Message Board
February 2010
I would like to inform you that I may have just broken the proof barrier concerning my case against Frontline and its maker Merial.
My cat developed all the side affects listed on the box 24 hours after application, only instead of mild and gentle as described they were extreme and by no means gentle. My
cat couldn't walk and was salivating profusely. We rushed her to vet hospital. I could not
get any vet to admit out right that it was from Frontline. They can't for one [say] they promote the product and second you can not prove it. Well I have in writing from a neuro specialist that my cat was diagnosed with Idiopathic (unknown cause) Vestibular Disease AND the product Frontline can not be ruled out. Now if statistics can hold up in science they should hold up in a court of law - the odds of my cat developing this disease at 5 yrs of age is very rare. The odds of her developing the disease 24 hours after the application of Frontline is astronomical. Any educated person can see the relationship here if none of them work at Merial.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions and/or lawyers you would recommend. Merial has denied my claim as expected, only stating the obvious, that she was diagnosed with Vestibular Disease ignoring the rest of the actual statement. I have also requested reports from EPA to see what is actually being reported.
Erin 2/2/10
***************************************************************************************
CONSUMER ALERT
On February 9, Bayer Animal Health announced that it was ending its policy of selling its Advantage and K9 Advantix flea control products exclusively through veterinarians. Here
is an article about it:
Also on February 9, the American Veterinary Medical Association issued the following response on its website:
"Bayer Animal Health has announced that its popular flea and tick products, formerly available only through veterinarians, will now be available at pet specialty retail and pet specialty internet outlets."
"Your veterinarian is still your best source of information about animal health, including
flea and tick prevention. Please consult with your veterinarian before using flea and tick products to make sure you are using the right product at the correct dose for your pet. Improper product use, such as using products labeled for use on dogs for cats or using doses that are too high for your pet, can cause illness or even death. Follow all label directions very carefully and consult with your veterinarian immediately if you observe
any signs of illness in your pet."
On February 11, Summit VetPharm announced that it had entered into an agreement with MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. to distribute its Vectra flea control products in all 50 states. Here is the press release regarding it:
Bayer's decision to stop selling Advantage and K9 Advantix exclusively to veterinarians
will undoubtedly cause some vets to stop selling these products and begin to offer other flea control products (such as Summit VetPharm's Vectra 3D) that are sold exlusively by veterinarians. Vets prefer to be the exclusive source of these products because it is difficult for them to compete with large discount retailers.
If your vet stops selling Advantage and K9 Advantix, and recommends switching to Summit VetPharm's Vectra 3D, here are some things you should know. Summit VetPharm and Hartz Mountain are both subsidiaries of the Sumitomo Corporation. Vectra 3D was actually created by Hartz.
Here is the patent for Vectra 3D, which lists The Hartz Mountain Corporation as the Assignee:
According to comments submitted to the EPA by the Humane Society of the United States last August, the HSUS continues to receive complaints regarding Hartz flea and tick products more than any other manufacturer. Here are their comments:
Vectra 3D is also sold exclusively at Banfield Hospitals under the name
FirstShield Trio (First Shield Trio), which is distributed by Schuyler, LLC.
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Below are comments that I submitted to the EPA on 2/16/10 concerning the registration review of the pesticide cyphenothrin, which is the active ingredient in several Sergeant's flea and tick products, including:
Sergeant's Gold Flea & Tick Squeeze-On for Dogs
Sergeant's Silver Flea & Tick Squeeze-On for Dogs
Sentry Pro XFC
TriForce Canine Squeeze-On (marketed by Agri Labs)
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
POSSIBLE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
(Below is a message that was posted on HartzVictims.org on 2/15/10)
I am a class action lawyer in the San Francisco area, investigating the toxicity of Hartz
and Sargent flea products and the possibility of filing a class action against the companies. I am very sorry for your loss and pain. Please contact me if you would like to talk about your experience and help us get these products off of the market. Thanks very much.
Jacqueline Mottek
Positive Legal Group
415.302.5371 (cell)
***************************************************************************************
ANOTHER POSSIBLE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
A class action law firm Green & Pagano LLP is currently investigating complaints from
New Jersey and New York residents whose pets were harmed by spot-on products.
If your pet was harmed by a spot-on product within the past couple years and you live
in New Jersey or New York, please visit their website: www.SpotOnComplaints.com
or call Michael Green at (732) 390-0480.
***************************************************************************************
CONSUMER ALERT
On February 5, 2010, the California Environmental Protection Agency added carbaryl (CAS No. 63-25-2) to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Here is the announcement:
Carbaryl is the active ingredient in flea collars for dogs and cats made by Wellmark International, and sold under the following brands:
Adams Flea Collar for Cats
Adams Flea Collar for Dogs
Zodiac FleaTrol Flea Collar for Cats
Zodiac FleaTrol Flea Collar for Dogs
On September 30, 2009, Wellmark notified the EPA that it intends to cancel its carbaryl-based flea collars for pets, effective September 30, 2010. Under an agreement with the EPA, Wellmark International will be allowed to sell or distribute its existing inventory until December 30, 2010.
