Message Board
October 2011
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
On 3/2/10, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed on behalf of pet owners against Hartz, Sergeant's, and Summit VetPharm (maker of Vectra and Vectra 3D, which are sold by Banfield Pet Hospital's under the name FirstShield and FirstShield Trio).
On 8/25/10, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed on behalf of pet owners against Central Garden and Pet - the parent company of Farnam (maker of Adams and Bio Spot flea and tick products) and Wellmark International (maker of Zodiac flea and tick products).
The lawsuits seek injunctive relief in the form of a recall of the offending products, a refund of the purchase price, for compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief.
For additional information concerning this lawsuit, click here.
If your pet was harmed by a flea and tick product made by one of the above mentioned companies, and you would like to participate in this class action, please contact:
Jacqueline Mottek
Positive Legal Group
415.302.5371 (cell)
***************************************************************************************
(Below is email that I received from Wade Britton at the EPA on 9/30/11)
Mr. TerBush - Please find attached the pet spot-on analysis and mitigation
plan response to comments document dated today, September 30, 2011.
The document can also be found posted on the EPA website at the following
links:
We have arranged for the document to be posted to the docket (ID:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0229) as well; however, it may take a few days to
process and will likely be available early this coming week.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter and your patience
as we worked to address all issues raised during the public comment
period.
Wade
(See attached file: Response to Comments - Pet Spot-on Analysis and
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Wade Britton, MPH
Acting Coordinator of Pet Spot-On Product Mitigation
Registration Division
Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch
Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA
(703)308-0139
(Below is email that I sent to Wade Britton in response on 9/30/11)
Mr. Britton,
I just finished reading the EPA's Pet Spot-On Response to Comments Document and
I must say that I am terribly disappointed. After waiting sixteen months for its release,
I expected a more thorough response from the EPA. Sadly, most of it appears to have
been cut-and-pasted from existing EPA documents.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Re: EPA Pet Spot-on Response to Comments Document
Jim...as long as the EPA releases and stands by statements such as below
that most incidents are `minor' (and wrote the evaluation as if major adverse
incidents were uncommon....`unfortunately there were SOME pet deaths and
major incidents'.....unfortunately, indeed! ). How many is SOME? Fifteen?
Fifty? One-Thousand ? Twenty Thousand?? Where are the numbers? We
know this `general' statement unfairly minimizes the horrors that our pets
have experienced via veterinary application of spot-on products. I am fearful
consumers will never be protected from the systemic poisoning caused to
their pets by pesticide products that have been and continue to be so poorly
regulated. I am not sure who these `team of veterinarians 'are that the EPA
has on staff but they clearly have not revealed due diligence in their research.
The sentence below provided to the public regarding the EPA's research
into spot-on products is very confusing to those of us who have suffered
unspeakable sadness from witnessing results from these products. We have
reported adverse reactions to the registrants with minimal interest exhibited
on the other end of the line... most of us hearing,the famous mantra.... "our
product could NOT HAVE caused your pet's illness." We continue to feel
perplexed in how these calls were/are reported, counted and audited. We
have watched feeling totally helpless as our pets became critically ill
subsequently spending thousands of dollars in veterinary medical care to
try to save their lives.
Like you Jim I am extremely disappointed in this released document.
Clearly after all of the time the EPA spent in analyzing the mitigation
measures it is evident that we are certainly not much closer in removing
these dangerous products from the market. Who do we rely on to
protect us?
Sincerely,
Jan 9/30/11
Phila., PA.
for `Choe' Frontline survivor
from the evaluation report:
EPA found that the products could be used safely but that some additional
restrictions are needed. EPA’s team of veterinarians learned that most
incidents were minor, but unfortunately there were some pet deaths and
“major incidents” reported. The Agency learned that the most commonly
affected organ systems were dermal, gastrointestinal, and nervous.
I totally agree with you, Jan. The EPA has put this issue on the back burner
and it will not receive any more attention until it boils over again. The only way
these harmful pet products will ever be removed from the market is if people
stop buying them and find safer alternatives.
Hopefully, other countries will adopt stricter pesticide regulations than the
U.S. and refuse to buy our products because they are simply too dangerous
for people, pets, and the environment.
