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.
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:
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.
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:
With no Hartz products to defend themselves, we have easily taken over Broken Hartz and now the fleas call the shots.
Hartz Mountain Corporation’s President and CEO, Bill Ecker, tried to warn the stupid public in this 2009 article from Consumer Affairs, but instead you trusted dumb old Broken Hartz:
“Not using these products is not a good decision, Ecker said. This is a bad flea and tick season. If people get scared of using flea and tick products there will be other health problems that will develop that will have much worse adverse effects.
We want to make sure people arent [sic] scared to use these products.”
You have incorrectly blamed Hartz products, even though Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, an intellectual equal to us fleas, tried her best to let you know how stupid you are, but you just didn’t listen:
“From a veterinary perspective, these (Hartz) products are safe and effective to use, said Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, Hartz Manager of Scientific Affairs. But you have to respect them for the pesticides they are — and you must read the label correctly. Weve [sic] seen people apply too much product or grab any old box. Some people assume that if a product is good for a dog its [sic] also good for a cat. Thats [sic] not true. There are chemicals in these products and those need to be respected.
She added: There is a small population of animals that will be sensitive to what you give them. Nothing is without a reaction.”
Well the damage is done and the fleas will soon rule the world!
Without Hartz’ deadly products, there is nothing that can stop us!
Wait… what’s that? What are you saying?
You’re saying according to Hartz’ own document called “Hartz_Feline_Monograph.pdf”, which Hartz tried to hide from the public but Broken Hartz unearthed, Michael K. Rust, PhD said:
(Page 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2)
“New products have revolutionized flea control and provided veterinarians and pet owners with a broad arsenal of weapons.”
What’s that? Now you’re saying he even talked about non-pesticide solutions to the problem:
(Page 15, Paragraph 3)
“With the rise of on-animal treatments in the past 15 years, indoor and outdoor environmental treatments have been largely ignored. However, eliminating fleas in the environment helps to reduce the likelihood of reinfestation and to provide much quicker control. Methods that do not involve pesticides include vacuuming and using flea traps. Vacuuming kills eggs, larvae, and adult fleas and eliminates them from carpeting. Fleas do not survive in the vacuum bag, so additional steps to kill the fleas in the bag (e.g., freezing, discarding, adding insecticides to the bag) are not necessary.54 Intensive vacuuming stimulates adults to emerge from cocoons and eliminates them from inside the home. Vacuuming does not affect the residual activity of sprays applied to potential flea breeding sites. In one study, traps using a green-yellow light on a cycle of 10 minutes on, 5 seconds off collected more than 86% of the fleas in a room over a 20-hour period.19 However, not all flea traps are effective in trapping adult fleas.”
Well sure but… what? What are you saying now? You’re saying Dr. Rust went on to say:
(Page 16, Paragraph 2)
“Cats are particularly sensitive to some insecticides, such as permethrin and fenvalerate.62 The feline liver cannot conjugate pyrethroid metabolites with glucuronide, and cats’ small body mass, high hair density, and grooming habits probably contribute to the toxicity. There are reports of cats acquiring toxic doses from the hair of treated dogs. Newer active ingredients exploit physiologic differences between insects and mammals and provide a wider margin of safety.63 Insecticides such as imidacloprid, nitenpyram, and dinotefuran target the insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and have a low affinity for vertebrate nAChRs; thus they provide a margin of safety when applied to cats.64 Even so, pet owners should carefully read and comply with all label directions. Products labeled for use on dogs should never be used on cats.”
But… but Hartz said we would take over if people stopped buying their products. Now, we come to find far better products would still be available in the marketplace with newer active ingredients and wider margins of safety.
What’s that? You go on to say there is a lot of information to suggest organic, non-pesticide solutions can effectively control fleas as well?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
The truth. It burns.
You win this time, public.
Click this link for the next article in our Truth Week series: Truthfairy Abroad
Welcome back to Truth Week. If you missed last night’s exciting update to our Facebook infringement claim against Hartz, click here!
In today’s post, Truthfairy comes up against BH hero, Richard Parsons.
