Subscribe to
Fully Vetted
Dr. Coates is a veterinarian based in the other “Sunshine State” – that's Colorado to the rest of you – where she lives and plays with a varied range of animals. She shares her professional and personal experiences, Monday through Friday, here on petMD's blog, the Fully Vetted. Log in for your daily dose of her insight and wisdom.

 

Hartz picked the wrong fight this time...but I apologize, nonetheless

April 03, 2009 / (102) comments


I write a weekly column for the Miami Herald. I’ve been doing it for two years with nary a glitch. Yesterday, however, I received word that Hartz took offense at a mention of their supermarket-brand, flea product line in one of my recent columns. They subsequently sent a cease and desist letter to the Herald asking for a retraction, an apology and an errata notice. Here’s the column for your consideration:

 

A meow for help with poison flea products

 

Q: Last week my cat Ginger spent two days at the veterinary hospital after my daughter mistakenly applied the dog’s flea medication to her back. I immediately gave her a bath to get it all off but within hours she started convulsing. After intensive care she recovered, but not after a couple of sleepless nights and a whole lot of guilt. Please let everyone know that some flea products are deadly poisons!

 

A: Will do! 

 

Not all flea products are created equal and they’re never one-size-fits-all. Some are actually very safe for both dogs and cats, but they should always be dosed carefully, according to weight. 

 

That said, cats are especially sensitive to some flea products. Smart owners (especially those with children) should consider a household free of any such products. Even in households with dogs, it’s a great idea to steer clear of those that might prove fatal to  your cats. After all, accidents happen. 

 

The chemical ingredient that more than likely led to your cat’s seizures and hospitalization is permethrin. Veterinary-only flea medications don’t contain it, save for Advantix, a flea and tick killer labeled for use only in dogs. But the preponderance of supermarket brand flea medications for dogs do. 

 

Adams Spot-On and its Hartz-brand counterpart are two of the items most commonly implicated in feline flea product toxicity. I recommend that households with cats steer way clear of them lest the unthinkable occur accidentally––or after close contact with a recently dosed dog.

 

And here’s what the unthinkable looks like: Tremors (trembling), ear flicking, leg shaking, and full-blown seizures (convulsions). 

 

Should you suspect exposure to permethrin-containing, topically-applied flea products, your first impulse should not necessarily be to rush your kitty to the vet. Believe it or not, even seizuring cats should first receive a bath with a degreasing soap before rushing to the animal ER. Dawn is best, but other grease-cutting dish-soaps will do. This will help curtail the exposure to the toxin. Just be careful not to expose your cat’s open mouth to the spray of water.

 

Immediate medical attention is then necessary to stop the seizures with drugs, flush the blood of its toxins with fluids and relax those twitchy muscles. One or two days of hospitalization usually does the trick, but not always––so watch out!”

 

***

 

So you know, Hartz is a wee bit sensitive to negative publicity. It’s been stung by law suits with respect to its flea products’ safety, websites that scream of its ills, and has been forced by the EPA to make major changes to its labeling of products...to help protect cats and dogs.

 

Sure, most of the onus is on pet owners to make sure the products they apply are labeled for their pet’s species and weight, but my take is that without publicity, people won’t necessarily sit up and take notice of the harm they might do. After all, medically speaking, cats are still considered small dogs by a significant majority of pet people. And fleas are fleas, right? Why not use the dog stuff on the cat? 

 

Hence, most people need to be told to steer clear lest they mess up on their own. Since I witness a lot of “messing up” in my daily practice, I consider it my job to keep screw-ups at a minimum any way I can. The Miami Herald is a great way to do that.

 

Yet Hartz wants me to stop casting its product line in a negative light, regardless of the pesky facts. After all, nothing I wrote in my column was factually incorrect. 

 

Its case? That no topical Hartz product carries permethrin, the chemical ingredient I had openly surmised the questioner’s cat more than likely was exposed to. (Note: I did not say that Hartz brand topicals did so.) And that I claimed, “Adams Spot-On and its Hartz-brand counterpart are two of the items most commonly implicated in feline flea product toxicity.” (Which is true in terms of the accumulation of past information referencing Hartz’s topicals as permethrin-containing products.)

 

 

Though it’s now also true that Hartz no longer markets permethrin as a topical, it continues to do so as a home spray and fogger. And it’s safe to say that, as a veterinarian, I would never recommend their use for any feline household, regardless of the EPA’s comfort zone. (Remember my permethrin premise spray toxicity in last week’s kitten?)

 

 

Furthermore, the Hartz-brand topical for dogs now contains a new product the ASPCA’s Poison Control has informed me has significant side-effects for cats. Phenothrin. Plenty of cases of phenothrin toxicity have been reported. No, not nearly as bad as permethrin, but another feline toxin, nonetheless. It’s labeled for dogs only because of these adverse feline effects.

 

So no, I’m not wrong. But I do apologize for the inference of high toxicity––especially now that Hartz has properly responded to the consumer demand for product safety across the species. I applaud it for making the switch to a safer, non-permethrin chemical. I only wish others would follow suit. 

 

Trouble is, talking Hartz in almost any terms (unless, perhaps, they’re glowing) has a way of getting people into trouble. In fact, I fully expect to receive another cease and desist notice in which I’ll have to apologize for having mentioned permethrin and Hartz in the same blog post––let alone in the same sentence. 

 

That’s why I’ll spare it the legal time and trouble and apologize right now: 

 

Dear Hartz,

 

Though I will never use any of your products or advise my clients to do so as long as safer products are available, I recognize that your products can be helpful to those who cannot afford more expensive alternatives. You have every right to market your products to animal lovers everywhere.

 

Yet how can you blame me for choosing to make cats safer through my warnings against the use of dog products on cats? After all, what I desire is your professed goal as well: to make animal lives better through science and technology. Throw me a bone and call it a truce, OK?

 

Dr. Patty Khuly

 

PS: Thank you for removing permethrin from your topical products. I have issued a similar statement to the Miami Herald referencing this gratitude. 

 

Subscribe to Fully Vetted
COMMENTS (102)
1
by on 12/19/2009 02:15pm

My cat Midnight died from Sergent's Silver. I reported it to the EPA and also to Sergents. They asked for vet bills etc, but I had none since she was dead. After all was said and done, I just got a letter from them offering me $50.00 for a new pet. What does everyone think? My email is: cathyyates@comcast.net, I would love to get a lawyers oppion.

3
by on 11/11/2009 09:53am

<a target="_blank" href="Bell'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Bell-&amp;-Ross/">Bell &amp; Ross replica</a> <a target="_blank" href="Breguet'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Breguet/">Breguet replica</a><a target="_blank" href="Breitling'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Breitling/">Breitling replica</a> <a target="_blank" href="Burberry'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Burberry/">Burberry replica</a> <a target="_blank" href="Concord'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Concord/">Concord replica</a> <a target="_blank" href="croum'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Corum/">croum replica</a> <a target="_blank" href="DeWitt'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/DeWitt/">DeWitt replica</a><a target="_blank" href="ebel'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Ebel/">ebel replica</a<a target="_blank" href="Ferrari'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Ferrari/">Ferrari replica</a> <a target="_blank" href="Franck'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Franck-Muller/">Franck Muller replica</a>

5
by on 10/12/2009 04:36pm

Doctor, they cannot shut your blog down and the Miami Herald is just covering it's rear ... they are losing mucho dinero and have to pander to potential advertisers


 


auto insurance for young drivers

6
by on 09/21/2009 12:04pm

thanks to hartz my dog died this moring..we couldnt go to the vet because it was closed. she ment the world to me.

7
by on 08/10/2009 01:35am

wished i had known all this info before i have been infested with fleas and have used all this stuff on my dogs and sprayed my house with this stuff ny cat who was 13 got really sick didnt know what was going on then passed away but after reasing this i know why now i will never use any of that stuff again i mean never

8
by on 07/04/2009 09:11pm

Shontelle, the advice you received from lexipup is exactly right--get emergency help immediately for your pet.  Please don't wait.  Unfortunately you are one of thousands that has been injured by reprehensible products that are doing enormous damage.  I'm very sorry.  Please let us know how things turn out.  All the best to you and Teddy. 

9
by on 07/04/2009 02:16pm

shontelle, if you and your vet feel your dog had a bad reaction/toxicity to the flea product, do not wait, get your dog to an emergency veterinary hospital RIGHT NOW.  Get out your phone book and start calling every emergency vet, if the symptoms are extreme, only agressive veterinary treatment is going to help, many vets have emergency services on holidays, get looking!! (you vet can't treat your dog over the phone, no one can!)  Save the product package and the vial, and take it with you to an emergency vet.  Time might be of the essence, so go NOW.

10
by on 07/04/2009 01:11am

ive also noticed a tragic common trend that most dogs affected by their treatment are of smaller sizes and common breed types are poodles or the like. my little Teddy is 14 lbs and a Bichon frise.. a poodle like breed with hypoallergetic hair... like poodles.. on the packaging.. it says the directions which i followed to point and if there are problems to rinse and call a vet.. well my vet has no experience with the problems ( im in canada) but shes heard rumours of the incidences... my dog is less than two years old, a healthy puppy... and now hes showing all the symptoms common in overdosing or toxixity related to permethrin exposure... the excitablility, restlessness, skin irritation etc.. im just hoping his mulitple baths and my frantic  calls to the vets will help until i can get him treatment tomorrow... anyone whos defending this company or others like it needs to talk to some of the families whove burried  beloved pets or simply see the tears on the childs faces that lay fluffy to rest... its costly to treat the pets and if they survive are stricken with somtimes dibilitating sideeffects if they are lucky to survive.. until serching online to help diagnose wat was happening to my puppy.. i had no idea this was an issue.. now im left with the guilt of knowing I , although unknowingly and un aware of the consequences, Caused my dog pain...... something i would never want or wish on anyone!

11
by on 07/04/2009 12:51am

i would like to make it very well known.. that just today i applied a for dogs topical flea and tick treatment to my dog.. not a dog medication to a cat.. and im now in contact with my vet to save his life!!!! the "new" product contains 45% PERMETHRIN.. i had never heard anything of the people with pet emergencies or the deaths related to all types of HARTZ products.. everything from their shamppos and collars to sprays pills and powders.... im fighting to save my dogs life.. the statement that hartz no longer uses permethrin is not true at all.. its listed right on the box and is used in the dog medications as well as the cat's even though it has been proven fatal to felines and canines alike!!!! a class action suit is in the works but that wont save the pets that are dosed in the meantime.. do not allow any pet owner to use any HARTZ product... and warn all you know of the dangers of the PESTICIDE PERMETHRIN in particular.. thanks ...

12
by on 06/26/2009 01:08pm

Thanks for posting that, James.  Interesting information.  Notice under the requirements for submittal by manufacturers, there is no requirement to submit other ingredients/inert ingredients.  I wonder if this will EVER be brought with the EPA meetings.


I was told my message was forwarded to the OPP dept, funny how Kemery's EPA's contact info resides under the OPP dept.  Screw him, I'm going to start writing Kimberly Nesci.


And, sigh, sigh, sigh.  The etofenprox term is STILL NOT LISTED on the EPA's advisory page.


 

13
by on 06/26/2009 10:23am

The EPA has posted on their website a summary of their May 5 meeting with the spot-on flea and tick product manufacturers:


http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html


The meeting summary, which took the EPA seven weeks to prepare, is not very informative and I am still requesting that they release the transcript of the meeting, but the summary is better than nothing.