However, the EPA will allow retailers to sell Adams and Zodiac brand carbaryl-based flea collars until their existing inventory is exhausted, which may be well beyond December 30, 2010.
***************************************************************************************
BREAKING NEWS
In a significant victory for pet owners and consumers -- including animal advocates, courageous veterinarians, vet technicians and everyone concerned with adverse health affects of pesticide products -- Hartz Mountain Corporation was defeated in a jury trial
on January 12, 2010, in Austin, Texas.
Mr. Frank Bowers, of Austin, pursued his legal rights after losing his Olde English Bulldog (that was fourteen months old) to Hartz's flea and tick product in August of 2008. The trial, case number 015246, was held in Travis County, Precinct 3, presided by Judge Susan Steeg and heard by a jury panel of six. The jury deliberated only 20 minutes and returned the verdict in favor of Mr. Bowers.
Mr. Bowers, after unsuccessfully attempting to resolve his problems with Hartz without
legal action, courageously moved forward and sought relief through our justice system. He should be commended and applauded for his courage, preparation and determination in taking on a corporation that has much more resources.
Everyone that has been harmed by Hartz Mountain, Sergeant's, BioSpot, Zodiac or any other manufacturer or enabler of these lethal products should be inspired and encouraged by the actions of Mr. Bowers and a jury of his peers. The jury had no trouble quickly discerning the facts--something the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which registers the products, and major retailers that enable their distribution, have recklessly ignored for many years.
A significant and important victory for companion animals and their guardians. A jury of average citizens believed that, in fact, these pesticide products can cause serious injury
or death, even when used according to manufacturer's directions, and someone is going
to be held accountable.
Anonymous 2/19/10
Here are some additional details regarding this case:
The product that Frank Bowers used was Hartz UltraGuard Pro. The product was applied in the evening. No symptoms were noticed until the next morning when Mr. Bowers took
his dog on their morning walk. His dog seemed unusually lethargic, no energy. About 2/3 of the way home he could no longer walk; just laid on the road. The dog was 67 lbs. so
Mr. Bowers could not carry him home...he ran home and got his truck and took him home.
Incidentally, the temperature was only 67 degrees...it was 6 a.m. I mention this because
the Hartz attorney brought up the potential for heat exhaustion. Mr. Bowers had brought
the newspaper's weather information as part of his evidence expecting this tactic.
Later in the day the dog had diarrhea, could not stand on his own, salivating, eyes rolling. Mr. Bowers took him to the vet where they started intravenous. His condition worsened
and by the next morning the vets told Mr. Bowers that the dog had complete kidney failure and potential liver damage. They said there was nothing they could do for him and Mr. Bowers authorized he be euthanized.
This lawsuit was a small claims court action. Small claims court suits can be filed in the location where the damage was incurred versus the manufacturer's location. The dollar maximum for small claims in Texas is $10,000, but that amount varies state by state.
Amazingly, Mr. Bowers represented himself, he did not hire an attorney. That's not unusual in small claims court. He requested a jury trial which is the plaintiff's prerogative in Texas.
It doesn't have to be a jury trial but that's what he wanted.
The Hartz attorney spent six weeks being tutored by a veterinarian in preparation for the case. She used her peremptory challenges to remove four potential jurors (the limit in
small claims court) because they were pet owners. Additionally, 3 out of the 4 raised their hands when she asked them if anyone had experienced a problem with flea and tick products! Mr. Bowers did not dismiss any potential jurors.
Mr. Bowers had an extensive amount of documentation that he wanted to enter as evidence. He had an expert opinion by a DVM with an advanced veterinary teaching degree that supported his case. This expert witness, who did not attend to Mr. Bower's
dog during the crisis but did review the work of the two attending veterinarians, wrote a deposition but did not appear in person. He also added a lot of academic expert opinion about these products and the risks of the pesticide ingredients.
Mr. Bowers also submitted statements from the two attending veterinarians. They said
his dog's symptoms were a reaction to the ingredient "permethrin" in Hartz's flea and tick product. Hartz's attorney stated that Hartz does not use permethrin in their flea and tick products, they use "phenothrin". Therefore, she was discrediting the medical opinions
of the two veterinarians.
Mr. Bowers had a friend in the courtroom who is a close friend of someone who teaches veterinary medicine at the University of Texas (also taught at Texas A & M and a community college). During a break in court proceedings, they called the professor and he told them that phenothrin is a patented ingredient and produced by Hartz Mountain and there is no significant medical difference between permethrin and phenothrin on animal neurosystems. He told Mr. Bowers to tell the judge and jury that they are "one and the same" and they are capable of causing damage, including death. Mr. Bowers went back to the courtroom and introduced the professor by name and credentials and stated exactly what the professor had told him. The judge accepted this opinion into evidence.