James TerBush
***************************************************************************************
Here are comments that were submitted last year by the Animal Health Institute
(a national trade association that represents manufacturers of animal health products)
regarding the EPA's pet spot-on evaluation and risk mitigation plan:
***************************************************************************************
hey one of our neighbors have a dog that they used bio-spot flea and tick
control on. We have 7 cats and 2 of them are outside cats and they like to
play around with the neighbors dog and lay as well as lick the dog. today my
cats had the shakes and we were concerned as to why. later on this day
they became uncoordinated loss of balance appetite and just all around not
themselves. we were trying to figure out why and asked the neighbor if they
knew if their dog had been near anything unusual or rolled in anything weird
they replied with they had given their dog bio-spot flea and tick control 2
days ago and after we researched the medication we found that it is not to
be used on cats. I have the empty box of bio-spot and am wondering what
we can do to get help for our 2 outside cats in which the vet said to give
them penicillin and muscle relaxers to help fight off the unusual reactions
to the medication our neighbors dog used. it is either that or put them down
and now come to realize that this may cause permanent damage to our pets
including brain damage and other harmful things in which an animal doesn't
deserve that. the package the treatment came in has no list of side effects
on it as well as what to do if accidentally ingested by a cat all it says is do
not use on cats and that they may be at risk for serious harmful effects. but
doesn't list the exact effects and what to do if a cat comes in contact with
it as well as how i can treat the cat until i am able to afford a vet visit. if there
is anything you can do to help please conact me. thank you for your time.
Andrew 10/6/11
***************************************************************************************
Wall Street protesters fed up with both parties
By BETH FOUHY and VERENA DOBNIK , 10.06.11, 07:05 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- Their chief target is Wall Street, but many of the demonstrators in New York and across the U.S. are also thoroughly disgusted with Washington, blaming politicians of both parties for policies they say protect corporate America at the expense of the middle class. (emphasis added)
"At this point I don't see any difference between George Bush and Obama. The middle class is a lot worse than when Obama was elected," said John Penley, an unemployed legal worker from Brooklyn.
The Occupy Wall Street movement, which began last month with a small number of young people pitching a tent in front of the New York Stock Exchange, has expanded nationally and drawn a wide variety of activists, including union members and laid-off workers. Demonstrators marched Thursday in Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles and Anchorage, Alaska, carrying signs with slogans such as "Get money out of politics" and "I can't afford a lobbyist."
The protests are in some ways the liberal flip side of the tea party movement, which was launched in 2009 in a populist reaction against the bank and auto bailouts and the $787 billion economic stimulus plan.
But while tea party activists eventually became a crucial part of the Republican coalition, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are cutting President Barack Obama little slack. They say Obama failed to crack down on the banks after the 2008 mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.
"He could have taken a much more populist, aggressive stance at the beginning against Wall Street bonuses, and exacting certain change from bailing out the banks," said Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University history professor and author of "American Dreamers," a history of the left. "But ultimately, the economy has not gotten much better, and that's underscored the frustration on both the right and the left."
Obama on Thursday acknowledged the economic insecurities fueling the nearly 3-week-old Wall Street protests. But he pinned responsibility on the financial industry and on congressional Republicans he says have blocked his efforts to kick-start job growth.
"I think people are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works," he said at a nationally televised news conference. "The American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules, that Wall Street is an example of that ... and that's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond."
The president has been pushing for a $443 billion jobs plan to be paid for in part through a tax on the wealthy. Republicans have resisted such tax increases.
GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have criticized the anti-Wall Street protests. All the Republican contenders have also pushed back against the demonization of Wall Street. They accuse the Obama administration of setting regulatory policies that have stifled job creation and say his health care overhaul will prevent many businesses from hiring new workers.
In Zuccotti Park, the center of the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, activists expressed deep frustration with the political gridlock in Washington. While some blamed Republicans for blocking reform, others singled out Obama.
"His message is that he's sticking to the party line, which is `we are taking care of the situation.' But he's not proposing any solutions," said Thorin Caristo, an antiques store owner from Plainfield, Conn.
But Robert Arnow, a retired real estate worker, said the Republicans need to tell their congressional leaders, "You're standing in the way of change."
Quayzy Cayusso, a Web designer, didn't watch Obama's news conference even though it was broadcast on TV monitors at the protest site in New York.
"He's a cool president, but he was given a hard task," Cayusso said. "He should get some gratitude for what he's done so far, but he's been overlooking jobs and not putting much effort into that until now."
Associated Press writer Patrick Walters in Philadelphia contributed to this story.
***************************************************************************************
War On The EPA: Republican Bills Would Erase Decades Of Protection
WASHINGTON -- America's environmental protections are under a sweeping, concerted assault in Congress that could effectively roll back the federal government's ability to safeguard air and water more than 100 years, Democrats and advocates say.
The headlines have not been dramatic, and the individual attacks on relatively obscure rules seldom generate much attention beyond those who are most intently focused on environmental regulation.
But taken together, the separate moves -- led by House Republicans -- add up to a stunning campaign against governmental regulatory authority that is now surprisingly close to succeeding.