14
by on 06/26/2009 03:28am

Thank you, lexipup, and others for speaking the truth. The record is clear:  Hartz Mountain has a deplorable animal safety record over the years and they also have a corporate behavior of deception, obfuscation and intimidation and misleading the public. Their purchase by Sumitomo Chemical of Japan in 2004 did nothing to improve their corporate culture of denial, deception and intimidation. The list of examples is breathtaking: Their “Blockade” product was pulled from the market after one year not only because of an extraordinary number of pet injuries and deaths, but also several human deaths. Hartz reintroduced it later and again experienced an appalling number of animal injuries and deaths. Hartz was cited and fined for not promptly and accurately reporting consumer complaints of adverse incidents to the EPA as they are required to do by federal law. They have been forced to make numerous labeling revisions because of an unacceptable number of complaints and, in 2005, the EPA finally took significant action by issuing a Cancellation Order terminating their cat and kitten flea and tick products forcing Hartz to reformulate those products. They attempt intimidation through legal tactics combined with obfuscation of the facts in dealing with consumer and media awareness, i.e., their legal intimidation with Beyond Pesticides, the Miami Herald, The Center for Public Integrity, NBC, veterinarians (especially those involved in media), private citizens and others. They have created a website called, “The Truth About Hartz”, which contains false information, some of which they were forced to modify because of media awareness and public embarrassment over their deception regarding the EPA’s Public Advisory of flea and tick products and the manufacturers–which includes Hartz–under scrutiny. This site also contains an “independent study” that was conducted by the former professor of Hartz’s lead veterinarian and manager of Scientific Affairs while she attended college. After graduating and also receiving her PhD. she happened to serve on the board of directors of an organization this professor chaired…she also made significant financial contributions to this organization, “Friends of Animal Sciences”, according to the organizations newsletter. Later Hartz retained this professor to conduct this so-called “independent study”. How many responsible companies feel compelled to run a “truth” campaign to influence public opinion? Hartz has sent false and defamatory information about private citizens to the news media and to large retail companies to obfuscate the truth, personally diminish individuals and promote the “safety and efficacy” of their products. The list goes on, but the real “truth” about Hartz is their documented history of safety problems and their reprehensible behavior as a large corporation. It’s unbelievable they’ve gotten away with it for so long.


 

15
by on 06/22/2009 01:06pm

The original EPA list in April didn't include Hartz' NAME on the products (which was that "RF2004(CCSO") we talked about earlier, that included multiple Hartz, Sergeant's and others using the same etofenprox.  Until you, me, and numerous others pointed it out to the EPA that Hartz' NAME needs to be included for RF2004(CCSO) which was etofenprox.  I see they've made mention of that fact throughout the site.


I notice Hartz' website also is littered with that awful link "Facts" all over the site.  How sickening.


The next time they infer their products are "the lowest in toxicity ratings, making them the safest and most effective", I'm gonna hurl.  You're absolutely correct, Matt, those "studies" were nothing but minimal skewed, biased and inaccurate, and the EPA just let it through.  The EPA monkeys have no clue about pesticide use in pets, they've admitted that several times, but that's what Hartz and others are counting on.  As long as the EPA remains clueless, Hartz can pull the wool over their eyes.

16
by on 06/22/2009 01:23am

Lexipup, thank you for posting the above information.  I did not know this and I will certainly contact the EPA.  Etofenprox most certainly is a synthetic pyrethroid--a derivative of synthetic pyrethroids to be exact, and it acts in the same manner as other synthetic pyrethroids which are neurotoxins that force the animal's sodium channels to be open longer than what a natural pyrethroid can do.  This multiplies the neurotoxicity and is the cause of many of the tremors, seizures and convulsions, among other problems, that cats and dogs can experience.  It is a dangerous pesticide ingredient.  It certainly has never been tested adequately for long term health effects on infants, children and pregnant women, according to the EPA's own documention.


Incidentally, did you notice that Hartz Mountain on their new website, "The Truth About Hartz", continues to falsely state that their dog products are not part of the EPA's additional scrutiny of topical spot-on pesticide products?   Hartz refused to update their website for well over a month after the EPA's updated announcement, continuing to brag that it was "significant" that their dog products were not on the EPA's list.  This, of course, was false and Hartz knew it.  They often use these tactics.  They were pressured and embarrassed by consumers and pet owners writing to the media, non-profit organizations and internet posts and modified their website.  However--typical of Hartz--hey continue to obfuscate and nuance the facts on their updated report and falsely infer that their dog products are still not part of the EPA's investigation.  Unbelievable!  They truly believe the public is simply ignorant, lazy and complacent.  Hartz, Sergeant's and BioSpot are among the worst products and their corporate culture is one of misleading the public (and EPA), obfuscating facts, intimidation and building websites to run "truth" campaigns that combine all the characteristics of "untruths". 

17
by on 06/20/2009 01:29pm

James and Matt, hope you're still reading.


The EPA just put up a new webpage yesterday, "Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins", ( http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html ) conveniently leaving out Etofenprox as a pyrethroid.  I sent a msg off to them, I encourage you to do the same.


Write to: kemery.dale@epa.gov and tell them to stop refusing to recognize etofenprox as a pyrethroid (which is of course the pyrethroid used in Hartz, Sergeant's etc).

18
by on 06/16/2009 07:12pm

Here are the agenda and presentation slides from the EPA's May 5 meeting with the manufacturers of spot-on flea and tick products:


http://www.biospotvictims.org/EPA-May-Meeting.pdf

19
by on 06/16/2009 04:13pm

I have asked the EPA to consider transferring regulatory authority of pet pesticide products to the FDA because the EPA is either unable or unwilling to protect people and pets from these products. If that is not feasible, the EPA should at least consider transferring regulatory authority of pet pesticide products that are distributed exclusively by veterinarians.


Flea and tick products are often referred to as "flea medication" and they are often promoted as a way to prevent vector-borne diseases.  Many people believe that flea and tick products that are sold by veterinarians are safer and more effective than over-the-counter products.  I believe that when someone purchases a flea and tick product from a veterinarian, they have every right to assume that the product is FDA-approved -- that is, held to higher standards for safety and effectiveness than over-the-counter products.


By requiring all vet-prescribed flea and tick products to be FDA-approved, it will stop Hartz (and other makers of over-the-counter pet pesticide products) from boasting that their products have gone through the same "rigorous" safety tests as the products that are distributed exclusively by veterinarians.

20
by on 06/16/2009 03:08pm

James, I know that, that's why I injected the sarcasm.  The true irony here is that despite their denials, the fact that 1200 KNOWN and DOCUMENTED deaths from the products in a one-year time span has fell on deaf ears, and they cover it up by telling the public these are "low percentage" incidents, and the percentages of effects are "low" and reactions are "mild". 


They make me sick.  Literally, sick. 

21
by on 06/16/2009 09:48am

>Mild? Did you just say MILD? That's EXACTLY what's being said!


lexipup, the number of pets that are harmed and killed each year by spot-on flea and tick products is unacceptable, but I think the EPA will come out with a statement similar to the ASPCA, which would be very unfortunate. 


The ASPCA has a financial arrangement with several manufacturers of flea and tick products to manage their adverse incident claims, and provide toxicology consulting for legal cases.  That's a blatant conflict of interest that should be investigated!


http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/resources/news/general/aspca-backs-under-fire-spot-on-flea-tick-products.htm


 

22
by on 06/15/2009 06:03pm

I forgot to mention, were you aware that after the 2005 Hartz product fiasco, part of EPA's requirement was that Hartz and other OTC flea and tick product manufacturers were supposed to wage a major campaign for proper label use and instruction?  That requirement more or less resulted in a few scattered "read the label" notations on their websites and nothng more.


Some campaign.  What is ironic is Hartz' "Recommendations for total flea control management" stated on nearly every single cat product on their website.  Use product 1, 2, 3 and 4 with the first product for your TOTAL flea and tick control management! (thereby increasing the risk of toxicity and accumulation with each application and combined multiple applications.  I brought that up with the EPA, and they have ignored it entirely).

23
by on 06/15/2009 05:57pm

Mild?  Did you just say MILD?  That's EXACTLY what's being said!


If the recent report released by the ASPCA-NAPCC is any indication (and influence), pets will remain in trouble for years to come.


The data they collected, indicates "...the overwhelming majority of animal illnesses associated with proper use of spot-on flea and tick control products are mild."


And, "The important take home message is that although adverse reactions can occur with all flea and tick products, most effects are relatively mild and include skin irritation and stomach upset," says Dr. Steven Hansen, ASPCA veterinary toxicologist and Senior Vice President Animal Health Services. "Pet parents should not discontinue using products as directed by the product label when faced with a flea infestation."


Interesting, how no one explains that since the product can't be ingested as per manufacturers faultless instructions, that "stomach upset" occurs at all.  Or, that kittens can contort themselves into positions whereby their front forelegs cause the scratching at the application site (at base of neck) causing those "mild" skin irritations, as Hartz likes to imply.


http://www.aspca.org/pressroom/press-releases/060309.html

24
by on 06/15/2009 12:30am

lexipup,


I have asked the EPA several times for the transcript of the meeting.  They keep saying they are working on it. 


You are right about the EPA.  I expect them to soon announce that most of the reported adverse reactions were mild and due to improper use.  They will stress the importance of reading the label, and that will be the end of the story.  I don't believe they will require label changes because that would require manufacturers to spend money (also, extra warnings would scare consumers).


BTW, here's some truth about Hartz:


http://www.biospotvictims.org/EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385-0116_2_.pdf


Who said they weren't concerned about adverse effects?


 

25
by on 06/14/2009 05:48pm

James, this news station recently had an article that implies the EPA won't even be in a decision-process until late fall.


kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=777519&catid=2


I doubt you're going to hear anything soon about the so-called "meeting" between EPA and the manufacturers, at least not until the manufacturers have had time to skew their own findings, and ultimately convince the EPA that the products were only a risk when pet owners failed to use them properly. This has been the EPA's lack of scrutiny and failure to act for decades. And how much do you want to wager, new labeling will be required, again, with warnings, clear instructions, more colorful graphics. How many times can you modify a label to come to the realization....it's not the label, morons, it's what's in the product!


In other news, the NRDC's suit and EPA evaluation for removing propoxur and TCVP (tetrachlorvinphos), is still up for public comment period, this can be found on the EPA's website. TCVP of course, the organophosphate Hartz and others use in their dangerous and ineffective flea collars for dogs and cats.

26
by on 06/11/2009 11:37pm

Annie,


You're right--the EPA is investigating not only over the counter pesticide ingredient flea and tick products, like Hartz Mountain, but also Frontline and Advantage, which are sold by veterinarians. 


You are incorrect, however, when you imply that the year 2008 is the EPA's only concern.  The EPA is absolutely concerned about the 53% increase of reported potential adverse incidents from 2007 to 2008.  The year 2007 had over 28,000 adverse incidents reported and 2008 had over 44,000.  The year 2007 is critical in their investigation because it's the baseline that represented the 53% increase.   


Secondly, the website you refer to, www.thetruthabouthartz.com obfuscated the facts about the Hartz products that were on the EPA's list.  Until two days ago--that's right, two days ago--Hartz posted and boasted on this site that their dog products were not named.  That was false and Hartz knew it.  However, they left that statement on the site knowing full well the EPA announced more than a month earlier that all Hartz's products were on the list, including their dog and puppy products.  Only because of consumer and pet owner pressure, including letters on a number of websites and other media outlets forcing "the truth" from Hartz did they finally make the decision to update their statement on the website.  There are still false statements on that site but that is a story for another day. 


