is an additional video of Gizmo. [Gizmo Poor Baby]

Oh, Look, Another Lawsuit Against Hartz
The latest lawsuit being filed against Hartz Mountain Corporation is on behalf of Scranton, Pennsylvania couple, Pattie and Thomas Koslowski, the nature of the suit being “Torts – Injury – Personal Injury – Product Liability”. Personal injury? It wouldn’t surprise us. What does surprise us is Hartz has requested a trial by jury. This hasn’t worked out well for them in the past.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the death of David Wilgus’s dog and the subsequent lawsuit filed in Indiana against Hartz and Walmart. Wilgus cited “Torts – Property – Property Damage – Product Liability” as the nature of the suit. The word “property” is, sadly, how our court system refers to animals.

If you have any information regarding these cases, please contact us. [Justia]

Diamond Pet Food Class-Action
Diamond Pet Foods Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation have been hit with a class-action suit in the state of New York by Barbara Marciano, who claims her animal companion, Jelly, died after eating dog food tainted with Salmonella. Affected consumers are encouraged to join the suit. You can find out more by visiting mah furriend, Mollie, at PoisonedPets.com. [Poisoned Pets]

Punk Rock Activists Jailed in Russia
Three alleged members of the punk rock feminist activist group, Pussy Riot, have been arrested in Russia under charges of hooliganism after staging a flash-mob style performance inside Moscow’s main Orthodox Church. The performance, which the band called a prayer, contained lyrics condemning the church’s support for Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. In a classic debate over the relationship between church and state, many wonder if the girls would be in prison if the act did not include an (artistic) attack on Putin. If convicted, the girls face up to seven years in prison. The brightly-colored, balaclava-donned protesters have quickly become internet superstars, while Russia remains divided about whether or not the girls deserve such a harsh sentence. Broken Hartz members have varying political and religious beliefs, but we fully support all peaceful forms of anonymous activism, freedom of opinion, artistic expression and are opposed to the holding of prisoners of conscience. Many groups and political figures worldwide have been calling for the girls’ release. [Amnesty International]

Additional information is available at FreePussyRiot.org.

To hear some of the girls’ opinions on their mission, watch this video.

Birds of a Feather Dump Toxic Waste Together
The Hartz Consumer Group, on behalf of Hartz Mountain Corporation, is one of 70 companies found to be potentially responsible for the highly-toxic contamination of the lower Passaic River, which flows through some of the most industrialized areas of New Jersey. The Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the listed corporations to pony up more than $20 million in estimated recovery costs. [EPA]

Congressman Asks FDA to Ban Toxic Pesticide, Lindane, for Use in Children’s Lice Treatment
The insecticide Lindane was banned by the EPA for agricultural use in 2006 due to its toxicity to humans, but is somehow still approved by the FDA for use in lice and scabies treatment for children. Congressman Edward Markey is asking the US Food and Drug Administration to stop its use, due to research on its toxicity and ineffectiveness. That’s right: not only is it toxic, but it doesn’t work. Sound familiar? [Beyond Pesticides]

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.

It Would Seem Congratulations are in Order

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.

We first called attention to this fact in our post “Hartz Claims Advantage Doesn’t Have FDA Approved Drugs”. In that post, we revealed, the only Hartz flea and tick product listed on the FDA’s website was withdrawn:

Hartz Flea Control Capsules AKA Zodiac Fleatrol Caps: NADA 141-162 (Active Ingredient:s-methoprene)

---

“This product Voluntarily Withdrawn By Sponsor”

---

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.

=^..^=

 

“A [sic] Education Tab” Part I: The EPA Edition

(Hartz’ Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products, Page 6, Paragraph 2, Sentences 1 and 2)

“Unfortunatley [sic], there is a lot of misinformation on the internet about flea and tick products. Hartz is working constantly to offer factual information about flea and tick products, including a [sic] education tab on our Facebook page that will link you directly to the EPA website for accurate, independent information.”

-Dr. Melinda Fernyhough

Oh yeah, the Facebook Education Tab.

Thanks for reminding us, Mel!

Now that BH has gained a Facebook presence, we’d like to direct your attention to how Hartz has chosen to “educate” its 98,742 fans about fleas, ticks and Hartz products.

We’ll begin with the links to EPA pages.

This move is a wild gamble.

If people actually visit the EPA pages Hartz has provided and review the available information, it is highly unlikely someone would say, “I’m gonna chance it.”

Seeing as how Hartz, to its chagrin, cannot delete pages on the EPA’s website, their only course of action has been to act as if they’re comfortable with the information being offered by the EPA.

By doing so; they hope the public, in an act of laziness, will assume:

“Well, Hartz has willingly linked to this information. It must paint them in a good light. There’s no need to pour through hundreds of pages of boring EPA jargon, just gimme some good ole Hartz.”