In just the year since the GOP took control of the House, there have been at least 159 votes held against environmental protections -- including 83 targeting the Environmental Protection Agency -- on the House floor alone, according to a list compiled by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"Republicans have made an assault on all environmental issues," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee. "This is, without doubt, the most anti-environmental Congress in history."
Some of the efforts are broad-based, like the TRAIN Act, which would install overseers for the EPA and require cost considerations to trump health and science concerns for new rules. Another such effort is the REINS Act, which essentially requires Congress to approve all new regulations, essentially granting each chamber the ability to veto the executive branch.
Both have passed the House and are pending in the Senate. Still another proposed measure that would have all-encompassing reach is the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would make cost the top consideration for all federal regulations.
"It single-handedly amends probably more laws of the United States than any law ever introduced in Congress," said John Walke, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Taken together, the measures would so hamstring regulators that they would effectively return the nation to the 1880s era of the nation's first modern-style regulator, the Interstate Commerce Commission, advocates say.
"This is a departure not just from recent political thinking but literally would be a reversal," said NRDC's David Goldston. "The last time this was a situation that prevailed was the 1890s."
"It shows just a profound disgust and disdain for the regulatory state that is unhinged from any facts or concerns for the benefits from those rules," said Walke.
The ongoing anti-regulation crusade was on display in the House this week -- and will be again next week -- with some smaller bore bills. On Thursday, the House passed a measure that will delay regulations of cement factories that were aimed at implementing court-mandated controls on mercury and other pollutants.
Next week, the House is expected to pass a similar measure to halt rules on boilers and incinerators. While Republicans argue that both measures are merely "time-outs" to allow for deeper study on the impacts on jobs, environmental advocates note that in the case of the boiler bill there is a repeal of restrictions on burning hazardous wastes.
"What the bill does is codify a deregulatory Bush administration rule that was issued in 2001 and overturned in the courts," said Walke. "And it allows all of these nasty hazardous wastes -- oil residue, chemicals and plastics, to be burned in boilers and not subject to any control standard, monitoring or reporting."
In fact, while Republicans have argued that the Obama administration is running wild passing new regulations -- and therefore needs to be checked -- many of the measures coming up in the current Congress are aimed overturning laws first written in 1990. Many of the regulations required were delayed or rewritten by the George W. Bush White House, and then reinstated by courts, often with scathing verdicts.
The boiler rules are a prime example, where the Bush administration argued that "any" didn't mean "any," but "none" or "some."
With the wretched economy, Republicans have made the need to protect jobs their prime justification for delaying environmental and health protections. And they've made it a consistent part of their campaign push, as well.
After Democrats voted Thursday against delaying regulations of cement plants -- the third-largest source of mercury pollution, according to the EPA -- the National Republican Campaign Committee blasted out a release targeting dozens of Democrats for voting "to risk 23,000 jobs with more job-killing red tape from Washington."
"The people of America understand that the EPA is in fact killing jobs," said Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), a Tea Party freshman who sponsored the boiler measure. He added that the bill would make sure "regulations are reasonable and effective" and "make sure that we protect the jobs of the United States of America while we go forward protecting the environment as well."
While Republicans estimate the cement rule could cost 23,000 jobs, EPA scientists say it would prevent 12,500 pollution-related deaths and 7,500 heart attacks. The agency estimates the boiler bill will kill 20,000 people prematurely.
Democrats are pushing back on the GOP by highlighting numbers like this, but they also take issue with the idea that regulations harm the economy.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report at a press event Thursday that she would "explode the myth that a clean environment is antithetical to a strong economy."
The report, citing Commerce Department data, says that in more than 40 years since the creation of the EPA, an estimated 1.7 million jobs and $300 billion in revenues have been generated by industries that support environmental protection. Further, it says, clean air protections will produce an estimated $2 trillion in annual health benefits by 2020, and for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure to reduce water pollution and treat drinking water, up to 26,669 jobs are created.
"The Environmental Protection Agency and the nation's landmark environmental safeguards were created with overwhelming bipartisan consensus in Congress and support from Republican and Democratic presidents," the report argues. "Forty years of achievements are now threatened by partisan attacks."
For the moment, it will be difficult for many of the House's bills to get through the Senate, where Boxer plans to stop them. The White House also has promised vetoes of the measures.
Still, once anti-EPA legislation is written, it can wind up attached must-pass bills, or at least used to try and embarrass Democrats. Thursday night, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried to attach a measure to a bill on Chinese currency manipulation that ostensibly aimed to stop the EPA from regulating farm dust. But the measure's language doesn't actually mention "farm dust" after its title. Instead, it targets soot regulation. Democrats successfully blocked it.