Finally, for Hartz Mountain or any manufacturer (or you) to crow that their products don't injure or kill as many animals as some of their competitors is a pretty appalling position for a responsible corporation to take.  The number of pets injured or killed is reprehensible and unacceptable.  Hartz may or may not do the most harm but they certainly have done their share over the years.  The EPA agreed and issued a Cancellation Order on their cat and kitten products in 2005 terminating their sale.  As you know, that's not the first time a Hartz flea and tick product has been removed from the marketplace (Blockade) or Hartz has been cited and fined by the EPA. 


Again, Hartz Mountain may or may not have the poorest safety record--that's for pet owners and the EPA to decide.  However, they most definitely have a documented safety record that is deplorable.   

27
by on 06/10/2009 03:16pm

Matt,


You're wrong.  The EPA is studying reported adverse effects during one year, 2008, for ALL EPA-registered spot-ons, including the vet sold brands Frontline & Advantage NOT just the "over-the-counter" brands.  Hartz had less adverse effects than either Frontline or Advantage.


The EPA is conducting this study because of a dramatic increase in reported AE's during 2008.  EPA reports of spot-on adverse effects from 2006 - 2008 published on Hartz site shows that Hartz did not experience a big increase in 2008.  Go look at it:


www.thetruthabouthartz.com


 


 

28
by on 06/08/2009 10:21pm

Thanks Matt, they seem to have recovered finally.  They started eating their dry food again Thursday evening.  A full week after the application.  Maggie is still exhibiting the "leg kicking" behavior I have seen reported by others but she is eating normally and it seems to be less and less frequent.  The back of three of my cats necks are still bald but they are healing.  I can't begin to tell you how angry I am.  I wrote a large diary with links to your site and others on the Daily Kos and got the word out about these products to thousands of pet owners that frequent that site.  It was on the top ten recommend list for two days.  Hopefully others will be promted to report these incidents as well.

29
by on 06/07/2009 12:44am

Dear Kristina,


I am very, very sorry that your cats have been hurt by Hartz’s flea products. This has happened literally thousands of times with Hartz Mountain. These products, with pesticide ingredients, have caused many documented injuries and deaths. The EPA recently announced that they would be intensifying their analysis and study of the effects of these over-the-counter spot-on's. Hopefully they will do the right thing and stop registering these products for sale. In the meantime, please help yourself and others that have been victimized by Hartz Mountain by reporting this incident to the proper organizations. First, please call and report the incident to the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC), which works cooperatively with the EPA and has the responsibility to provide them with the data and statistics regarding adverse incidents. Their telephone number is: 1/800-858-7378. Have the product package available if possible. Secondly, the manufacturers have an obligation under federal law to provide adverse incident data to the EPA if it’s reported to them (in this case, Hartz) by the consumer. A few years ago Hartz was cited and fined by the EPA for not properly providing this information to the EPA. Please, call Hartz and report this incident. This puts pressure on them to make available to the EPA the damage their products are doing. Hartz’s telephone number is: 1/800-275-1414. These are critical steps in assisting the EPA and the public in removing these dangerous products from the marketplace and preventing the tremendous damage they have done to pets and families. Please don’t let Hartz get away with this. They count on people not reporting these incidents. Thank you. All the best to your little friends.


 

30
by on 06/06/2009 12:23pm

Olivia, I have asked the EPA several times to release the transcript of the meeting they held in May with the flea and tick product manufacturers.  They keep telling me they are working on it and hope to put it in the Federal Register shortly.  I have also filed a FOIA request for it.  P.S.  I am not the administrator for Dr. Khuly's website.  One is enough for me.  : )

31
by on 06/03/2009 09:48pm

Hey, it's you, James....James Terbush.
I read your letter to the EPA on your BiospotVictims.org website. Did you ever find out what was discussed during that manufacturers meeting? Do you know what's the EPA's next move?
Are you the James who looks after Dr. Patty's web administration too.

32
by on 06/03/2009 11:19am

I am having a problem with all six of my cats after using Hartz Ultra Guard plus on them last Thursday.  This is only the third time I've used it.  The first two times I used it they acted strange, kicking their back legs occassionally and generally acting unhappy about it.  I figured it was just them being upset about having the wetness on their necks.  This time they have pulled out chunks of hair and are not eating well a well as following me around the house vocalizing and rubbing the treated areas on anything and anyone that will stand still.  One cat has lost hair on his neck where the product was applied but I can find no burns, his skin seems ok.  They will eat their canned food in the morning but are barely touching their hard food.  Thankfully they all seem to be drinking and after reading the horror stories about Hartz, I used Dawn with lots of water on a paper towel to scrub any remnants of the oil from their fur.  I then rinsed them with a soaking wet paper towel several times.  It has been 6 days since I applied the drops, no convulsions, save the leg kicking activitiy but that seems to have stopped.  Hopefully their appetites will recover.  They will eat treats and soft food...I'm furious that they would sell this product to unsuspecting pet owners.  My cats are my babies! 

33
by on 04/29/2009 04:34pm

Yesterday, I wrote to the EPA and asked about public access to their upcoming meeting with the manufacturers of flea and tick products. Here is their reply:


"Thank you for your inquiry. EPA expects to meet with manufacturers of spot-on flea and tick products the week of May 4, 2009. This is not a public meeting; however, it is standard practice to prepare a summary of the meeting and place it and meeting materials in the docket for the public to view. This meeting is to discuss the registrants' product licenses and what measures might be necessary to better protect pets. EPA is committed to keeping the public informed as this evaluation proceeds. The FOIA Web site is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foia/"

34
by on 04/29/2009 04:15pm

James, you are correct, it is the same product, and as the following news report indicates, Hartz has readily admitted they use the same registrant product (which I tried to bring attention to earlier, it is the "RF2004(CCSO)" the EPA previously listed until myself and others brought it to their attention they need to also include the manufacturer's names, which they subsequently did for the Hartz products):


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/time-money/home/sfl-hartz-mountain-epa-flea-0428,0,2455.story


South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2:57 PM EDT, April 28, 2009


4 of the 5 preciously listed Hartz products contain the exact same ingredients, etofenprox and s-methoprene.


As for Hartz' claims about "low toxicity", they said the same for the products they were required to remove from the market in 2005.  There is ample (yes, I mean mountainous) evidence that pyrethroids (etofenprox among them), are more toxic than the EPA admits.  In fact, the EPA over time, has admitted they don't even know the true toxicity levels, yet allow the products to continue on the market.  Add to that the fact that EPA does not require registrants to demonstrate long-term effects, yet here we are, decades later with data proving they are toxic to pets, humans, children over long-term exposure.  Another public comment period needs to be done by the EPA, because these behind closed doors meetings with manufacturers serve only to increase the get-in-bed-with-the-EPA mantra.


It should be interesting how Hartz keeps responding, since it is the same product as the others, yet they claim "our products accounted for only 2 percent of the total adverse events reported by the EPA in their announcement; and (2.) of that 2 percent, 75 percent of those were characterized as "minor" or "asymptomatic".   Too bad the public can't see that actual "account".


Btw, Wellmark is the parent company of many of Hartz' products; at least for etofenprox.

35
by on 04/29/2009 02:33pm

This is one great blog! Lexipup and Rich, thank you for "lifting the veil" for all to see.


In March, 2005, Farnam entered into an agreement with Sergeants to distribute a new etofenprox-based flea control product for cats, called Bio Spot One-Step for Cats.  It contained 55% etofenprox and 2.2% pyriproxyfen.


I began reading complaints about that product in July, 2005, describing severe adverse reactions in cats, including seizures and deaths.


By August, 2005, concerned by the number and severity of these reported incidents, Farnam immediately cancelled the product.  Here is a letter from Farnam concerning it:


http://www.biospotvictims.org/Farnam.jpg


Also in August, 2005, the EPA forced Hartz to "voluntarily" withdrawal its phenothrin-based flea control products for cats. Hartz then entered into an agreement with Wellmark International to distribute its etofenprox-based flea control product for cats, which contained 40% etofenprox and 3.6% (S) methoprene.


In January, 2006, Farnam was acquired by Wellmark International (maker of Zodiac and Adams pet-care product) and soon began to distribute Wellmark's etofenprox-based flea control product for cats, (the same etofenprox-based product as the one being distributed by Adams, Hartz, and Zodiac).


Here is the PAN Pesticide Database, which shows the names of the manufacturers and distributors of these products:


http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_Products.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33231&Chem_Name=Ethofenprox&PC_Code=128965


Hartz claims that their etofenprox-based spot-on product for cats has low toxicity and accounts for only a small percentage of the reported adverse reactions each year, but it was one of the products listed in the EPA Advisory (before the EPA removed the list from their website):


http://www.biospotvictims.org/EPAAdvisory-IncreasedScrutinyList2.pdf


Since the Hartz etofenprox-based spot-on product for cats is identical to the products being distributed by Adams, Farnam, and Zodiac, I believe that all of these products must be viewed as one product.


 


 


 

36
by on 04/29/2009 01:24am

My Dog Dante was rushed to the Vet this morning because of Hartz flea and tick drops. She still isn't out of danger, but seems it's hurting dogs also! Kudos for you getting the word out to those needing the information. It's nice that someone cares to educate pet owners even if Hartz doesn't seem to think our pets are important enough to let us know before we pay them for a product that can kill our furry family member.

37
by on 04/28/2009 01:29am

Here's an outstanding news item from ABC News released on April 24th. Unfortunately, ABC was threatened with legal action and pulled this article from its website in a matter of hours. Hopefully they'll have the courage to post it again soon.

Are Your Pets' Flea, Tick Meds Safe?
A number of animals that have suffered adverse reactions to common flea and tick prevention, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is now preparing to take a closer look at the chemicals in several popular brands of flea and tick products after reports of injuries and side effects increasing more than 50 percent last year. Worcester said she applied Bio Spot brand flea and tick prevention to Ellie's back as directed and when bumps started appearing on her back a day later, they didn't initially make the connection. But when the bumps spread down her entire back and began leaking pus and blood, the Worcestors took Ellie to their veterinarian, who deduced that the medication had burned her skin. The wounds, Worcester said, were so severe, Ellie had to be put under general anesthesia to remove the rotting skin, a procedure she had done more than once, the other times fully awake. At home, Ellie stopped eating and drinking as Worcester's husband took time off work to change her bandages every three hours. "That was the least of her problems, actually," she said. "We were dealing with huge wounds." After a month of treatments, Ellie began to heal. She's now a year old, but the Worcester's once-perfect puppy has massive scars on her back where her fur has not regrown. "I try to tell everybody not to use this stuff," Worcester, a mom of three, said. "They don't listen." Worcester said she filed reports that included Ellie's veterinary records with Bio Spot and the EPA. Bio Spot, she said, paid for Ellie's vet bills. Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the EPA's pesticides and toxic substances division, said the new evaluation is a "fact-finding effort" to determine the causes of some of the more severe side effects reported by pet owners. Kemery said the EPA got 44,263 reports from animal owners last year, up from 28,905 in 2007. Of those more than 44,000 reports, he said, only 1,200, or 2.7 percent, were considered to be "major incidents" like severe injuries or death. Among the more common adverse reactions the EPA saw were rashes, tremors and seizures, Kemery said.