The Hartz attorney objected to much of the documentation that Mr. Bowers wanted to introduce as evidence--much of it from the EPA, quite a bit of research he copied from
the internet and other sources. The Hartz attorney was successful in getting 84 documents tossed out for various reasons, some technical, i.e., the court wouldn't accept copies of documents pulled from the internet, almost all other documents also had to be the originals, some for other reasons where the judge upheld the defense's objections.
Hartz's attorney spoke a lot about only a very small percentage of animals potentially being adversely impacted, and most of those had some underlying disease or predisposed condition that put them at a higher risk. She relied heavily on the EPA registration process protecting consumers and pets, and spoke a lot about the testing and quality processes. She also spoke about most cases of adverse incidents being caused by the consumer in terms of misapplication, wrong product, etc., etc., attempting to place doubt in the jurors minds about whether or not Mr. Bowers had misapplied the product.
Mr. Bowers was interrupted many times by the Hartz attorney's objections and the judge almost always ruled Mr. Bowers out of order and sustained her objections. The judge told the jury several times to disregard Mr. Bowers' comments. However, when the verdict was read, which was a unanimous decision in favor of Mr. Bowers, the Hartz attorney was slack-jawed and stunned...she just couldn't believe it.
Hartz had 10 business days after the jury verdict to appeal the case and they chose not
to do so.
How to Sue in Small Claims Court (the law for each state varies)
ConsumerAffairs.com posted an outstanding article on this story on March 9, 2010:
YOU MUST READ THIS!!!
***************************************************************************************
Below are comments that I submitted to the EPA on 2/22/10 concerning their proposal
to disclose the identities of inert ingredients on pesticide product labels:
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
I initially tried Vectra for my dog on February 8, 2010. I took my 28 lb. schnauzer to
his veterinarian, in which they applied his first treatment of Vectra. As the day went my
dog slept longer than usual and I was a little concerned. The next day my dog started running and scooting on the floor, howling and whining and biting at his rear end and
thighs. I was very upset. I took him for his usual walk and it didn't seem as though he
could do his business because he was in pain. I called his vet and took him in, but they said they couldn't find anything and they continued to defend the fact that it was not the topical treatment, Vectra. I have bathed him twice, the vet has bathed him. I trimmed
the fur area where he has been biting and the vet has trimmed his fur. I have
administered liquid Benadryl, now a whole bottle to this day, February 24th. He is still reacting very strangely as if he is in pain, he sits awkwardly and does not walk the same. The vet said he took my dog out for a walk to assess the behavior on February 23rd, but
he claims that he saw no peculiar signs of trauma to my dog. When I picked up my dog
on the evening of the 23rd, my dog still continued to run, scoot, growl and whine and showed the same awkward movements that his hind area and the licking of his thighs
were very irritating as if something was burning him. I took my dog to the Vet again
today, February 24. I have now spent close to $300.00. I am searching for a new Vet
as well. I just called an attorney on this web site and left a message. I pray that my
dog does not have a terminal condition from this B.S.!
Ywanna 2/24/10
You mentioned that you used Vectra, but was it Vectra or Vectra 3D? Both products
are capable of causing skin irritation, but only Vectra 3D contains permethrin, which
makes it even more toxic (in my opinion).
James TerBush
I just called my Vet and it is the Vectra 3D.
Ywanna 2/25/10
***************************************************************************************
(Below is email that I sent to Kimberly Nesci at the EPA on 2/25/10)
Dear Ms. Nesci,
Here is an interesting article that was published yesterday in the New York Times concerning a possible link between chemical pollutants and autism:
The article doesn't specifically mention pesticides, but your Agency is well aware of the potential developmental risks of pesticides, including the pesticides found in spot-on products for pets.
I wanted to bring this article to your attention because (as you know) pets treated with
spot-on products represent one of the most dangerous residential exposure scenarios
for toddlers. Also, since pet stroking studies are no longer permitted by the EPA, it is impossible to determine how much pesticide residue is dislodged during pet contact, therefore, the Agency must rely on assumptions that may or may not be correct.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
I wanted to post on your site as I feel helpless for what just happened to my dog. I have a small Scottish Terrier who is happy and healthy. I applied Sergants Flea and Tick Control
to him a couple of days ago. I applied it at his shoulders. He now has an oozing sore at the exact site of application. Coincidence? Not likely! As a result, I will most likely end up with
a hefty vet bill if it does not clear up in a day or two. I bathed him to remove the product and have applied antibiotic ointment to see if this helps. He is otherwise ok. Thanks for putting up this site to warn pet owners of the dangers of these products. I will never use them again!
Wendy 2/28/10
Copyright © 2002-2010 BioSpotVictims.org All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER: Below are messages that I have received from others whose dogs and cats experienced adverse reactions after using flea control products. I have no way of knowing if the information in these messages is factual, or if the products they used were the actual cause of the adverse reactions.
Search