More troubling to environmental advocates is that they see the attempts to roll back regulations as a sustained effort that will not go away, and likely could pick up steam -- especially if Republicans take back the Senate in 2012.
"I think it certainly will continue through the 2012 election," said Goldston. "I think it's partly an attack on Obama but I think much is a broader part of a Tea Party effort to question the role of government in providing public health protections across the board and funding that."
And he predicted the range of attacks would only get broader.
"This can play out in spending; this can play out in the series of efforts to block any additional protections, not only in the clean air area, but more broadly, there are bills that have been pending in the house and the senate ... that would change the entire structure necessary to create protections," Goldston said.
The anti-EPA campaign has born some fruit already for the GOP, with President Obama delaying planned new regulations of ozone and citing economic reasons.
The political climate has left Democrats wary -- and concerned they could lose some battles -- but they also think the GOP could pay a price.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, expressed relief that so far lawmakers had successfully blocked EPA-targeted legislation in the Senate. But, he added, environmental protections remain vulnerable.
"It's an area where the current Republican leadership sees an opportunity to express frustration with government and regulation," Cardin said. "It’s consistent with their philosophy -- less government -- and that’s what they’re moving forward. I find it extremely disappointing because environmental issues have always been either nonpartisan or bipartisan. Some of our most amazing advancements on environment happened under Republican leadership. So I think this is very disappointing. But I think I understand their strategy, and I think it will backfire because Americans want clean water and clean air, and they think that clean water and clean air are important for our economy."
***************************************************************************************
Rick Perry's Opposition To Pesticide Regulations Helped Launch His Political Star
WASHINGTON -- More than two decades ago, there was a bitter fight within Texas' agricultural community, one that pitted low-wage farm workers and their advocates against large growers and chemical companies. The dispute was over how much field workers should know about the often-dangerous pesticides they were handling.
And there are those in Texas who believe Gov. Rick Perry wouldn't now be a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination had he not taken up the cause of the growers and sprayers in this fight.
"This became how Perry rises in politics," claims Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, a public interest law group. "Perry is the weathervane, pure and simple. He saw where the money was and where the politics were drifting."
In the 1980’s, agricultural workers in Texas didn’t enjoy many of the workplace protections that were taken for granted in other industries. So in 1987, after Harrington’s group had sued the state on behalf of farm workers, the Texas agriculture department developed a law called the Agricultural Hazards Communications Act, known colloquially as Right to Know.
In addition to requiring that field workers be trained on the dangers of pesticides, the law required farmers to maintain a list of the chemicals they used on their crops -- known as the “crop sheet” -- and to provide it to farm workers, along with a notice of their rights as workers. The law also stated that workers couldn’t be forced to handle chemicals that came unlabeled, nor could they be fired or disciplined for filing a complaint against an employer with regards to Right to Know.
The crop sheet was important because Texas’ heavily Latino farm workforce tends to migrate, handling different crops in different regions during different seasons. A detailed listing of chemicals used and their dangers could help workers pinpoint the cause of an illness. According to Vaughn Cox, who worked in the agriculture department in the late 80’s, Right to Know was a sensible law designed specifically to help the farm worker and the doctors in the event of a pesticide-related emergency.
“If it says cabbage in South Texas is treated with these chemicals this time of year, then the doctor can say, ‘Oh, they used this kind of chemical.’ It could speed up the process of treating them,” says Cox. “So many farm workers were being exposed to chemicals in unsafe ways. They had no training, no protective clothing or anything that common sense would say you should have.”
Right to Know was one step in a string of farm worker protections advanced during the late 80’s, according to Nora Linares-Moeller, who also worked in the agriculture department at the time.
“It was an incredibly nasty fight with the ranchers and growers,” Linares-Moeller says. “It all had to do with the ability for farm workers to be safe in the field. They were literally being sprayed with pesticides.”
Despite its relatively modest requirements, many growers and chemical companies weren’t fans of Right to Know, which would bring more transparency to the effects of pesticides and potentially slow down production when farm workers raised concerns. The agriculture department had long borne a reputation for being laissez-faire on regulatory matters, and opponents of Right to Know argued that such new regulations were burdensome, costly, and paternalistic.
“The farm bureau and the chemical industry in particular, which is a very powerful lobby, went apoplectic and just fought the regulations tooth and nail,” recalls Harrington. “They didn’t want to have any accountability.”
The state’s then-agriculture commissioner, populist Democrat Jim Hightower, says he faced pushback from corporate interest groups and their allies in the state legislature as he tried to craft an enforcement program. The way Hightower remembers it, one of his fiercest opponents on the pesticide matter was Rick Perry.