OTC Brands 'Not as Good?' The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity released a report last year called the "Perils of the New Pesticides" (http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/pesticides) that detailed adverse reactions to pyrethrins and pyrethroids, chemicals commonly found in many of the flea and tick control products found on store shelves. Looking at numbers provided by the EPA, the center reported that those chemicals were responsible for more moderate to severe injuries than any other class of insecticide from 2003 to 2007. "Good Morning America" resident veterinarian Dr. Marty Becker, who has a practice in Idaho, said the adverse reactions to flea and tick control products are typically caused by two things -- owners not using the products properly and the stark difference in quality among certain products on the market. Becker said the many pet owners look to the shelves of their local stores to buy what he calls "over the counter" flea and tick prevention that is often inferior to the products typically sold through a vet's office, such as Frontline or Advantage. He called out products made by Hartz, Bio Spot and Sergeant's as being popular grocery store-type brands that simply can't compete on quality. "In my opinion, they're not as good," Becker said. "They tend to have older generation chemicals." Becker noted that certain breeds such as collies and Rottweilers have an innate sensitivity to any tick and flea product. Hartz, Bio Spot and Sergeant's are three of several companies listed by the EPA as products named in 80 percent of their reports in 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html). The others were Zodiac, Promeris, TriForce, Sentry and Adams. There were also two Frontline products -- Frontline Plus for Dogs and Frontline Plus for Cats -- that were added to the list. Sergeant's released a statement to ABCNews.com that read, in part, "As the EPA continues to update its list of scrutinized flea and tick control products, it's clear this is an industry-wide issue that affects both over-the-counter products and products sold through veterinarians as well. Sergeant's works with the EPA on a continuous basis and welcomes the EPA's increased evaluation of the use of spot-on pesticides to better protect pets. The health and safety of pets is Sergeant's number one priority." And Central Life Sciences, a division of Farnam Companies, which distributes Bio Spot, said adverse reactions to its products are extremely rare, only in about 1 percent of all applications. "Through our investigations, we have found that in many cases, the reaction is the result of a pre-existing medical condition or misapplication of the product," the statement read, in part. "We urge all pet owners to carefully follow all recommended application guidelines." Central Life Sciences also puts out the Adams and Zodiac brands of flea and tick prevention. Hartz also released a statement saying it supported the EPA's latest evaluation of the chemicals and defended its products as safe and effective when used properly. "Flea and tick products make an important contribution to the health of pets and families, since fleas and ticks can transmit disease," the statement read in part.

One Owner Staying Away From Flea and Tick Products Cari Becker, no relation to the doctor, said she no longer uses any flea or tick control on her Italian greyhounds since two of her dogs were sickened after she applied it to their backs in 2001. Becker, who lives in Batavia, Ill., said she had moved into a house in the country and wanted to make sure fleas and ticks didn't find their way into Mia's and Skye's fur. "I was careful to make sure they didn't touch each other," she said. "But in a very short amount of time they were shaking, they were vomiting." As her dogs were seized by tremors, Becker said she immediately scrubbed them with soap and water to get the medication off, and the effects wore off. Though Mia and Skye have since died, Becker said she refuses to use any flea or tick prevention on the two dogs she has now or any of the rescue Italian greyhounds she fosters before placing them into permanent homes. "I don't recommend it to anyone," she said. "I'm not a believer in it at all." Instead, Becker said she's diligent about checking her dogs' short coats to make sure nothing is crawling on them and, so far, there never has been. "When we're sitting with them and stuff, we just check," she said. The Humane Society offers several other remedies to flea and tick prevention on its Web site, including regular vacuuming and grooming with a flea comb as well as frequently lawn mowing and washing of pet beds and blankets. But Kemery and doctor Becker advised against foregoing flea and tick control all together, pointing out that there are insects that can spread to humans as well and cause a hard-to-control infestation. Owners just need to be smart about their use, they said. Becker said it's not uncommon for owners to use products meant for other animals as they try to save a few bucks by buying one product and using it on all animals in the household or buying a product meant for a larger animal and dispersing it among several smaller animals. Because each product is formulated for each species' biology and size, using one product for all animals can cause severe reactions. Cats, for example, often can't process the pyrethrins found in many dog products. "It's not apples and apples," he said. "You can't use a dog product on a cat, you can't use a horse product on a dog." Going to the vet to buy flea and tick medication not only ensures owners are getting the proper dosage and instructions for use, Becker said, the products are usually superior. Vets, he said, are also becoming more sensitive to the economic crunch and will often match prices if pet owners find the same products cheaper online. And the products, even those listed by the EPA, he said, have vastly improved from even just 20 years ago when vets were prescribing baths in pesticides known as "dips" and owners were bombing their house with heavy chemicals to treat infestations. As for Worcester, they now give Ellie a combination medication for heart worm and flea and tick prevention, something that has been decidedly less toxic for her. "The companies do not care," she said. "They're just making their money."

38
by on 04/27/2009 10:51am

I almost lost a young cat - less than a year old - many years ago by putting a Hartz flea collar on him.  He became very ill after a period of days (or weeks- don't recall) and was treated at the vet with IV's for several days because of liver absorption of medication from the flea collar.  Since then I warn people against flea collars because the medications are absorbed directly through the skin of the neck and if they don't get very sick, the skin under the collar can become red and sensitive.

39
by on 04/20/2009 02:02pm

"Read before you treat", yes, people have looked into other manufacturer's methods of responding, etc.  It has not been confirmed at this time by the EPA WHICH products are most questionable, just as they didn't fear Hartz products in decades past.  Many of those products are off the market now, due to the diligence and insistence from various groups and agencies.  That's why it is such a problem now, because the EPA fails to act regardless of the evidence.


It goes both ways, if someone is going to question someone else who posts here (or elsewhere), they better have just as much evidence to back up what they're talking about.  I've done my homework, Rich appears to have done his homework, much is not inclusive to a simple post on a blog on the net.   Thousands of other pet owners have done their homework, and other groups, pesticide groups and other agencies have done theirs, INCLUDING, mind you, extensive education, myself included.  How about you doing some of your own?  Not trying to make that sound harsh, but it is obvious many people don't want to be bothered with the tedious task of researching or learning more about the issues. 


PR practices, as you say, have much to do with how these products remain on the market, safe or not.  The EPA however, we assume and expect better standards when issues are brought to their attention for review.  This isn't an isolated problem, it's been going on for years, despite the public's demand for better protection.

40
by on 04/20/2009 12:02pm

Has anyone looked into how the other companies respond to incidents. Since those products have a higher rate of incident. I would think that people would care more about a company that isn't working to make it's products safe or defend itself when asked difficult questions. I agree with Annie. It seems you are more worried about PR practices rather then informing anyone concerning product safety. If you verbally attack anyone they are going to respond.

Most of these issues look like they could have been avoided if someone read a label.

Read before you treat! Humans do it with OTC meds they should do it for their pets as well!



41
by on 04/18/2009 10:52pm

Furthermore, Annie, to substantiate what Rich (and myself) have been saying (I was going to wait to post this in the event you might have had more questions or accusations, but I'll save you the trouble)


At the risk of boring to tears anyone else reading, my apologies for the length, but it is sometimes necessary.


An interesting study on etofenprox and comparisons including a Hartz d-phenothrin-based product (2004):


http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foia/reviews/128965/128965-2004-04-21a.pdf


When testing Merial's product Frontline Top-Spot for Cats (9.7% fipronil) against the other two, and in respect to label claims, Hartz "Advanced Flea Care Flea and Tick Drops for Cats and Kittens" (85.7% d-phenothrin) and a Farnam product, Gentle Touch Flea Drops (7% lauryl sulfate and 5% citric acid), the latter two performed had a lower level of product performance than the etofenprox spot-on. (note however, that this study and subsequent studies suggest obvious confusion on just what is an effective dose of etofenprox, the higher the dose, the higher the toxicity rate in animals - yes, Annie, there are documents validating that fact). Remember also that many of the OTC manufacturers wanted to register etofenprox in their products as a tick repellent, tick killer, but the EPA nixed the claims on tick repellent and ability to kill ticks found on cats)It appeared that there was confusion about the amounts necessary to even hint at killing fleas, the EPA restricted several label claims (such as repels, kills larvae, elongated re-application intervals etc.)


A study in 2004 (submitted by Sergeant's- Etofenprox: 55.0% and Pyriproxyfen: 2.2% and inert ingredients: 42.8%) used only 6 kittens and 6 adult cats. This is too low a control group for any study when regarding pesticides, least of all registration to be intended to use on millions of animals.


Some pertinent information found in the results of the study;


1 female cat found dead on day 3, assumed pyometra, death "not considered" to be related to exposure to the spot-on (this despite all subjects were monitored every two hours, with food consumption monitored and blood parameters collected prior to and during testing - not one staff member noticed the cat developing signs of pyometra? This is a serious condition with unmistakeable symptoms!)


Mind you, part of the testing requirements set forth by the EPA requires animals used in testing are obtained in 100% healthy condition.


On day 1, one kitten showed trembling and salivation.


On day 1, another kitten showed activity decrease and rapid respiration.


On day 1, one adult cat had significantly decreased appetite.


On day 1, another adult female had significantly decreased appetite.


On day 1, a third adult female had decreased appetite.


On day 1, another kitten had decreased appetite and rapid respiration.


Hematological parameters and chemical profile changes were noted in most of the subjects, but were "attributed" to fasting before blood draws, and disregarded as "minor". Note that many of the symptoms seem to have resolved after several days, but should it not be interesting to note that every single questionable symptom occured at the time of administration and/or shortly thereafter?


In 2005, Hartz submitted their "study" for the products containing Etofenprox: 40% and s-Methoprene: 3.6% and inert ingredients: 56.4%


In previous submitted studies, it was always noted that cats developed sores and scabs at the application site on the skin, yet Hartz claims those sores were the result of scratching and "that Etofenprox is structurally similar to pyrethroids which are known to cause sensations such as tingling, burning, itching or numbness at dermal exposure sites (conveniently leaving out the most obvious and documented riskier effects, such rapid absorption, oral ingestion risks and increased toxicity potentially leading to death). Fully-grown cats would be capable of more vigorous scratching than 12-week old kittens, and if receiving a 2 ml dose".


So, the application sites so vehemently recommended do not prohibit a cat from scratching, nor ingesting the product (as was evidenced in the prior study submitted before Hartz'). Sergeant's stated they did not know the cause of the sores and scabbing. Hartz attempts to clarify that by implying the cats did it to themselves by scratching.


The following was observed in the Hartz' study:


12 kittens, 12-weeks of age were used in the study (no adult cats, as was recommended criteria by the EPA)


All cats had sporadic diarrhea and soft feces. (but Hartz claims "these are common observations in cats".)


Excessive salivation was noted in approx. 5 cats, and Hartz contributed it to oral ingestion, DESPITE the fact that Hartz' applied the product in the same method consumers are instructed to do. (later in the study, Hartz claims "control material was noted on the kitten's right shoulder and forearm").


So, how does that happen when it is supposed to be applied properly at the base of the neck or behind the shoulder blades? Have you ever watched a kitten scratch the back of his/her neck or shoulder with a front forearm? I'd like to see Hartz explain that to consumers and blame them for inappropriate administration of the product. They can't even properly administer it themselves!


Even later in the study, Hartz claims "the salivation (for all the cats) was probably due to oral contact with the control or test material".


Still can't make up their minds.


As for hematology and chemistry parameters, Hartz used an independent lab who did not provide laboratory reference ranges, Hartz had to look them up on the net and compare two different veterinary university reference ranges, then concluded that any significant alterations in the blood parameters were not a result of the product use of the spot-on.


How professional of them.


Now, remember when Hartz criticized the Sergeant's study, Hartz claimed that adult cats were more likely to vigorously scratch the application site causing those sores and scabs? Next in the Hartz study, Hartz claims "the study utilized only 12-week old kittens weighing less than 5 lbs which were dosed with 1 ml of the test material. The proposed label directions specify a 2 ml dose on cats and kittens 5 lbs and over. While there were no indications of any systemic toxicity in this study, the sores and scabbing noted in one 3x and two 5x kittens are consistent with scratching at the application site."