Unfortunately, we think Hartz is often proven right in its assumptions about the public’s laziness, but there are notable exceptions.

Moving on, the first EPA link provided by Hartz is called the “Importance of Proper Label Usage.”

Interesting choice, Hartz.

This page is actually titled, “Pesticides: Health and Safety” but Hartz decided it was more appropriate to suggest the associated webpage focuses on the importance of following directions in yet another attempt to direct attention to the claim of “misuse”.

In reality, the importance of following label directions is only mentioned once on this entire page and it is accompanied by an interesting suggestion by the EPA, which we’ve emphasized:

“People should carefully follow label directions and monitor their pets for any signs of an adverse reaction after application, particularly when using these products for the first time. Pet owners may also want to consult a veterinarian about the responsible and effective use of flea and tick products, including whether the use of these products is necessary. Owners should consult a veterinarian about the best way to protect their pets from fleas and ticks, especially before using any product on weak, aged, medicated, sick, pregnant or nursing pets, or on pets that have previously shown signs of sensitivity to pesticide products.”

Here is the introductory text from the same EPA page, again we have added emphasis to a recurring theme:

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing a series of actions to increase the safety of spot-on pesticide products for flea and tick control for cats and dogs. Immediately, EPA will begin reviewing labels and determining which ones need stronger and clearer labeling statements. EPA will also develop more stringent testing and evaluation requirements for both existing and new products. EPA expects these steps will help prevent adverse reactions from pet spot-on products.

EPA is coordinating with Health Canada and with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Veterinary Medicine on these actions. Canada identified similar concerns with incidents being reported from the use of spot-on products. The two countries have very similar products registered and some of the same registrants, and we often work together on review of data submissions. Some flea and tick products are drugs that are regulated by the FDA. We are collaborating with FDA as well because FDA regulates some similar products and it made sense for EPA to learn about FDA’s processes and learn from its experience in post-market surveillance of incidents associated with animal drugs.

We will continue to reach out to the public on actions EPA is taking and provide information that will help consumers use pet pesticide products safely. By using pesticide products correctly, including determining whether or not they are needed, consumers can help protect their pets.“

If people would just take the time to read these three introductory paragraphs from this EPA resource, they’d probably realize these products are not worth the risk, especially considering the possibility these products aren’t even necessary.

Although the EPA doesn’t spend much time on this page talking about the importance of following directions; they state, in multiple areas, the importance of improved labeling communications on the manufacturer’s end in order to make them easier to understand; citing, among other things, the need for narrower pet-weight ranges and clearer statements about not using dog product on cats or allowing cats to interact with treated dogs.

We’ve already pointed out how Hartz could go a long way towards alleviating this problem by keeping their dog products out of their cat packaging, but improved labeling is not the only thing this page talks about.

Under the “Mitigation Measures EPA Will Pursue to Prevent Future Incidents” section of this page, on the subject of “Safety Testing”, the EPA states:

“The team also found that the data we now require to determine the safety of these products for pets do not accurately predict the toxicity seen in the incidents that took place.”

The statement above is very interesting.

It seems to be saying despite studies submitted to the EPA by these companies demonstrating product safety, and thus earning approval, these studies are not being corroborated in the real world.

How could that be possible?

Corporations wouldn’t just lie to make money, right?

They would never falsify documents and submit them as truth, would they?

Under the “Results of this Evaluation of Pet Incidents” section of this page, the EPA also calls attention to the suspected problem of “inert” ingredients:

“Inert Ingredients. To address uncertainties about the “inert” (non-active) ingredients in these products and how they might contribute to toxicity, EPA will be pursuing the following actions:

• No longer allow the interchangeable use of inert ingredients in these formulations;
• Determine whether additional information is needed and, if so, require that information to evaluate certain inert ingredients; and
• Disallow inerts that have suspected toxic effects when and if these are identified.”

 

---

TIME OUT

---

You may have been surprised by that last bullet, so we’d like to take a moment to clear up confusion about “inert” ingredients, using information from a different EPA page containing a disclosure about “inerts”. This information does not come from one of the pages offered up by Hartz on their Facebook “Education” Tab.

Again, we have chosen to add emphasis to one particular section:

“What is an inert ingredient?

Pesticide products contain both “active” and “inert” ingredients. The terms “active ingredient” and “inert ingredient” are defined by the federal law that governs pesticides (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA]). An active ingredient is one that prevents, destroys, repels, or mitigates a pest, or is a plant regulator, defoliant, desiccant or nitrogen stabilizer. By law, the active ingredient must be identified by name on the pesticide product’s label together with its percentage by weight.

All other ingredients in a pesticide product are called “inert ingredients.” An inert ingredient means any substance (or group of similar substances) other than an active ingredient that is intentionally included in a pesticide product. Called “inerts” by the law, the name does not mean non-toxic.