After a Hartz product killed his dog which, of course, Hartz continues to deny responsibility for, Rich began spreading the word about Hartz’ negligent products to all who would listen.
Rich had many encounters with Truthfairy on various comment boards, like this one for an article from the Chicago Tribune, which is no longer available; entitled “EPA investigating problems with flea treatments”.
Truthfairy flew in to make sure the public knew they were to blame, not the culpable manufacturers, and kindly directed them to Hartz to get the “real” story:
(Commenting on “EPA investigating problems with flea treatments”, Chicago Tribune)
Truthfairy Cat Mother – Fresh Meadows, New York – May 6, 2009
Choose the product for the right weight of your animal
Do not apply to a very young, old, sick or pregnant animal.
Read label directions BEFORE applying, then follow carefully
DO NOT use more product than indicated
DO NOT apply a dog treatment product to a cat
Keep other pets away from the treated animal for up to 12 hours, so no accidental ingestion from licking & grooming happens.
To this, an appropriately named individual responded:
(Commenting on “EPA investigating problems with flea treatments”, Chicago Tribune)
skeptic – Great Falls, MT – May 11, 2009
Hey toothfairy, it’s clear you work for Hartz, and your advice (i.e, warning label mumbo-jumbo) has done nothing to reduce the incidents, which, have doubled or more in one year, never mind the incident numbers combined since 2005 and earlier.
About a week later Rich showed up and inserted the following opinion:
(Commenting on “EPA investigating problems with flea treatments”, Chicago Tribune)
Rich – La Quinta, Ca – May 12, 2009
Yes, skeptic is correct–Truthfairy Cat Mother is Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, who works for Hartz Mountain Corporation. Hartz Mountain now has their own website, http://www.thetruthabouthartz.com dedicated to their version of the “truth” about their dangerous flea and tick products. Incredibly, a major company in the pet care industry is attempting to burnish a deservedly tarnished reputation by conducting their own “truth” campaign. How many other companies do you know require a website dedicated to their version of “the truth” because their products have caused so much damage? It’s a shame Hartz spends so much time and resources defending the indefensible–the number of injuries and deaths to animals. They could learn much from companies like Johnson & Johnson (Tylenol scare) and others that demonstrate real leadership and concern for their customers and put safety first. Hartz, unlike responsible companies, would rather intimidate and threaten the media, private citizens, veterinarians, academicians and anyone else that speaks or writes the truth about these dangerous products. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Below is another interaction between Truthfairy and Mr. Richard Parsons on this comment board from an article on petproductnews.com.
In this case, Rich commented first but, you’ll notice Truthfairy made her comment on the same night as she made the comment above. A busy one, that Truthfairy. So selflessly dedicated with no ulterior motive whatsoever. A rare breed, to say the least.
Rich, La Quinta, CA – Posted: 4/23/2009 4:27:39 PM
Action by the EPA is way overdue. Think about it–44,000 reported potential adverse incidents in ONE year! And how many go unreported–70%–90%? The EPA should not wait for the body count to rise before taking action. Pets and families need to be better protected, particularly when there are much safer alternatives available. The public assumes that when a product in on the shelves of a supermarket or drugstore or PETCO or PetSmart, etc., it must be safe. Many have learned–sadly–the opposite is true. Hartz Mountain, Bio Spot, Sergeant’s and others have had free reign for too long. Hartz’s cat and kitten product was Cancelled by the EPA in 2005 but thousands of cats and kittens were killed and injured. The cumulative effect of these pesticides over time could very well be extremely lethal to toddlers and children as well. EPA–take action, please.
Hartz was under attack!
Someone needed to help, but who?
The call went out and Truthfairy responded! How refreshing it must have been for Hartz to see a “genuine” consumer, so dedicated to letting people know the “truth about Hartz”, that she swooped in to save the day with her unique interpretation of the word “truth”:
Truthfairy, New York, NY – Posted: 5/6/2009 9:33:28 PM
Dear Rich, La Quinta,
Hartz voluntarily withdrew the cat product in 2005 and replaced it in 2006 with Hartz UltraGuard for Cats, which has been rated by the EPA in the lowest toxicity class available on the market. Plus, publicly available data shows that Hartz UltraGuard for Cats had a very low level of EPA-reported product reactions from 2006-2008.