As a state representative who was then a Democrat, Perry had already demonstrated what some considered an ambivalence toward farm workers’ rights. In 1985, lawmakers and worker advocates had pushed a bill that would bring agricultural workers into the state’s workers compensation system, after a state judge had deemed their exclusion a denial of equal protection under the law. Like the growers’ lobby, Perry opposed the bill. It eventually passed.
That same year, Perry had supported an unsuccessful bill that would have stripped the agriculture commissioner of much of his regulatory power as it pertained to pesticides. That support had put him in the camp of trade groups representing farmers, cotton growers, cattlemen, and chemical producers.
“He was pretty much a preacher [for] the chemical lobby,” says Hightower, an outspoken Perry critic. Perry’s stance on the pesticide issue revealed “a willingness ... in fact, an eagerness" to shill for the industry, he says. Perry’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this article.
Perry apparently had no more allegiance to his Democratic Party than he did to farm workers. In 1989, he declared himself a Republican in order to challenge Hightower for the agriculture commissioner seat, Perry’s first crack at statewide office. ("I intend to vote the same convictions," Perry said of his political conversion. "The only difference is there will be an R beside my name.") None other than renowned Republican strategist and Texas political operative Karl Rove claimed at least partial credit for Perry’s party switch.
“Perry had planned to retire from the legislature until his best friend, David Weeks, and I talked him into switching parties and running for the GOP nomination for agriculture commissioner,” Rove wrote in his memoir, published in 2010.
With Rove's help, Perry won the election, bringing an end to Hightower’s eight-year tenure as commissioner. According to Rove, “Perry swept rural counties because, as a rancher, he actually knew something about agriculture; he won the suburbs because of his marquee good looks and conservative values.” Perry was the son of a cotton farmer and had majored in animal science at Texas A&M University.
Others argue that Perry’s victory had less to do with his ranching knowledge or appearance than with the robust financial backing he received from corporate interests, many of whom wanted to see Hightower unseated. Indeed, campaign contribution records from the 1990 race, provided to The Huffington Post by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, indicate that Perry routed Hightower in the weeks leading up to the election, his war chest bolstered by donations from farmers, ranchers, developers, and oil and gas executives.
But Gene Hall, current spokesman and longtime official at the Texas Farm Bureau, says the role that pesticide regulations played in Perry's support during the 1990 campaign has been overstated. "It would be inaccurate to say it was all about pesticides," says Hall, noting that Perry and the bureau didn't always agree on matters. He says Perry enjoyed wide support among the bureau because Hightower's vision of small, organic farms was "so clearly at odds with farmers and ranchers." "We were determined to defeat him," Hall says of Hightower. "I've heard some describe it as a holy war. He had to be beaten. We allied with Rick Perry."
"I think it would be unfair to say that Rick won that campaign because of pesticides," adds Ken Luce, who worked on Perry's campaign for agriculture commissioner. "There was a hugely dissatisfied electorate within the agriculture community ... Hightower and his people, they underestimated him."
Whatever the reason, the money poured in from deep-pocketed donors. In a one-month period just before voters headed to the polls, Perry raised $318,454.92, while Hightower’s committee netted a mere $108,802.57, according to records. (Some Hightower aides were later indicted for allegedly using state money for political purposes.) Many of Perry’s larger checks came courtesy of donors who owned large farms or had ties to groups like the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers.
On the expenditures side, Perry’s camp made payments to a PAC affiliated with the Cattle Feeders Association, for money apparently spent on campaign events. They also made large advertising buys and sent at least $39,000 to Karl Rove & Co. for “printing” expenses, according to the disclosure forms. On the campaign trail, Perry flayed Hightower for his endorsement of Jesse Jackson in his 1988 presidential bid. Hightower also claims that Perry’s camp also ran attack ads on Texas television.
It didn’t take long after the election for department employees to realize that the agency was about to change under Perry, particularly with the work related to pesticide regulation, according to Vaughn Cox. It had been Cox’s job to inform farmers about Right to Know and to “slap you on your hand” in cases of non-compliance, he says.
“Soon after the election results were clear, his local campaign manager made a visit to the local office where I was working,” Cox recalls. “He explained in very clear terms that there were a list of folks that should be gone by the time the commissioner took office in January. Dang if my name wasn’t at the top of the list. They made it clear to a pretty large segment of the workforce that they were no longer welcome. All Hightower people.”
A few months after the election, Perry let 52 department employees go, including Dale Burnett, the head of pesticide enforcement and a career agriculture department employee, according an Austin American-Statesman article at the time.
Rebecca Flores, the former longtime head of the United Farm Workers union in Texas, says the enforcement of pesticide regulations changed with the personnel. Whereas the union had met routinely with Hightower to voice workers’ concerns, she found it nearly impossible to get the ear of Perry or his staff. “He got rid of all the staff that was doing the educating and training,” she says. “He didn’t enforce one thing."