So, which is it? Kittens are not likely to scratch at 1 small dose or at 5 times the dose according to Hartz, yet, they do, at ANY dose. As do adult cats, at ANY dose.


Lastly, it should be noted that some citations/references used in these "submitted" studies by the OTC manufacturers have never been published, so companies like Sergeant's and Hartz, et al. will cite them to support their studies but are under no obligation to prove them or provide updated data. Many studies referenced or cited are outdated and may no long apply.


This is only a slight example of bias, skewed results, and retrofitting your own study to meet your agenda. Likewise, let's use the same attitude with consumers and the media, what Hartz says is the final word, despite scores of documented evidence to the contrary. What other company would you allow to get away with such defiance and indifference at the expense of your pets, ineffective at best, dangerous at worse.


Btw, etofenprox studies have consistently led to evidence of liver toxicity and thyroid enlargement in rats and mice. Of course, specific studies such as this on domestic pets are not required. Please remember that with repeated use, any substance can accumulate and raise the toxicity level.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/pesticides/articles/entry/legal_issues/


Note the following quote in the above article: "Proof of fault is hard to come by, particularly with popular over-the-counter pyrethroid spot on products, since a general autopsy will not show any signs "specific enough to warrant a diagnosis of pyrethroid toxicosis," explained Richard Jakowski, associate professor of pathology for the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University."


and,


"Hartz representatives would not say how many settlements they reach each year with consumers, but the company makes it a policy to give unsatisfied customers a full refund for the product. "As for refunding medical expenses," they said via email, "this is decided on a case-by-case basis, once it has been established with a high confidence that a Hartz product was involved, depending on the legitimacy of the alleged complaint and the outcome of the Hartz veterinarian's review process.""


Conflict of interest? Most decidedly, without a doubt, YES.


More information: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/pesticides/


Please familiarize yourself with the facts and the history of these products, and how Hartz and other OTC manufacturers have continued to work under the almost non-existent radar of the EPA, despite the evidence these chemicals have not been tested completely nor thoroughly before registration approval.  The information in these links can be found in numerous other documents from numerous other valid sources.  Feel free to read all the studies for yourself, they are available on the EPA website.

42
by on 04/18/2009 09:12pm

Sorry, Annie, your defense of Hartz sounds a little hollow. You've made some good points in your note, and obviously you know something about the issue, but lexipup is absolutely correct--the subject of this thread is Hartz. If you're asking if I believe that Hartz is the only culprit in this mass damage to animals (and devastating sense of loss to families) the answer is, of course, no...but the subject, Annie, is Hartz. They have created serious problems. And they are sending veterinarians, the media and private citizens intimidating letters from their legal department if they exercise their First Amendment rights. You may want to go to the very beginning of this page and re-read Dr. Khuly's blog.

Secondly, I completely understand that s-Methoprene is an insect growth regulator and, as a standalone chemical, may not be considered dangerous. However, synthetic pyrethroids (phenothrin--the Hartz ingredient at 85.7% volume) are neurotoxins and the reason a company uses a synthetic pyrethroid instead of the natural pyrethroid is because it leaves the insects (and animals) nerve channels open longer. This exposes the animal (and maybe a toddler) to the poison, a neuro-toxin, for a longer period of time. In other words, it makes the product more lethal. And, according to some board certified veterinary toxicologists and neurologists, when combined with Methoprene, an IGR, can make the ingredients up to ten times more toxic than when used singularly.

So, Annie, when you say that I need to "educate myself", I've really done just that. Sure, I'm not a toxicologist or neurologist--and I can and will learn more--but I have done research and I have not only my opinion but the opinions of medical experts. You see, we had a dog that was killed by these ingredients. Our veterinarians have not only stated that the product contributed or actually caused the death of our pet but one of them also wrote a medical summary making that statement. I've had other veterinary specialists also look at our dog's medical history and charts. I've spent much time on this subject, and what I've learned in terms of animal injuries and deaths is appalling. In 2005 the National Pesticide Information Center, an organization that compiles the adverse incidents data for the EPA, wrote that Phenothrin and Methoprene accounted for the most adverse incidents reported.

Finally, isn't it really a little foolish to say Hartz may have had only a few thousand reported problems? A few thousand? Now let me ask you a question, Annie: would you really use synthetic pyrethroids on your own pets knowing full well that there are much safer alternatives available? Would you want your own children or grandchildren playing with pets that had just received an application? I think I know the answer.

I am, however, glad that you've participated in this blog. You've provided lexipup, me and others the opportunity to address specific questions and, as you would say, "lift the veil" on Hartz, their products, their product ingredients and tactics. Thank you for that.

43
by on 04/18/2009 12:19pm

Excuse me, Annie, I'm well aware of the classes of permethrins and how they work, and I've never singled out Hartz alone, but this thread IS about Hartz.  What does concern me is the fact that Hartz is generally the only company who refuses to take accountability for the safety of their products (as it regards OTC) and that their history of threatening actions against consumers and the media has been their norm.  It doesn't go back to just 2005, it goes back much further than that.  Rember DEET?  Do you remember how long it took the EPA to evaluate DEET in pet products?  Do you remember how after the ban, Hartz went ahead and put DEET back into their products and went under the radar for some time before the EPA had to slap them on the hand again?  My complaint here isn't about "bashing" Hartz as you say, don't paint me as one of the evangelists, which I'm not.  I'm an advocate for safe products for pets, and an advocate for companies to take responsibility to re-examine their products when there is an obvious need. 


You're quite wrong on all accounts of toxicity levels of perethyroids and their synthetic counterparts. I don't know where you got your information, but any pesticide database and both human and veterinary peer-reviewed literature will show you the levels of toxicity, particularly in cats.  These facts have been published for over a decade.  Also consider the percentages used, and the inert ingredients they interact with, there is always an increased risk of sensitivity and absorption when combined with other ingredients. Hartz promised they would no longer use classes of pyrethroids in their "new" cat products, yet they did.  Etofenprox is a pyrethroid, with the same mechanism of action as any other pyrethroid.  Don't forget that they had the nerve to tell a reporter that "Hartz has never used permethrins or pyrethroids in their products for cats, we know pyrethroids are toxic to cats".


Don't forget the lax attitude of the EPA when Hartz was under scrutiny).  The EPA didn't receive all their data from Hartz.  They recieved their data from the ASPCA-NAPCC, as well as from other poison control offices, investigating pesticide groups, veterinarians, professionals in their field.  Even after having the data in their posession, their first course of action was simply requiring Hartz to re-label their products.  Even after re-labeling, the complaints continued to pour in.  Those products were on the market some 9 months+ after the EPA recommended Hartz cease production.  Remember, it was a "voluntary" action, not a "required" action, and Hartz all the while continued to promise their products were safe and denied any safety concerns despite the data suggesting otherwise. The EPA admitted their were problems but did not act in a timely manner, nor did they give consumers a satisfactory means of recourse.


Just because you expect the EPA to act in it's capacity of a federally funded organization doesn't mean they always act in the interest of the public.  The evidence is clear they do not.  The EPA has openly admitted several times they do not understand how pyrethroids work and that they do not understand the toxicity effects that occur in animals.  Rat studies are not comparable to small animal studies, and the criteria for testing of these OTC spot-on products is severely lacking.  They only require registrants to submit minimal data, and clearly biased data (but don't take my word for it, as I'm certain you won't, look at the data for yourself). 


Lastly, Annie, what do you suppose the odds are in those thousands of reports, that pet owners are so stupid as to not follow directions on the label. I refuse to believe that a large percentage of pet owners are that incompetent, the percentages are much too high to factor incompetence into the equation.  Of course there is a small percentage of scenarios where a dog product has been used on a cat, or a double-dose may have been used, or applied on the body where a cat can ingest the substance, but I believe those incidents to be relatively few and MY peers happen to believe those incidents are a relatively small percentage.  Hartz and other companies are always quick to judge the pet owner, but take no repsonsibility to research alternative safer substances.  That is what is meant by education, safer products are available, and the OTC products are not a safer alternative. 


The pyrethroids you say are in vet brands are not intended for cats, do your homework, Annie.  Also do more "research" into the classes of permethrin/pyrethrin/pyrethroids and don't rely on just one source.

44
by on 04/17/2009 09:31pm

lexipup,
I followed that link Rich gave us, too. But with a different conclusion from you both. Perhaps, as Buddha says, we see what we want to see, not what is there..until the veil is lifted. Let me lift a bit of veil.

The 4.16.09 EPA Advisory; Increased Scrutiny of Flea and Tick Control Products for Pets, pointed out that 7 products from 4 brands (Promeris, Frontline, Zodiac and Sergeant's)were responsible for 80% of 44,000 reported adverse product reactions in 2008, i.e. 35,200. These product reactions were reported TO the EPA - that's the official route, because EPA is the federal regulatory agency for non-systemic, non-Rx brands of pet pesticides.

So, what are you saying? That the EPA's lying? That they "cooked the books" on product reaction report records, so that Hartz would look good and Frontline would be unfairly skewered? C'mon, your veil is self-imposed and opaque.
You can't crow one moment about how 5 or 6 years ago the EPA asked Hartz to withdraw a product that was giving them concern, then the next moment claim the EPA is in covert cohoots with Hartz to protect their products from scrutiny, now can you?

Why are these specific brands and products under scrutiny? Not because the media likes them, or because they won the lottery....it's for the same reason as Hartz 6 years ago. The level of reported adverse product reactions by pet owners on these 4 brands are very high - - between them, they got 35,2000 reports in one year. That means ALL THE REST of the other F&T brands, including the mass market #1 Hartz with millions of pet owners using their products every year, were only responsible for 8,800 consumer complaints. End of story. The facts. Then there was a bunch of disclaimers which has to be considered...market share, incident severity, product misuse. But anyway you cut the turkey, 35,200 incidents with animals between them in one year.
You know what surprises me, lexipup. That you're not focussing on the 44,000 animals and why so many got hurt. Because you're so busy bashing Hartz and trying to find ways to keep on accusing them, even when the facts don't.

You're not a chemist? S-methoprene is an IGR, insect growth regulator in a bunch of products, including Frontline Plus. Pyrethroids 101 - they are synthetic pyrethrins.
"Pyrethrin and pyrethroid insecticides, while toxic to selected insect species, have a wider margin of safety for mammals...Pyrethoids are safer than prior compounds and are non-systemic.Toxicity can happen under certain conditions, including animal health & immature or elderly age, formulation and misapplication.Cats can be very sensitive and dog products should not be used on cats
With proper care, even cats should recover from any adverse effects. Misapplication and accidental ingestion is most often the cause of any issues. A number of publications have “suggested” neurotixicity was an issue, but the review did not conclude or state that this was their belief. Pet owner education is critical", a Review published in Veterinary Journal, June 2008. Doesn't sound like they're natural born killers? So you and Rich need to educate yourselves because all this stuff you're saying about pyrethroids ain't so.Anyhow, there are pyrethroids in vet brands too.

45
by on 04/17/2009 08:20pm

I wanted to point out, from the link Rich posted above: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html


In the media, the EPA paints a picture of other brands that are under scrutiny.  However, on the link above, there is a product called "RF2004(CCSO)"


Which is:  (3.6% S-Methoprene; 40.0% Etofenprox), another term for the etofenprox Hartz replaced in 2005 when the EPA recommended the cessation of the two Advanced spot on's for cats.  Of course, etofenprox acts as a pyrethroid, which is the same action as permethrin.