Pesticide products often contain more than one inert ingredient. Inert ingredients play key roles in the effectiveness of pesticides. Examples include inerts that prevent caking or foaming, extend product shelf-life, or solvents that allow herbicides to penetrate plants. “

---

TIME IN

---

 

If you look at the individual reports for all the products named in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, you’d find that Hartz is suspected of having toxic “inert” ingredients.

Speaking of all the individual reports for the products named in the EPA’s Advisory, that’s exactly where Hartz directs consumers to next.

Again, Hartz hopes consumers will be overwhelmed by the prospect of going over all the data provided by the EPA and just assume Hartz must have checked out okay or they wouldn’t have dared to provide links to the EPA’s reports.

Of course, as loyal Readers know; if you analyze the data provided by the EPA, as we have, here is what gets revealed:

 

---

 

The following chart shows, if your dog experiences an adverse reaction to any of the Spot-On dog products listed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010, what the likelihood is (based on percentage of reported events) of your dog experiencing Death or a Major, Moderate or Minor event. As you can see, in the case of an adverse event, your dog is 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 tops 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:

 

This next chart shows, if your cat experiences an adverse reaction to any of the Spot-On cat products listed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010, what the likelihood is (based on percentage of reported events) of your cat experiencing Death or a Major, Moderate or Minor event. As you can see, in the case of an adverse event, your cat is 3 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 tops the list for Major events and comes in second for Moderate, clearly making it the most dangerous of these products.

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

 

---

 

The last EPA link provided by Hartz pretty much says everything except “Don’t Buy These Kinds of Products!”:

“Taking care of your pets responsibly includes protecting them from fleas and ticks. Before purchasing and applying pesticide products to pets to control fleas and ticks, there is important information you should know.”

 

“Consult your veterinarian about the best way to to protect your pets from fleas and ticks and whether pesticides are even needed.”

 

“If your pet experiences an adverse reaction, immediately bathe the pet with mild soap and rinse with large amounts of water.”

 

“Keep the package with the product container (such as individual applicator tubes). Also keep the package after treatment in case adverse effects occur. You will want to have the instructions at hand, as well as contact information for the manufacturer.”

 

Aside from these warnings, the EPA gives tips on pesticide-free solutions:

“Flea and Tick Control Tips

• The following tips may help to prevent, reduce, or eliminate flea infestations:
  • Vacuuming on a daily basis to remove eggs, larvae and adults is the best method for initial control of a flea infestation. It is important to vacuum the following areas: carpets, cushioned furniture, cracks and crevices on floors, along baseboards and the basement.
  • Steam cleaning carpets may also help as the hot steam and soap can kill fleas in all stages of the life cycle. Pay particular attention to areas where pets sleep.
  • Wash all pet bedding and family bedding on which pets lie in hot, soapy water every two to three weeks. If an infestation is severe, discard old pet bedding and replace it with fresh, clean material.
  • Flea combs are very effective tools in the suppression of adult fleas. They allow hair to pass through the tines but not the fleas, removing fleas as well as flea feces and dried blood. Focus combing on those parts of the pet where the most fleas congregate, usually the neck or tail area. When fleas are caught, deposit them in hot soapy water to kill them.
  • Consider keeping pets indoors.”

As mentioned near the beginning of this post, linking to all this information was a bold move by Hartz.

Stupid, but bold.

This concludes Part I of “A [sic] Education Tab”.

Stop by on Saturday for Part II.

=^..^=

---

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

---

 

Hartz Claims Advantage Doesn’t Have FDA Approved Drugs

---

Click this link for the previous article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Fun with Charts!

---

We have challenged Hartz’ claims of being committed to providing factual information and also shed some light on the false nature of their charts.

Now we’re ready to tackle a brazen lie Hartz makes in their infamous Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot On Products. Page 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3:

“Frontline® and Advantage® are NOT prescription products nor are they registered with the FDA.”

This is inaccurate, but first additional information and clarification is necessary.

Prior to our Broken Hartz affiliates’ email to the distributor involved in this case Rite Aid Corporation, on 1/21/12, they had found some resources citing Frontline as being FDA approved. We are unable to substantiate Frontline’s FDA status. Since the product recommended by the Broken Hartz affiliates’ Vet was Advantage, we see no harm in removing Frontline from the equation.

Moving on, we have seen this argument from Hartz before. They try to confuse the public, using the fact not all Advantage products are FDA approved. We will not bother listing every product in the Advantage family that has received the distinction of being FDA approved to point out the false nature of Hartz’ statement, but it’s appropriate to list:

ADVANTAGE MULTI for Cats: NADA 141-254 (Active Ingredients: imidacloprid and moxidectin)
– Approval Document

ADVANTAGE MULTI for Dogs: NADA 141-251 (Active Ingredients: imidacloprid and moxidectin)
– Approval Document

This is a screen capture from the FDA’s PowerPoint titled “What You Need to Know: Approved vs. Unapproved Animal Drugs”.