Rich, La Quinta, CA – Posted: 5/13/2009 10:37:57 PM
Dear truthfairy,
All Hartz products–cat and dog–using pesticide ingredients have now been listed by the EPA as among those that they are concerned about. Just the cat/kitten product alone had 956 adverse incidents last year according to the EPA. What’s an acceptable level of animal injuries and deaths? Hartz flea and tick products have killed and injured thousands of animals since 2000. That’s appalling. That’s why the EPA is concerned and why they issued a Cancellation Order on Hartz products in 2005. You can defend them all you want–you just don’t have the facts that would support a margin of safety which is acceptable to pet owners and lovers. Too bad Hartz won’t take the initiative and do the right thing–reformulate to safer ingredients which are available today. I think this says a lot about the company’s character and culture.
Rich, La Quinta, CA – Posted: 5/13/2009 10:49:16 PM
Dear truthfairy,
One more item that you shouldn’t try to get away with…in 2005 the EPA told Hartz they were going to issue a Cancellation Order on their cat and kitten products. Hartz, of course, resisted. When it became clear that the EPA was not moved by Hartz’s appeals, Robert Devine, the CEO of Hartz at that time, wrote to the EPA asking for the opportunity to “voluntarily” withdraw the products. After negotiations, the EPA allowed Hartz to write to customers, suppliers and retailers stating that they were “voluntarily” withdrawing the products. The EPA, however, did issue the Cancellation Order in 2005, the products were forced by the EPA to be out of the retail stores in 2006 and the products terminated. For you to imply otherwise in your earlier blog is typical of the revisionist history we consumers have been getting. You, of course, know what I have written above to be true. Please don’t continue to attempt to mislead the public.
This little “truth” campaign came quickly after the EPA’s announcement it was intensifying scrutiny of spot-on flea and tick products. The EPA had grown concerned after receiving more than 40,000 complaints in 2008 for a variety of brands from both retail and veterinary channels. The results of this investigation became the EPA Public Advisory published in March of 2010.
“Ecker and other Hartz officials said the ingredients in their companys [sic] topical flea and tick products are among the safest on the market. And they cite Professors [sic] Gaskins [sic] analysis to back their claim.”
Consumer Affairs then states:
“To address those fears [regarding using flea and tick products] — and combat what the company calls misinformation about is [sic] products — Hartz recently launched a Web site called The Truth About Hartz.”
As if a company requiring a “truth” campaign isn’t suspicious enough, the centerpiece of this deceptive act was Dr. Gaskins’ “An Analysis of EPA Adverse Effect Data: July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2008”. Broken Hartz has not only addressed the large conflict of interest that resulted from Hartz’ decision to use Dr. Gaskins for this “independent statistical analysis”, but we’ve also uncovered the shameful manner in which Dr. Charles T. Gaskins’ willingly conducted himself, creating a violently false document in order to facilitate Hartz’ core mission: sickening, injuring and killing pets through recklessly outdated, poorly manufactured poisons in exchange for lucrative profits.
That sounds familiar. Here are instances when we’ve embarrassed Hartz into making a change (1, 2, 3).
By the time the EPA released its Public Advisory in March of 2010, Hartz decided to shut down the website and it continues to be “temporarily unavailable” (Well… almost unavailable).
Prior to and during Hartz’ campaign, there were several comments and reviews sprinkled around the internet by an individual using the handle “Truthfairy”. Broken Hartz has made light reference to “Truthfairy” previously, but we’d like to take this week to focus attention on this odd little fairy that, for some reason, made it a personal mission to spread the “truth” about Hartz right when they needed it most.
Important Note: This is only an artist's rendering of "Truthfairy". Any similarity to persons living or dead is strictly coincidental and, yes, that's a barrel of dead "Truthcats".
Broken Hartz is very excited for truth week, primarily, because we know Hartz is not.
We start dropping some serious “truthy” knowledge tomorrow.