The Pan Pesticide Database lists Hartz with 5 of the products containing RF2004(CCSO) (spot on's for cats)


As always, the EPA seems to be in cohorts with Hartz.  Why didn't they actually say HARTZ is amoung the scrutinized products, I'd be willing to bet they are the number one product complaint!  Granted, Sergeant's, Farnam, Biospot, Zodiac etc are equally as nasty, but come on, EPA, put the blame where it lies, Hartz is guilty as H-E-double toothpicks!  Don't be fooled with all the technicality, pet owners, look them up!  Dr. Kuhly, more ammo for you, Hartz' way to skirt technical terms and hope owners don't know the difference between etofenprox and pyrethroids (there isn't any difference).

46
by on 04/17/2009 07:38pm

Rich, sadly, that's all been done, over and over, by thousands of pet owners.  The EPA is not listening, despite the evidence they have had in their posession for years.  The only thing that can change this is refusal to buy Hartz products (or Sergeant's, Farnam's, etc), put them out of business, and have more in the animal health care fields speak out.  As long as Hartz has their high priced attorneys to fight, the common pet owner has no chance.  The EPA has had years and years to correct the problem, but minimal slaps on the wrists to Hartz isn't going to cut it (yet, that's exactly what Hartz expected, no more than a slap on the wrist if you can even call it that.

47
by on 04/17/2009 03:14am

Here's a link that your readers may be interested in:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html

The EPA announced today, April 16, that they are stepping up their scrutiny of these flea and tick spot-on pesticide products because of a sharp increase in reported adverse incidents involving dogs and cats.

The EPA reported 44,000 potential incidents in 2008 alone! How high does the body count have to rise before this government agency steps up to its responsibilities? This is sickening--44,000 reported incidents. And how many incidents go unreported--75%--90%?

A ground swell of negativity towards these products is building. Enough is enough. There are a lot of people all over the web making strong comments and expressing anger over these products, and rightfully so. However, it's about time people who are sincerely concerned start writing to Debra Edwards, director of the Office of Pesticide Programs at the EPA and let her know what's going on. Keep getting the media involved as well. Some media have more courage and backbone than the Miami Herald--there have been some great investigative reports aired/written lately (NBC Los Angeles is one recent example) and in spite of intimidation tactics by a manufacturer they have not buckled. And ask your congressman/woman and Senators to get off their rear ends and take some action--particularly if they sit on the right committees (environmental, human services, etc.). Most politicians are looking for an opportunity to make themselves look good and they would certainly get much support from the public on this issue.

My point is this--take action. Don't just write a few lines of inane comments on blogs. These manufacturers are harming thousands of our pets and animal friends and leaving families devastated. Who knows what damage is being done to toddlers and children that have more fragile neurosystems. The EPA has expressed concern about that as well. Let's keep the momentum growing--we have the ability to stop this insanity.

48
by on 04/16/2009 05:33pm

Considering what is actually in Sergeant's "Nature's Guardian", it's no surprise the level of toxicity:


peppermint oil


cinnamon oil


lemongrass oil


clove oil


thyme oil


All of these oils have the potential of toxicity, amoung hundreds of other "natural oils", yes, it's documented.  Maybe Dr. Khuly could dedicate a post on the hazards of these so-called "natural" products which, essentially are more toxic than some of the flea and tick products out there!  Didn't mean to hijack your thread, Dr. Khuly!

49
by on 04/16/2009 10:29am

Hartz does not make Nature's Guardian, Sergeant's makes it.

If you are going to publicly accuse a company of killing your animal, you should make the effort to check your facts and not falsely accuse the wrong company.

50
by on 04/15/2009 01:07am

I bought some nature's guardian (made by hartz) last yr. I used it on my cat Billy...in 24 hours Billy was dead. He was fine before the treatment just some fleas.  I told my sister in law what happened. She had the samething happen to her cat 6 months before. Now tell me how safe any of Hartz products are? Never again, It's worth the few extra dollars for the good stuff.

51
by on 04/13/2009 09:07am

Here's is what the Miami Herald published after receiving a letter from Hartz:


"A column in the March 28 issue of Tropical Life by veterinarian Patty Khuly incorrectly attributed certain problems to Hartz brand products. Hartz does not market in the U.S. any topical flea and tick products that contain permethrin. The Miami Herald knows of no study or empirical evidence to suggest that the Hartz products are among those most commonly associated with flea-product toxicity to cats. There is also no evidence that its products, or the products of other companies, are dangerous when used properly; in the column in question, the reader improperly used an unidentified product intended for dogs on a cat. The Miami Herald regrets the error."


Miami Herald, with friends like you, who needs enemies?


Need evidence to suggest that Hartz topical products for dogs, which contain 85% phenothrin as their active ingredient, have the potential to seriously harm or kill cats WHEN USED INCORRECTLY , or if cats come into close physical contact with treated dogs? (the point of Dr. Khuly's March 28th column):


http://epa.gov/pesticides/foia/reviews/069005/069005-018.pdf


http://epa.gov/pesticides/foia/reviews/069005/069005-019.pdf


http://epa.gov/pesticides/foia/reviews/069005/069005-2004-09-14a.pdf


Instead of sending you a cease and desist letter, Hartz should thank you for informing pet owners about the consequences of using flea and tick products INCORRECTLY.

52
by on 04/13/2009 08:00am

OrganicMOM: Thanks for your comments. They are apropos here. I am especially drawn to you comments on the need for pet owners to educate themselves and seek like-minded veterinarians. However, I do take exception to a couple of issues:


1-There is currently no acceptable substitute for vaccination. As much as I agree that most pets in the US are egregiously over-vaccinated, the use of vaccines has made animal-keeping a reality in this and many other countries. Judicious use of vaccines early in life carries its risks, but its rewards far outweigh them.


2-Natural flea products are not always doable--and they are not always safe. For example: I've treated cats after owners applied a mix of cedar and pine oils to their brood. Not only did the cats still have fleas, they sustained serious damage to their liver. In Miami, where I live, the as-needed use of flea products has made life livable for flea-allergic pets (like one of my two dogs, who would live with constant discomfort were it not for modern flea meds). It's also protected many from life-threatening anemias. 


Of course, these products can all have side effects. Of course, you need to be an educated consumer. Sure, you need to know there are trade-offs. But, by and large, when it comes to fleas and vaccines, the animal pesticide and pharmaceutical industry has made great strides in safety and effectiveness. 

53
by on 04/13/2009 12:28am

For the people that are still applying Advantix, Frontline & similar products, one word.

THINK!

If these products carry warnings not to get it on your skin & to immediatley wash off why in the world would you let it remain on your companion? That is INSANE!!!!

It is POSION!

WAKE UP PEOPLE

54
by on 04/13/2009 12:18am

People you need to do your research! Most of what is doled out & advertised will kill you & your pet. I have found out by experience there a FEW Vets out there that ruly have your pets well being at heart.

After many decades of having four-legged companions I have chosen to raw feed & go totally organic. Good nutrition works wonders for building high immunity for your pets. All of this high heat, processed, questionable ingredient sourced food on store shelves has given rise to the climbing incidences of heart, liver & pancreas problems with our companions. Add the insult of over vaccination & pharmaceutical drugs the result is the disasterous. Just like choices you make for yourself, the choices you make for your companions, have serious consequences.

For every vaccination & drug there is a safe alternative. You just need to search for it.

Not only do I feed in this manner, I do not use any harsh chemicals in or around my house.

No, I do not have a flea problem. I use a combination of cedar oil based products & garlic oil based products, inside & out for control. Regular vaccuming & bathing works wonders.

I will NEVER again use any topical flea product, either OTC or Vet perscribed. Thank goodness I have a Vet that does not believe in the use of such products.

YES, there are a few Homeopatheic vets out there BUT, beware of the fakes. Just like any other industry some are jumping on the bandwagon to lure you in & are doling out the same unsafe crap.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK. There is No EXCUSE with access to the Internet! By being a well informed consumer you will enjoy many, many trouble free years of companionship with your furry friend.

55
by on 04/12/2009 11:39pm

EXCELLENT reply.Don't back down.  Oh now they are going to go after you...your credentials...expect it. Me thinks they do protest too much! hen you can counter with the ACLU's blessing and maybe them defending you of FREE SPEECH>

56
by on 04/12/2009 10:36pm

I will tell you what my attorney told me when the creep who mistreated Suki came after me with a  b.s. defamation lawsuit four years ago: "They filed this thing to scare you off, but they don't know the shitstorm they just walked into."  Hartz would have to be even dumber than the jerk who did this to Suki and me to even THINK of suing a veterinarian and/or the paper she writes for. Hello? Anybody home?


Dr. K, don't back down to these bullies. They think that scaring consumers is the best way to go because they're counting on the power of fear. But the best way to go is for us to  think about avoiding all Hartz products for their even making this kind of threat. That's what I plan to do. Funny - if they hadn't made this threat I would have kept buying their hairball remedy. But thanks to this stunt, I'll find an alternative now. Buh-bye Hartz, and all your bully lawyers. I'm a journalist, and I've BEEN sued by a bully vet, and I don't take kindly to other bullies making threats to people trying to protect the average consumer. Clean up or shut up, or I promise you this - make more threats like this and you'll find yourself on a dozen websites and even more blogs about your "great" products. You'll spend the rest of your lives threatening everybody on the Internet. There is strength and safety in numbers, and there are zillions more animal guardians than there are Hartz lawyers. Just do the right thing, clean up your act, and prove yourselves the "animal lovers" you claim to be, instead of punks trying to scare people into silence. Here's a clue, which the vet who came after me had to pay a buttload of money in legal fees to learn: IT DOESN'T WORK.


 

57
by on 04/11/2009 12:34am

Wow. I don't read the Herald so I didn't know about this. And I didn't know about Xylitol-Thanks Dr. K don't use it but I'll be careful now.


Hartz can make a claim but they are really full of it in this case. I can't remember when I last used a Hartz product but it's never been a good experience. Even though you do not directly make $$ off this excellent site, you do in the sense that it enhances and advertises your business. But, I really don't think Hartz will follow through--they just want to scare you. Their claim is very weak whereas your message is much needed. By writing the column you've made it a public matter, but you are entitled to have an opinion, based upon your experience and knowledge. It appears from yours and others' posts that there is much support for your essential message.


I avoid using pesticides in any form anyplace in my house or yard. This goes for my animals as well. While I have used Advantage and Frontline out of flea desperation I'm not really comfortable even with those. It's just not logical to me that something that powerful running around in my pet is not harmful, perhaps in the long-term. When I apply these occasionally I've had some on my finger, and once a little in my mouth. I'm very sensitive to pesticides and herbicides etc. Grew up in an area where they were widely used, and my parents used everything on the planet to get rid of German cockroaches in our house (nothing worked). I always have a reaction to the topicals from nasal & respiratory to sort of tasting it (when I haven't). The time I did get it on my lip it burned. So I would like to see the long-term outcome studies on the effects of these products.


 


 

58
by on 04/10/2009 01:57pm

Shame on the EPA for allowing companies like Hartz to sell pesticide products which are capable of harming and killing pets, and shame on the Miami Herald for buckling under pressure from Hartz and removing Dr. Khuly's March 28th column from their website.


It's true that Hartz products for dogs no longer contain permethrin, they contain a pesticide called phenothrin.  However, is phenothrin safer for cats than permethrin, and is a product which contains 85% phenothrin any safer than a product which contains 35% or more of permethrin?  The evidence clearly indicates that it is not safer for cats.