Actually, Advantage isn’t the only flea control product line to have FDA approved products. Here are some more examples of FDA approved flea control products:

Sentinel Flavor Tabs and Capstar Flea Management System: NADA 141-204 (Active ingredients: nitepyram, lufenuron and milbemycin oxime)

Pro-Spot Solution: NADA 132-789 (Active Ingredient: Fenthion)

Program Suspension: NADA 141-026 (Active Ingredient: Lufenron)

Revolution: NADA 141-152 (Active Ingredient:Selamectin)

These FDA approved products are indicated for the treatment of flea infestations and are administered in an identical procedure to Hartz spot-on products.

As it turns out, Hartz was being modest! They refrained from mentioning they have a flea control product on the FDA website, too:

Hartz Flea Control Capsules AKA Zodiac Fleatrol Caps: NADA 141-162 (Active Ingredient:S-methoprene)

Additionally, the Hartz product has a distinction on its page that none of the others do:

---

“This product Voluntarily Withdrawn By Sponsor”

---

We guess there was a problem. It’s odd, because as an (s-)methoprene only product, this wouldn’t make sense unless, of course, there’s something questionable in the “secret sauce”.

These products and more can be found by searching the Animal Drugs portion of the FDA’s website.

Additionally, Hartz seems to be confused about the finer points of FDA terminology. “Registered with the FDA” does not mean the same thing as “Approved by the FDA”. Many products are “registered” with the FDA, while not all receive approval.

Again, the above linked products, with one notable exception, are approved by the FDA. Furthermore, these products have been FDA approved for years.

More information from the FDA regarding vital differences between FDA-Approved and Unapproved Animal Drugs can be found here.

Please Note: No members of Broken Hartz are Veterinarians. Please speak with a reputable Vet before using any product on your animal(s).

More to come.

---

Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Rite Aid Corporation Still in Bed with Hartz

---

The AVMA, Brought to You by Hartz Mountain Corporation?

A quick recap is necessary.

For those of you largely unaware of the matter at hand, Hartz Mountain Corporation manufactures flea and tick treatments that have received thousands of complaints over decades from well-intentioned pet owners, whose pets experienced a multitude of side effects: nausea, hair loss, seizures and in far too many cases, death. Many Veterinarians adamantly disapprove of this family of products. Good places to get an idea of the level of evil we are dealing with here are hartzvictims.org and hartzkills.org.

Hartz has an appalling safety record dating back to the 80′s and 90′s with their product, Blockade. They were forced to reformulate their products, but their reformulated versions continue to injure and kill and were named in a 2010 Public Advisory published by the EPA. Horrifyingly, the EPA has not forced removal of these products until they are proven safe.

So, aside from the obvious, why did we need you to know this?

While mining the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) website for information on how to report disreputable Veterinarians that choose to defend these poisons, forsaking their Veterinarian’s oath for a fat paycheck, we came upon the following:

Tomorrow (2/1/12), the AVMA will be naming their recipient of the Karl F. Meyer-James H. Steele Gold Headed Cane Award. That’s a quite a mouthful.

“The award recognizes the achievement of an individual concerned with animal health who has significantly advanced human health through the practice of Veterinary Epidemiology and public health.”

And who has the AVMA entrusted to decide the winner of such an honored distinction?

“Nominations should be emailed to Dr. Charles Thoen, AVES President and Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, AVES Secretary.”

Did you catch that?

That’s right, Dr. Melinda, otherwise known as Hartz Mountain Corporation’s Manager of Scientific Affairs and Resident Veterinarian, often found commenting in forums, suggesting the blame lies with improper use of Hartz products, not improper use of the term “pet care”. Dr. Melinda has been suspected of trolling forums as well, but whether or not Dr. Melinda and “Truthfairy” are one in the same has not been confirmed. It’s interesting to note, however, the two of them have never been photographed together

Truthfairy responding to a complaint posted on HartzVictims.org and someone suggesting she's really Dr. Melinda

 

Truthfairy's "Review" of a Hartz flea product on Amazon, followed by someone claiming this is really Dr. Melinda

The Hartz affiliation with this award is far from ending there. Hartz Mountain Corporation is actually sponsoring this damn thing!

WTF?

While we at Broken Hartz understand the role Epidemiology plays in public safety and, by extension, the need for flea control in order to preserve human health standards; we are appalled to find the AVMA has chosen to allow a company that profits from selling inferior, outdated, unnecessary solutions to a problem when safer, FDA regulated, alternatives are readily available.

We no longer need to play Russian roulette with our pets in order to protect society from fleas.

Get with the times, AVMA.

 

---

UPDATE: Truth Week

---

 

We ended up doing a whole series on “TruthFairy”! Check it out.

=^..^=