Click this link for the previous article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Misuse Revisited
Broken Hartz would like to step back for a moment and place some increased attention on Dr. Charles T. Gaskins’ involvement in this ugly affair.
If you’ve downloaded Dr. Melinda’s shameful “Executive Summary” document, you’ve already seen this nasty little bit of deception, titled “Figure 3”:
THE FOLLOWING FIGURE COMES FROM HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION
THE PREVIOUS FIGURE CAME FROM HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION
Dr. Melinda used this violently false chart, provided by Dr. Charles T. Gaskins to make the following statement:
(Hartz’ Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products, Page 5, Paragraph 5)
“As you can see, Methoprene used in products like Hartz Ultraguard® FLEA Eggs & Larvae treatment for cats and Kittens totaled just over 1000 reactions for all of 2008, while the products the consumer pointed out at [sic] ‘safe alternatives’ (i.e. Frontline® (which contains Fipronil) and Advantage® (which contains Imidacloprid), accounted for over 15,000 reactions for 2008.”
Dr. Melinda packs the lies in tight on this one but here’s what it boils down to:
This chart does not represent total Adverse Reactions for 2008. Look back at the asterisk notation in Figure 3, “*Some reporting periods <24 months” This forgotten artifact leads to the logical conclusion that all non-asterisked products had reporting periods of 2 years or greater, not only 1 year, as Dr. Melinda falsely stated. This revelation clued our affiliate in to the fact there was more to this chart than met the eye and led, in part, to the discovery of Dr. Gaskins’ full report. Discovery of this report confirmed that, among other things, the true reporting period was from July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2008.
Dr. Melinda takes the liberty of comparing (s)-Methoprene to multiple chemicals at once in an attempt to make (s)-Methoprene’s numbers looks smaller, but the lies don’t stop there.
Dr. Gaskins’ report includes minor human incidents, such as skin rashes, along with the animal reports. Interesting, but irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
Dr. Gaskins’ “Imidacloprid” section does not just represent Advantage, it represents Bayer’s Advantix product as well. Our affiliate never mentioned Advantix and this product features a combination of active ingredients (8.8% Imidacloprid and 44% Permethrin). Also, the “Fipronil” section of Dr. Gaskins’ “Figure 3” includes products with roughly equal amounts of (s)-Methoprene and Fipronil.
Logic would dictate, the best way to handle products with more than one active ingredient would be to report the product in both active ingredient chemical classes, but that’s not how Dr. Gaskins saw it. Instead, he decided to solely assign these numbers to the class where they would do the most damage to Hartz’ competitors. This is a shameful act.
By Dr. Gaskins’ raw data, the true numbers for sole-active-ingredient occurrences (minus human incidents) of Imidacloprid, Fipronil and (s)-Methoprene breaks down thusly:
Imidacloprid only – 1,866
Fipronil only – 1,395
(s)-Methoprene only – 1,022
That’s a far cry from Dr. Melinda’s unscrupulous claim, but a true comparison can’t be made at this point either. As previously mentioned, the EPA makes it quite clear that comparing absolute numbers for these products is incorrect because some products are more popular than others. Because of that, we need to look at these numbers as we have in the past.
The following chart shows, in the case of an adverse reaction during the timeframe of Dr. Gaskins’ report, the percentage likelihood of a dog or cat experiencing Death, a Major Event or a Moderate/Minor Event from either (s)-Methoprene, Fipronil or Imidacloprid:
As you can plainly see, in the case of an Adverse Event, (s)-Methoprene seems to be more dangerous than either Fipronil or Imidacloprid.
This is a vastly different story than the one portrayed by Dr. Melinda and, as mentioned before, Dr. Gaskins’ dismissal of the difference between Moderate and Minor events is another example of poor practice.
Interestingly, if we humor Dr. Melinda and allow (s)-Methoprene to be compared to Fipronil and Imidacloprid combined, we get the following chart:
The following chart shows, in the case of an adverse reaction during the timeframe of Dr. Gaskins’ report, the percentage likelihood of a dog or cat experiencing Death, a Major Event or a Moderate/Minor Event from either (s)-Methoprene or Fipronil and Imidacloprid combined:
The willful attempt to deceive the public by these two culpable individuals and Hartz Mountain Corporation is, in a word, disgusting.