"Rick Perry is no friend of farm workers,” she goes on. "He's an opportunistic parasite."
But Hall says that pesticide enforcement by no means disappeared under Perry, though as commissioner he seemed to have a lighter regulatory touch than his predecessor. "The rules were not then and not now lax," says Hall. Under Perry they were "not prohibitive, not onerous, which was the direction Hightower was moving in."
Within ten months of Perry taking office, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had to order the agriculture department to reduce its backlog of pesticide enforcement cases. The backlog had reached 300. The EPA attributed the problem to excessive vacancies in the area of enforcement, according to the American-Statesman. Perry’s team partly blamed Hightower for the pileup of cases; Hightower attributed it to Perry firing knowledgeable officers and replacing them with what Hightower described as political appointees. The department had had a similar backlog under Hightower years earlier, the article noted.
By 1995, the farm workers union -- along with seven environmental organizations -- went so far as to ask the EPA to strip Perry of his pesticide regulation powers, citing a serious drop in enforcement. In a letter to the agency, the groups said that fines related to pesticide use had slid from $61,000 in 1989 under Hightower to $31,000 in 1994 under Perry, according to a Houston Chronicle story at the time. Though Perry dismissed the claims as “outrageous,” he had carved out a reputation as a lax enforcer catering to growers rather than workers, with little political price to pay.
As the Chronicle story noted, “Perry’s farmer-friendly agency is sailing through the Legislature with hardly a note of controversy.”
***************************************************************************************
Hi James,
I live in Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. I found your e-mail on-line while researching (a little too late) the Canine Hartz Flea and Tic Ultra Guard product. I wanted to share my story with you.....
On the weekend I treated my 4 cats with this product. I had no idea it was toxic to cats. I was in a hurry when I bought it and thought that I would just half the dose. There was no warning on the packaging saying that it was toxic to felines and to be honest the thought never crossed my mind. I have treated my cats and my dogs with a similar product in the past, purchased from the vet's.
The day after I treated them I found one of my cats tremmoring uncontrollably and rushed her to the vet's. She was given anti seizure medication and we spent the morning in the clinic. I am a NICU nurse and am very in tune with my pets, so the vet allowed us to go home. When we arrived home I found my youngest cat to be seizing so badly her tongue was hanging out of her mouth. We raced her to the emergency vet's and she was treated for seizures as well. We then had to go get the other 2 cats and have them treated prophylaticly for the same issue.
Needless to say this was very terrifying. I have never felt so much guilt in my life. We discovered the small print on the back of the packaging that this product is indeed toxic to cats. When we called the 1-800 "emergency line" there was nobody there to help us as they were closed! I have called the line since then and gotten nowhere. They just logged the complaint. I sent them an e-mail and got the same brush off. I have sent a letter to The CEO, Mr William D. Ecker and one to the VP and Chief Veterinarian, Dr. Albert Ahn with hopes of getting a more reasonable response.
Thanks for letting me vent to you,
Jill 10/13/11
Many people make the mistake of using flea and tick products meant only for dogs on their cats. Some flea control products (such as Frontline and Advantage) are formulated the same for cats and dogs (only the dosage is different), but many over-the-counter flea control products are formulated just for dogs and can be deadly if applied to or ingested by cats. As you mentioned, there are no warnings on the Hartz UltraGuard product concerning the risk to cats. On the back of the package in small print, it states, "DO NOT USE ON CATS AND KITTENS," but it does not say that cats are at risk of harmful effects, including death. There isn't even a cat pictogram warning on the front of the package!
The EPA and Health Canada recently investigated pet spot-on products due to a sharp increase in reported incidents. They have recommended several label changes to flea control products meant only for dogs (including Hartz' phenothrin-based UltraGuard for Dogs) to prevent accidental poisoning in cats:
However, it may be a months before the newly labeled products begin to show up in stores. Meanwhile, stores are allowed to sell products with inadequate warnings until their inventory is exhausted. That is really appalling.
I am not sure why it has taken Hartz so long to put adequate warnings concerning cats on their UltraGuard for Dogs products. Several years ago, Hartz offered a phenothrin-based flea control product for cats, but was forced to remove it from the market due to several cat deaths:
I hope that your cats will quickly recover.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Just got off the phone with my brother. He gave his 3 cats biospot. About 7 hours later two of them fell ill. Sounds like a horror story, having seizures. He has little money but took them to the vet. He could not afford to leave them overnight. They were given injections. They sent him home with an injection to give at midnight. One cat is worse than the other, lying there twitching. He feels guilty that he did this to them and angry that such a product is on the market. Hope they make it through the night.