The label for phenothrin-based Hartz flea control products for dogs states, "DO NOT USE ON CATS AND KITTENS" but, to the best of my knowledge, they do not tell you that it can be fatal if used on cats, or if cats are exposed to recently treated dogs.


Several years ago, the EPA became concerned about the number and severity of adverse reactions that were reported in connection with several Hartz flea control products for cats and kittens which also contained 85% phenothrin.  Here is information about it:


http://epa.gov/pesticides/foia/reviews/069005/069005-2004-09-14a.pdf


At the EPA's insistence, Hartz eventually withdrew these products from the market.  Here is information about it:


http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/flea-tick-drops.htm


While Hartz no longer uses permethrin in their flea control products, their sister company - Summit VetPharm, makes a product for dogs called Vectra 3D, which contains 35%-45% permethrin.  In fact, this product was developed by Dr. Albert Ahn, Hartz former Chief Scientific Officer.


 


 


 


 

59
by on 04/10/2009 07:58am

Thanks for the offer, Rich. Send me an email through my 'contact us' page.

60
by on 04/09/2009 11:37pm

Doctor, they cannot shut your blog down and the Miami Herald is just covering it's rear ... they are losing mucho dinero and have to pander to potential advertisers

61
by on 04/09/2009 03:45am

I'm very sorry that the Miami Herald would not stand up to Hartz's bullying and intimidation. I'm also sorry that you wrote an apology. Hartz is playing scientific games when they tell you that their products no longer contain permethrins. When the EPA issued a Cancellation Order in 2005 against Hartz's cat and kitten products those products did not contain permethrins...they contained synthetic pyrethroids (which are in the same family) in identically the same volumes that their current Ultra-Gard Pro products for dogs contain, specifically 85.7% phenothrin and 2.3% methoprene. The product ingredients are identical. Synthetic pyrethroids are lethal to cats and kittens and also dangerous to dogs and puppies. However the EPA has not--yet--issued the same Cancellation Order to Hartz on the dog flea/tick products, in spite of many adverse incident reports. The EPA is again investigating this issue. Permethrins and pyrethroids come from the same chemical family...neither should ever be used on cats and kittens...my research indicates that they should never be used on dogs either.

My point is this--you were speaking only the truth and Hartz bullied you and the Miami Herald into apologizing. You were actually correct in everything you said...they played games with you on permethrin vs. synthetic pyrethoids (phenothrin)...the EPA terminated their product(s)containing these lethal ingredients. Hartz's legal department has also sent me an intimidating letter. They now are attempting to bully and intimidate private citizens from speaking their opinions when they fully know private citizens (like you) have the constitutional right to speak publicly. However, they again--as they did with their permethrin vs. synthetic pyrethroid word games--believe their intimidation tactics will work and they can continue making huge profit margins on products that have been documented to injure and kill. The Miami Herald should be ashamed. I don't blame you--a private citizen--for being worried. Hartz has the resources to make your life miserable. For $350 they can file a federal lawsuit in New Jersey, where they're headquartered, and you will be required to hire an attorney who's licensed in New Jersey to defend yourself. You will win. Hartz will even have to pay your legal costs. However, the dollars are peanuts to them...they don't care as long as they shut you up and the word spreads that they'll take you to court if you speak the truth about their products. They do not, however, have the power to keep all our voices stifled. If just a small percentage of the people that complain about Hartz on the web or blogs would take the time to write to the EPA's director of Office of Pesticide Programs, Debra Edwards, and tell her how we feel it would make a world of difference. Or write your local newspaper watchdog reporter...there's actually some newspapers and television media that still have some backbone. Thank you for speaking up. Many veterinarians are afraid to do this. If Hartz continues to intimidate you please contact me...I know a resource that is not afraid to take them on. All the best.

62
by on 04/08/2009 11:46am

Your article spoke the truth and I appluad you for doing just that. There is nothing illegal about warning consumers to the masses of store bought products out there that could and DO kill pets. Hartz is the one that should cease and desist. Using chemical THAT deadly should be banned, yet with any large corporation it's all about " how cheap can I make this". and they literally " get away with murder"...our society has  been sadly abused by this corporate mentantality by SO many companies producing lethal dog food and pet items such as this, and who pays for it? Our pets. I Challenge HARTZ to start making SAFE products that will not kill our pets. Thank you for taking a stand, you have my support .

63
by on 04/08/2009 10:56am

What's wrong with speaking the truth? Let it be known the dangers out there!Kudos to you! My yellow Lab got very ill after I washed her with Hartz flea shampoo! She was shaking terribly,Couldn't walk,I had to carry her to rewash her in plain soap! Once the poison was off she was ok! My children were terrified! They thought mommy had killed their beloved Sunny!

64
by on 04/08/2009 10:30am

Gee, I also recommend that people not use OTC pet products in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.paws-and-effect.com">my weekly cat advice column</a> as well. Maybe I ought to mention Hartz specifically, in at least one column because it sounds like it could be some great publicity for my website! :-)


But really, I'm glad you're standing firm on this one. Your clients and your readers will thank you for caring enough to keep pet health first in your mind (as you're obligated to do as a veterinarian) and not kowtowing to goliaths of industry.

65
by on 04/07/2009 05:24pm

Kate H and all: In the future, first bathe your pets in Dawn. Rinsing is useful but stripping all the oils in the coat helps reduce the stickiness of the stuff. And then get to the vet afterwards. Bathing first is almost always a great start if you can use a degreasing soap like Dawn.

66
by on 04/07/2009 01:41pm

In 1983 I moved to Houston (bad idea, I moved back 4 months later), and the fleas were horrendous - along with cockroaches and fire ants - yeck!! My older sister said she used Zodiac dip all the time - she never said it was only for dogs (she didn't have cats), and I used it on my cat. Three minutes after starting my cat was gagging and convulsing. I rinsed and rinsed and rinsed, and he did live, but it was horrible. Then I read the fine print, and things were never the same between my 'genius' sister and me. And I've never used any OTC product on my cats since then - actually never used any flea products on a cat at all. I do use treatment on my dogs, occasionally, when I know we're going into a field or the woods, but it's usually a citronella-based oil meant for people. We just don't go into those places very often.


Hartz and all its buddies should pound it, trying to tell you and the Herald what to print. And the Herald should grow some, as not backing you shows an appalling lack of ... class.

67
by on 04/06/2009 10:01pm

Shame on Hartz for threatening you with legal action for giving the sort of information that pet owners need to keep their animals safe. Thank you for telling the truth.

68
by on 04/05/2009 09:11am

Agreed that natural is not safer. Xylitol, after all, is 100% natural and 100% fatal to dogs in even small doses. Beware your sugar substitutes in mints, gums and sugar-free sweets!


And yes, I agree with Anna: Not all veterinarians mark up the good stuff. We, too, barely make enough $ on these products to cover the inventory management and occasional "walking out the back door" that happens with these expensive products. The bottom line is that they're expensive. But they work and they're, by and large, extremely safe.

69
by on 04/04/2009 11:04pm

I agree that natural doesn't mean safer...pyrethrin's natural! As to the markup on flea/tick products, that's mostly from the manufacturer, not the clinc - at least that's the case at my clinic. Our profit on Advantix, Advantage, etc., is measly...and barely covers the cost of stocking the product.

70
by on 04/04/2009 04:45pm

I would dearly like to see pet shops and supermarkets cease selling inferior and dangerous products for pets. Perhaps if the manufacturers of the safer, more advanced products dropped their prices (and some vets dropped their mark-up a bit too) and the products were only available from vets, there would be fewer pets injured from application of these damaging substances.

Similarly, I'd like to see a large scale restriction of selling untested "natural" and so called "harmless" products in pet shops too. Particularly products containing essential oils. Again and again these oils (specificlaly the very potent, high note phenolics/terpenes - tea tree, cedar, eucalyptus etc) have resulted in cats suffering the most appalling deaths. These oils are present in many OTC skin/coat products for sale in the UK. Unfortunately, those who sell and buy them are lured by the Kool Aid promise into thinking that if it's natural it must be harmless. Not so. The number of vets and vet nurses who are ignorant of the danger of these substance appears to be quite high too, given the number of surgeries I see still selling products that contain them.

I'd also like to see a wide spread education programme for those who work in pet shops here too. Many staff seem utterly clueless regarding toxicity when giving advice to owners.


Hats off to Dr Patty for standing up to Hartz and shame on the Miami Herald for not backing her up!

71
by on 04/04/2009 03:40pm

If Hartz really cared, they would stop marketing any products for cats that contain pyrethroids (the chemical class that permethrin and phenothrin fall into). Any medication has to balance the risks to benefits, but pyrethroids and cats should not mix. Period.

72
by on 04/04/2009 02:16am

Holistic approach, the best!  Natural herbal insect repellent (cedar oil, citronella oil, etc.)  Why use toxins on dogs and cats if the manufacturer warns:  TO PREVENT HARM TO YOU AND YOUR PET. . .If it can harm humans, you can imagine what it does to a poor animal.


 


 



<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->



<a target="_blank" href="http://alabamavetboardwatch.110mb.com/Asp-index.htm">Asproolee’s Story</a>


 

73
by on 04/03/2009 10:44pm

Hartz is crap, no argument there. But...I happen to love permethrin-laced Advantix & Vectra3D for my dogs (incidentally, Banfield just came to an agreement to market Summit Vet Pharm's Vectra3D as the proprietary "FirstShield" in its clincs). Both provide excellent tick & mosquito protection, IMO - due to permethrin. I'm careful to wash my hands after applying and to not let my freshly treated dogs anywhere near my cats (not that they do, anyway), and as long as these precautions are followed, I think the products are perfectly safe and beneficial. I and my coworkers wholeheartedly recommend these products to dog owners, even if they share the home with a cat or two, with an emphasis on safety precautions.

74
by on 04/03/2009 10:39pm

Well, kudos to you for speaking out but I am sorry you've had to backtrack at all.


Threats and intimidation into silence is the modis operandi (sp?) of all those industries who make money by exploiting our love for our pets, and they generally only PRETEND to have any real caring about our pets well being, its generally about $$$. When you speak out about harm being done to pets by monied, organized entities get ready to be threatened. What else is new? I am sorry more people (the paper, et al) don't just have the cahones to ignore them. Just speak the truth and fear nothing. It's all we can do.

75
by on 04/03/2009 10:26pm

I don't like this product at all and as a manger for a major pet retailed I don't recommend it. Several years ago my dog reacted to the topical I applied to her. It was the right dose for the right animals and she had seizures for about 20 hours. It turned my already loopey dog into a crazy loopey dog due to the long seizures.

Thanks for putting this out there.

76
by on 04/03/2009 09:40pm

what can I say...my name is Lorri and I am addicted to bad science fiction...also good science fiction and pretty much anything printed but hysterical romances...oops, I mean historical....


when I start quoting Piers Anothny then you should be worried....I read way too many of those too.


 


 


 

77
by on 04/03/2009 08:56pm

Good for you Dr. Khuly, and shame on the Miami Herald!


For years I've told people to avoid Hartz, that their products are not safe. I won't have anything from Hartz  in the house or on or near my pets.


When flea collars were all there was, yes, sure, I used them. I don't think I ever thought they were really safe, although when I was a kid that must have come from my parents insisting that hands be washed whenever the flea collar was handled.