Click this link for the previous article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Let’s Get “Technical”
We’d like to take this moment to revisit the subject of Hartz’ love of the “misuse” defense.
While we are sure this argument carries some level of merit, it has been excessively shouted from the Hartz Mountain-top into the faces of consumers for decades in an attempt to shame the public into believing the issue lies with them, not Hartz’ negligent menagerie of dangerous “pet-care” options.
Many examples of this shameless tactic are well-represented in the “Executive Summary” document; brazenly, defiantly, mockingly submitted by Hartz’ Manager of Scientific Affairs and Resident Veterinarian. Who was that again?
Broken Hartz has already pointed out one example of the fallacy behind the “overabundance of misuse” defense used by Hartz Mountain Corporation and its cronies, but we’d be remiss to let this next example escape scrutiny.
(Hartz’ Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products, Page 1, Bulleted Section 1, Bullet 2)
“In dogs, small dogs and dogs under 3 years were overrepresented in the reports. Some of these reports may be attributed to applying a product labeled for a larger dog on a small dog.”
Again, this had no relevance to our affiliate’s case. Our affiliate has a cat, not a dog, and the product purchased has no weight restrictions.
Continuing, Hartz and their counterparts are often heard claiming their products have been misused because they have been applied to smaller animals than intended.
We at Broken Hartz find this interesting, due to a correspondence on March 16, 2009 between Hartz Mountain and KNBC’s Joel Grover. Mr Grover had contacted Hartz to let them know he was doing a piece on flea-control products and invited them to answer some questions.
This letter has some interesting parts, but we’d like to focus our readers’ attention here:
(Hartz Correspondence on March 16, 2009; with KNBC’s Joel Grover, Page 3, Paragraph 5)
“All flea and tick products – whether sold by veterinarians or at retail stores – are required to provide the EPA with companion animal safety studies to demonstrate the safety of their products even if those products are used at five times above the labels’ recommended dose. EPA-required companion animal safety studies are in place to show that if flea and tick topicals, including Hartz, are misused or overused in quantities five times greater than the recommended dosage on the label directions, an adequate margin of safety still exists”
Since these products are supposed to be designed to account for overuse up to five times more than the intended dosage (while maintaining an adequate margin of safety), this admission makes virtually all claims of misuse due to not following weight range restrictions null and void.
No product named in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010 features a single-use application, for any defined weight-class, in excess of this “5x margin of safety”, even if accidentally administered on an animal in the lowest weight-class for any given product. This means, to even begin to have a chance of applying more than 5x the recommended dose for your animal, you’d not only have to grossly overestimate the weight of your animal, you’d have to use at least two applications in order to exceed this intended fail-safe as well.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
We at Broken Hartz wish to stress the paragraph above should not be mistaken to mean there is no need to follow weight-restrictions in flea medications. Always talk to your Veterinarian before applying any product to your animal and follow all instructions strictly.
Here is Mr. Joel Grover’s report, which aired in 2009. We applaud Mr. Grover for his work on this piece:
Aside from this “5x margin of safety” issue, we’d like to address Hartz’ repeated emphasis placed on the idea:
(Excerpt from quote above)
“All flea and tick products – whether sold by veterinarians or at retail stores – are required to provide the EPA with companion animal safety studies…”
This is untrue.
(EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, Page 16, Paragraph 2)
“Incidents were reported for all products, including 2 products containing S-methoprene as the sole active ingredient. Companion animal safety studies were not required for these products because S-methoprene, which is an insect growth regulator, is of low toxicity to mammals. There are concerns for the potential toxicity of a formulant ingredient being responsible for toxicity of these products in cats. There are no toxicity data in cats for this formulant, and cats are sensitive to many chemicals because of a decreased ability to detoxify chemicals compared to other species.”