Anonymous 10/13/11
***************************************************************************************
A New Bush Era or a Push Era?
By Amy Goodman
Back when Barack Obama was still just a U.S. senator running for president, he told a group of donors in a New Jersey suburb, “Make me do it.” He was borrowing from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used the same phrase (according to Harry Belafonte, who heard the story directly from Eleanor Roosevelt) when responding to legendary union organizer A. Philip Randolph’s demand for civil rights for African-Americans.
While President Obama has made concession after concession to both the corporate-funded tea party and his Wall Street donors, now that he is again in campaign mode, his progressive critics are being warned not to attack him, as that might aid and abet the Republican bid for the White House.
Enter the 99 percenters. The Occupy Wall Street ranks continue to grow, inspiring more than 1,000 solidarity protests around the country and the globe. After weeks, and one of the largest mass arrests in U.S. history, Obama finally commented: “I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” But neither he nor his advisers—or the Republicans—know what to do with this burgeoning mass movement.
Following the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows unlimited corporate donations to support election advertising, the hunger for campaign cash is insatiable. The Obama re-election campaign aims to raise $1 billion. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial industry was Obama’s second-largest source of 2008 campaign contributions, surpassed only by the lawyers/lobbyists industry sector.
The suggestion that a loss for Obama would signal a return to the Bush era has some merit: The Associated Press reported recently that “almost all of [Mitt] Romney’s 22 special advisers held senior Bush administration positions in diplomacy, defense or intelligence. Two former Republican senators are included as well as Bush-era CIA chief Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.” But so is the Obama presidency an expansion of the Bush era, unless there is a new “Push era.”
The organic strength of Occupy Wall Street defies the standard dismissals from the corporate media’s predictably stale stable of pundits. For them, it is all about the divide between the Republicans and the Democrats, a divide the protesters have a hard time seeing. They see both parties captured by Wall Street. Richard Haass, head of the establishment Council on Foreign Relations, said of the protesters, “They’re not serious.” He asked why they are not talking about entitlements. Perhaps it is because, to the 99 percent, Social Security and Medicare are not the problem, but rather growing inequality, with the 400 richest Americans having more wealth than half of all Americans combined. And then there is the overwhelming cost and toll of war, first and foremost the lives lost, but also the lives destroyed, on all sides.
It’s why, for example, Jose Vasquez, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, was down at Occupy Wall Street on Monday night. He told me: “It’s no secret that a lot of veterans are facing unemployment, homelessness and a lot of other issues that are dealing with the economy. A lot of people get deployed multiple times and are still struggling. … I’ve met a lot of veterans who have come here. I just met a guy who is active duty, took leave just to come to Occupy Wall Street.”
The historic election of Barack Obama was achieved by millions of people across the political spectrum. For years during the Bush administration, people felt they were hitting their heads against a brick wall. With the election, the wall had become a door, but it was only open a crack. The question was, would it be kicked open or slammed shut? It is not up to one person. Obama had moved from community organizer in chief to commander in chief. When forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the president must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, “If I do that, they will storm the Bastille.” If there’s no one out there, we are all in big trouble.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.
***************************************************************************************
Keeping Your Eye on the Ball
By now millions of people know about how the Occupy Wall Street Movement has spread to dozens of cities. OWS has gone viral on the Internet and people know that thousands of committed progressives are lending their bodies to a movement that challenges a basic premise of American society: fundamental social inequality. Pundits have either dismissed OWS or have applauded its social, economic and cultural significance. People wonder what social and political impact will OWS have? Will its core set of radical ideals be co-opted? Will this social movement have an impact similar to the sweeping cultural revolution of the late 1960s?
Although these questions are fascinating, I wonder if our concentration on them and on the ongoing OWS movement is not diverting our attention from an emerging Republican/Tea Party political culture? When anthropologists conduct research, we attempt to understand human behavior, including, of course political behavior, by living among the people we are attempting to understand.
How can you understand human behavior?
One of my mentors gave me this advice: "First you have to listen to what people say, but to really understand human behavior, you have to watch what people do."
What are Tea Party/Republicans saying? Well, we've been getting an earful of scary and mean-spirited statements from the Republican Presidential hopefuls. Putative front-runner Herman Cain says that OWS is a bunch of anti-American, anti-capitalist complainers who blame the rich for their dissatisfaction. Cain suggests that rather than blaming the rich, the OWS people should blame themselves for their economic and social misfortune. Other less bombastic Republic Presidential hopefuls have said that OWS people are engaging in "class warfare" or "mob" behavior. All of these Republican/Tea Party rhetoricians, of course, are attempting to deflect attention from the fundamental inequalities of our society. They don't want people dwelling on the fact that America is not the land of equal opportunity or that the Tea Party/ Republicans represent the narrow and greedy interests of an emerging group of economic royalists.