It clearly hasn't occurred to Hartz that most of the people who would have read what you had to say about Hartz products and been influenced against them, are likely to see your blog post and be more influenced against them. And if they were to get you shut down, that wouldn't help either--especially since they can't silence you for speaking the truth. I bet Christie and/or Gina would be happy to interview you over on the Pet Connection, for instance. :)


LorriM, I read your comment and said, did she just reference what I think she did? Yes, of course she did. :)

78
by on 04/03/2009 08:01pm

If Hartz wants a fight they came to the right place...even if the Herald is full of a bunch of neutered wimps all of your readers have "balls" and won't back down. My mom almost lost her dog and did lose one puppy to Hartz products but at the time (25 years ago) no one knew or cared what was in their crap. As far as I'm concerned their products are still crap and I would never use them. I'd really like to see them brought down...

79
by on 04/03/2009 07:40pm

Dr. K...glad you got the spice comment....despite my lack of typing skills and run on words today.


I wish I was surprised the newspaper wouldn't back you up, but I am not.  It's a rare company that will stand up for what's right vs. the bottom dollar.


you made the right call though....I've seen many sick cats/kittens from hartz flea treatments. my sister almost killed 4 kittens with flea powder about 12 years ago. accidently. You do kind of "ass ume" because it's packaged friendly and sold in the grocery store it IS safe...

80
by on 04/03/2009 06:55pm

I didn't realize Hartz had removed permethrin from its topical products. I guess that is because I never pick up the stuff. :)


It is good to know they responded to the bad publicity. Without the very kind of publicity you just created, and they subsequently protested, the change would never have occured. I wonder how often they pulled the same kind of stunts back when they DID have permethrin in the products?


I hope they don't go after this blog- I sense that could backfire on them big time.

81
by on 04/03/2009 06:45pm

Back in the days---the 90's actually--- before I was converted to Advantage we were constantly battling fleas in my cattery. It was a never-ending nightmare of baths, powders, foggers and dips. Fleas love it where I live! One day I picked up a couple of packages of Hartz topical, thinking it would be the same as the more expensive Advantage (at the time I didn't know what was in Advantage).  After applying it, I noticed that the cats' coats were greasy.  I was a bit uneasy about it, but the cats seemed to be ok...until I applied it again and lost a sweet loving Exotic who had a massive reaction to the second exposure.


I threw the stuff away and switched to Advantage. No amount of money saved was worth the health and lives of my cats.   I just wish I had known. ...


RIP dear Flare.


 


khatti

82
by on 04/03/2009 06:32pm

How about the OTC collars with "amitraz"? I shudder everytime someone tells me they buy flea products at the supermarket.


Sure 30 yrs ago, not much was available, there was no choice. I stick to Frontline only....!


Barbara A. Albright/NH

83
by on 04/03/2009 06:27pm

Dr. K, I like your style today!  Sounds like time for us all to write letters to the Miami Herald editor.  Lovely thing about the internet.  You can always post under a nom de plume although I don't think they have much of a chance of putting a muzzle on you :)  If they try, let us know when and where to show up for the protest march in front of the courthouse!


BOYCOTT Hartz.  Pass it on!

84
by on 04/03/2009 06:15pm

That's sad that they won't back you up on this.  As a feline veterinarian myself, myself and my staff very strongly discourage our clients from using any OTC flea products on their cats.  There are so many adverse reactions and horror stories from people who have used them...as one of my assistants said, "I don't understand why they even still sell these products."  Kudos to you for trying to educate people where you can!  

85
by on 04/03/2009 06:09pm

Hartz tossers probably threatened to sue the Herald as well. What a pack of wankers !

Everybody that has ever had a cat die from their products should sue them.

86
by on 04/03/2009 06:05pm

Stick to your guns. You've not made any claim that can't be adequately defended in court with scientific evidence.

Its time these tosser companies took some responsibility rather than just threaten to shut people up via their lawyers.

87
by on 04/03/2009 05:54pm

Unfortunate. I guess it isn't a sexy enough topic for them to bother spending money on a lawyer.

88
by on 04/03/2009 05:21pm

And that is precisely the problem with traditional journalism today. They are all beholden to their advertisers and given their financial positions, they all run at the first sound of a lawsuit.

So much for a free press.

89
by on 04/03/2009 04:16pm

Lorri: Can't let the spice reference go. Good point.


All: An update. Interestingly, the Miami Herald isn't backing me on this. They're running their own errata notice, one which leaves them clean but one which also implies that Hartz products are safe for cats. Not happy now.

90
by on 04/03/2009 04:04pm

Don't you love big brother, I mean big business trying to control the spice...oops I mean flow of information....


the spice must flow....


 


tongue in cheek....if you read sci , then you will know I am not nuts just beinfacetious


 


we must stand up for our animals....there are a lot of products out there that are harmful...to small children as well. Good for you.

91
by on 04/03/2009 03:10pm

Susan: Still, I do worry. I was actually advised not to post this today. They could shut me down if they happened upon a judge sympathetic to big business. I wouldn't lose sleep, no. They wouldn't hurt my income stream, after all, since I make no money off Dolittler. But it would hurt my soul, yes. 

92
by on 04/03/2009 03:07pm

Years ago we almost lost a cat to hartz "blockade"  that was LABELED for cats.  When we went to the vets there was a big sign in the waiting room warning people not to use it.  Turns out it had something to do with the combo of chemicals in it.  That was the last time i ever used a hartz product.


I work part time in a pet store, I gently steer people away from hartz when they ask questions.

93
by on 04/03/2009 02:46pm

Don't consider this legal advice (ass covering! ass covering!), but I would not lose too much sleep worrying about the potential lawsuit. There would be far too much testimony about toxic effects Hartz products DID have on cats....the opposite of what it wants aired in public.  JMHO.

94
by on 04/03/2009 02:32pm

Dr. Khuly - there is one more, Vectra 3D for dogs contains Pymethrin. Interestingly enough the same company that manufactures Vectra (Summit) also owns Hartz. Shocker!

95
by on 04/03/2009 01:50pm

According to the Center for Public Integrity, pyrethroid products account for more than half of the 25,000 reported pet pesticide reactions in the last five years. Sergeants and Hartz are commonly reported in these events. The EPA has not confirmed the authenticity of all of these reports, but my experience in veterinary hospitals tells me that these products are MUCH more dangerous than Advantage, Frontline or Revolution.

Hartz just needs to get over themselves....they were also implicated in some investigative reporting by KNBC in Los Angeles recently.

96
by on 04/03/2009 01:32pm

I worked at a vets office a few years back .  A young lady brought in several young kittens that had suddenly gotten very ill. She said that all she had done was bath them. When Dr . Donna asked her with what, we had the answer. Hartz flea bath for dogs. The young lady was stunned that the pet store would sell her such a deadly product. The kittens died. Tell Hartz to blow it out their ear.` Nough said.

97
by on 04/03/2009 01:25pm

Dr K,


You dispense excellent and timely information. I hope your response to Hartz and the Herald puts this "paper to rest". I liked the litter that Carolyn wrote to Hartz, too...thanks to her for taking the time to do that! At the practice I work at, we try to use the "chemical" appropriate to the home and lifestyle the cat has and we carry 4 products but tailor what we dispense to the animals needs, from Advantage to Frontline Plus, to Revolution to Advantage Multi.


 


ulzyc


 

98
by on 04/03/2009 12:33pm

Hartz is horrible.


When I was a young and naive first-time rescuer many years ago, I had a horrid flea problem with some of my fosters and this was before I was educated enough to use Advantage, etc. I went to the store, got Hartz flea shampoo for the cats, and set to work. I bathed all NINE cats, several times over a month. Then, to my horror, my 5-year-old Persian foster began to seize and wobble one afternoon. Rushed him to the ER, then proceeded to force a medication down his throat every 4 hours for the next three days. I refused sleep and sat vigil with him. He recovered, but only after intensive care and a lot of effort from myself, my vet and a few close friends who stopped by to watch him so I could take short naps. 


The Hartz toxins had soaked into the fatty tissues in his skin and we could have lost him. I will never forget that moment ever, and I will never ever use Hartz products (or any other OTC meds) ever again. Godzilla is now 18 years old and a happy, healthy Persian boy who only talks to me when it's time to eat. (Yes, I kept him... that was too traumatic for me not to!).

99
by on 04/03/2009 11:35am

Leave the lady alone WHIMPS.  Now that I got your attention what is it you don't get about the obvious? People don't want that crap. Find a safer solution for your product and no one will complain it's that SIMPLE.


 

100
by on 04/03/2009 11:28am

...maybe the continued long-term use of permethrin has resulted in super-sensitive skin?

I appreciate your hanging it out there in the interest of pet owners' education.

101
by on 04/03/2009 11:16am

Dr. Patty,
Here is a copy of what I wrote to Hartz.

"Dr. Dolittler is a wonderful column that gives out information. Your reaction to her giving out of ACCURATE information is disgusting.

The result is that NOW I will no longer be interested in purchasing any of your products.

Years ago I nearly killed my cat because I did not have the ACCURATE INFORMATION that Dr. Dolittler dispenses. Had I read her column, my cat would have been spared the agnony she endured.

So, you need to dial back your insecurity and let the free press do its thing.

It appears to me that you are more interested in YOUR bottom line that serving your customers.

Nice job! And, in a recession.

You may count me in the ranks of former Hartz users and I'll be sure to tell all my pet owning friends."

Customer SERVICE needs to be re-instilled in the corporate mind.

All the best,
Carolyn Wilson

102
by on 04/03/2009 10:27am

You speak naught but the truth. Kudos to you.

I gave up on anything Hartz many years ago & with sensitive skinned greyhounds I'd never consider using any permethrin based product.

If Hartz takes exception to what you say perhaps it's time for them to rethink their products & provide the public with those that will do no harm or at least far less harm than some of the existing ones.

LEAVE COMMENTS

Connect with Facebook or login to leave comments.


About fully vetted

Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA

Photo of Dr Khuly

Dr. Khuly is a former petMD blogger and small animal veterinarian in Miami, Florida, where she practices medicine at Sunset Animal Clinic and serves on the board of the South Florida Veterinary Medical Association. She is a graduate of Wellesley College, the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, and The Wharton School of Business.

As a significant sideline, she writes...a lot. She authors pet health columns for USA Today, The Miami Herald and Vetstreet. She also writes a popular monthly column for Veterinary Practice News and serves as regular contributor to Veterinary Economics, The Bark, and the Veterinary News Network.

Dr. Khuly lives in South Miami with her brood of hens, goats, dogs, cats...and humans.

Subscribe to Fully Vetted

Most Read Fully Vetted Articles

Check Your Pet Food Bags!
The recall of pet foods manufactured at a Diamond Pet Food plant in Gaston, S.C....
READ MORE
No Excuse for Skipping Rabies Vaccination
The Carlsbad, New Mexico area just suffered through one of the worst rabies outbreaks...
READ MORE
Any Dog Can Bite
May 20-26 is National Dog Bite Prevention Week. Being bitten is just one of the...
READ MORE
A New Link Between Pet and Human Health
A study appearing in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases points to a new link...
READ MORE

Most Commented Articles

No Excuse for Skipping Rabies Vaccination
The Carlsbad, New Mexico area just suffered through one of the worst rabies outbreaks...
READ MORE
Does Horse Racing Deserve Your Support?
I breathed a big sigh of relief on the evening of Saturday, May 5. The 138th running...
READ MORE
Maggots: Thumbs Up or Down?
The weather is starting to heat up here in Colorado, which means that any day...
READ MORE
Palliative Care ≠ Murder
I talked yesterday about compassion fatigue, which often develops when caregivers...
READ MORE
 
MORE FROM PETMD.COM
©1999-2012 petMD, LLC. All Rights Reserved
x
Stay informed about your pet's health...and more!