The two products referenced above by the EPA are Wellmark’s product (EPA# 2724-488) and Hartz’ Product (EPA# 2596-147). They were exempt from having to submit Companion Animal Safety Studies during the EPA’s review of the products named in their Public Advisory published in March 2010 even though, in the statement above, the EPA clearly states they believe Hartz is putting something other than (s)-Methoprene in Product 2596-147 and this secret ingredient is the true culprit. Hartz Product 2596-147 is the one purchased by our affiliate and therefore directly correlates to the case being discussed.
You may recall we mentioned two Companion Animal Safety Studies previously submitted to the EPA by Hartz for the Hartz Ultraguard OneSpot Flea Egg and Flea Larvae Treatment for Cats and Kittens (EPA# 2596-147). These studies were cited in the EPA’s “Review of Incident Data for Four Hartz Mountain Flea and Tick Control Products” in 2001 and were deemed unacceptable.
One of those studies was rejected due to inadequate observation on the part of Hartz employees and the other was rejected for failing the “5x margin of safety” requirement.
Also, in the EPA’s individualized report for Hartz Product 2596-147, there were 34 reported deaths (33 from dermal exposure, 1 from oral exposure) in the intended species (cats). The EPA clearly states:
“Of the 33 deaths reported following only dermal exposure, 16 animals were treated by a veterinarian. Eight of these animals were euthanized. Label directions were not followed for five of the 33 deaths.”
This means, 85.85% of all deaths associated with this product occurred when the product was used as directed and the route of exposure was limited to its intended method (dermally).
Typical.
More to come.
Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: It “Figures”
Dr. Melinda Fernyhough deceptively tries to pass off this portion as coming from the EPA but, as we’ve already pointed out, no part of this pack-of-lies comes from anyone but Hartz Mountain Corporation.
If you visit the “For Vets” Page link above, you’ll notice a link to the Hartz Technical Monograph Feline document as well. Our affiliate was happy to find this, as a document addressing cats would have been far more relevant to the case. Unfortunately, this link was mysteriously broken though Hartz has finally seen fit to post it in an effort to save face and make our claims appear inaccurate, but we all know about Hartz’ “broken” links by now, don’t we?
During the course of tracking down other “missing” information on the Hartz website, our affiliate revisited the “broken” link to the Hartz Technical Monograph Feline document on the “For Vets” Page of the Hartzultraguard.com website, mentioned above. We will spare our readers the details, but wish to point out the canine version of this document is available through many different channels. The feline version proved far more elusive, but in the end it was uncovered. Since receiving our affiliate’s response, Hartz has tried to clean up these “loose ends”, but the “broken” link in their “For Vets” Page persisted until the beginning of May 2012.
In our affiliate’s case; this document, like its canine counterpart, has little relevance to Hartz’ “Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products”, but it makes some interesting statements. Statements found in this document make it quite clear why Hartz preferred to keep it hidden until we forced them to post it:
“Unfortunately, the likelihood of purchasing an inappropriate product or using a product incorrectly increases when veterinarians are not part of the equation.”
So, in light of this admission, why does Hartz continue to distribute its products through retail channels? It’s simple…
No conscientious Veterinarian would ever recommend a Hartz product.
Since the problem our affiliate experienced with Hartz’ product 2596-147, dozens of veterinarians were contacted. In the conversations, more than three-quarters of them immediately named Hartz as the worst offender in the flea and tick control market, unprompted, stating they have treated many animals that have had the misfortune of coming into contact with these poisons. As for the remaining 1/4 of veterinarians surveyed, when asked about Hartz directly, they did not have positive things to say either.
Also, this Feline Monograph document speaks highly of the benefits of newer flea treatment options, like neonicotinoids, phenylpyrazoles and semicarbazones.
“New products have revolutionized flea control and provided veterinarians and pet owners with a broad range of weapons.”
So, why does Hartz continue to use dangerous pyrethroid and pseudopyrethroid products? To answer this, you have to look at who owns Hartz Mountain Corporation: Sumitomo Corporation. You may recall, we mentioned Sumitomo before.
Sumitomo Corporation has long been one of Hartz’ primary chemical providers but; in 2004, amidst another round in Hartz’ history of legal troubles, Sumitomo quietly acquired Hartz Mountain Corporation, creating an international pet-care business. With this move, Sumitomo began to profit on both the chemical manufacturer and end-user side of the pet-care industry.
With 26 of Sumitomo Corporation’s 31 patented Environmental Health Division Products being pyrethroids, it’s obvious why they have worked so tirelessly, despite the facts, to unethically defend the viability of these outdated, unnecessary, dangerous products.
Earlier this year, Sumitomo Corporation struck a deal with a major manufacturer in the Japanese pet-care market, Unicharm, and will transfer 51% of Hartz Mountain Corporation to Unicharm in May of this year. Sumitomo will still maintain a significant interest in Hartz Mountain Corporation after this date and will no doubt continue providing their outdated chemicals.
Still more to come.
Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Misuse Revisited
The document, “An Analysis of EPA Adverse Effect Data: July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2008”, claims in multiple areas to be an “independent statistical analysis”, however, Broken Hartz wishes to point out, Hartz’ decision to utilize Dr. Charles T. Gaskins for this “independent” analysis created a large conflict of interest.
Dr. Melinda Fernyhough, Hartz’ Manager of Scientific Affairs (and the originator of Hartz Mountain Corporation’s “Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products”) earned her BS Degree in Animal Sciences, DVM and PhD from Washington State University. Dr. Charles T. Gaskins was a professor during the time of Dr. Fernyhough’s attendance.
One year after practicing in a small animal clinic, Dr. Fernyhough accepted the position of Manager of Scientific Affairs with Hartz. In this same year, Dr. Fernyhough was named to the Friends of Animal Sciences (FAS) Board of Directors. Dr. Charles T. Gaskins was chairman of this Washington State University organization one year prior and continued to be a member of FAS afterwards.
Out of the 28 Veterinary schools in the country, Washington State University is typically ranked slightly below average.
With more prestigious schools available and the obvious conflict of interest, we find it questionable for Hartz to use Dr. Charles T. Gaskins or any Washington State University alumni for the purposes of obtaining an “independent statistical analysis.”
Furthermore; the report compiled by Dr. Charles T. Gaskins, although created for the purposes of addressing the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, makes no attempt to match up with the products found in the EPA’s Public Advisory.
Dr. Gaskin’s report not only includes nineteen products that bear no relevance to the EPA’s Public Advisory, but it also mysteriously omits three of the products that are listed. Those three products, conveniently enough, are the Sergeant’s dog product (2517-94, mentioned in a previous post) that had no dog deaths in 2008, Summit Vetpharm, LLC’s cat product (mentioned in the same previous post) that had no deaths or major events in 2008 (83399-9) and Summit Vetpharm, LLC’s dog product (83399-6). This product had just two dog deaths and no major events in 2008; but we feel it was, more importantly, left out because it would make the omission of Summit Vetpharm, LLC’s cat product more noticeable.
Lastly, Dr. Gaskins saw fit to merge the Moderate and Minor events together, but these event distinctions exist because they are so different and to ignore the differences is poor practice.
Still more to come.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
As with the last post that mentioned these products, we at Broken Hartz wish to strongly caution readers about the above named products (Sergeant’s product 2517-94 and Summit Vetpharm LLC’s product 83399-9).
While these products had no reported deaths, the Sergeant’s product contains 45% Permethrin, a very dangerous pyrethroid responsible for many deaths cited in the EPA’s Public Advisory and it’s accompanying documents. Chemicals act quite predictably and logic suggests the only reason for disparity is any deaths went unreported or Sergeant’s simply chose to lie on its incident reports.
Additionally; Summit Vetpharm LLC, during the time of the EPA’s Public Advisory, was primarily held by Sumitomo Corporation the same company that owns Hartz. Sumitomo transferred it’s primary shares of Summit Vetpharm LLC a little while ago and in May of this year, they will hand over majority stock of Hartz to Unicharm, a large player in the Asian pet-care market. Sumitomo is also the manufacturer of Permethrin, the chemical referenced above.
More on Sumitomo later.
Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Misuse or Mislabeling?
“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 caseRite 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:
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:
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:
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).
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