Such rhetoric makes for good news and has been widely reported, which means that we know about Republican/Tea Party rhetorical smokescreens. If we look beyond the bombastic rhetoric, what are Tea Party/Republican officials, who now control the House of Representatives, attempting to do? The scenario is sobering. There is a major attack on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Tea Party/GOP thinks EPA regulations kill jobs. And so they have passed legislation that would cripple the regulatory enforcement of the federal government in any number of important domains. The results of this deregulatory fervor would, according to the EPA and environmentalists, threaten the quality of our air, water and food. When we add to this assault on regulation, the GOP/Tea Party attack on voter registration, you get the picture. First, on the federal level, you help your corporate buddies through "regulatory reform." Second, on the state level, in the name of voter fraud, which the legal record suggests is quite minimal, you pass voting registration statutes that make it difficult for minorities to register to vote, ensuring, or so it is hoped, Tea Party/Republican control of local and state governments, which, of course makes it easier to gain control of the federal government. If that works, the Tea Party/Republicans would love to undermine the New Deal and all the federal protections that have ensured a remarkable quality of life here in America.
That is a sketch of an emerging Tea Party/Republican culture. It is a chilling scenario that is being quietly enacted statute by statute. If OWS energy is not somehow converted into political, and indeed, electoral power, the energy of this inspiring social movement may quickly dissipate as the message of social inequality gets swept away by an electoral tidal wave.
It is wonderful to welcome a new, potentially powerful player in to the game of politics. There have been teach-ins, general assemblies, OWS newspapers, creative message-making, democratic consensus and much more, but in the political arena, if take your eye off the ball you're likely to strike out.
***************************************************************************************
Lawsuit Alleges Bayer HealthCare, LLC and Merial Limited Make
False and Deceptive Claims In Advertisements For Flea and Tick Products
Cleveland, Ohio (PRWEB) October 15, 2011
Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., L.P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of dog and cat owners in Ohio alleging, among other things, that Bayer HealthCare, LLC (“Bayer”) and Merial Limited (“Merial”) regularly make false and deceptive claims in advertisements for their flea and tick pet products.
Bayer is the manufacturer of the family of products made for dogs and cats under the trade names Advantage®, Advantage® II, Advantix®, Advantix® II, K9 Advantix®, K9 Advantix® II, Advantage Multi®, and Advocate®. Merial is the manufacturer of the family of products made for dogs and cats under the trade names Frontline®, Frontline® Plus, Frontline Top Spot®, and Certifect™. These products are sold as treatments for dogs and cats suffering with fleas, ticks, adult flea eggs, larvae, mosquito, heartworm, ear mites, and sarcoptic mange. While each one of individual products targets only a limited subset of the pet aliments, all of the products target fleas and their larvae.
As fully set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint, Bayer and Merial collectively sell approximately $2 billion of the products annually under the allegedly false and/or misleading assertions claiming that the products: are self-dispersing and cover the entire surface area of the dog or cat’s body when applied in a single limited spot; are effective for one month and require monthly application to continue to be effective; do not enter the blood stream of the pet and instead move across the pet’s skin to cover the pet; and are waterproof and remain effective following shampoo treatments, swimming, or after exposure to rain or sunlight.
Plaintiff seeks to prevent Bayer and Merial from continuing to allegedly misrepresent these products and seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the products.
***************************************************************************************
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault Investigates Frontline/Advantix Flea Control Products
Posted on October 14th, 2011
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault is currently investigating claims regarding Frontline and Advantix Flea Control Products. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayer Healthcare LLC and Merial Ltd over claims that they regularly make false and deceptive claims in advertisements about their Advantix and Frontline flea and tick pet products. Based upon these claims, a million dollar business has been built around the notion of protecting pets from fleas and preventing flea infestations in homes.
Many consumers utilize Advantix and Frontline as monthly preventative treatment to ward off fleas, ticks, and other pests. Manufacturer claims involve the fact that the product will naturally spread across an animal’s entire body without entering the animal’s bloodstream. The products are touted as waterproof. If these two claims are not true, pets are at risk from flea and tick infestation and other potential health problems including Tapeworms, Nematodes, Tularemia, Infectious Anemia, Lyme Disease, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, all of which can be linked to flea and tick infestation.
***************************************************************************************
Bayer, Merial Hit With $32B Class Suit Over Flea Meds
Law360, New York (October 12, 2011, 8:51 PM ET) -- A dog owner in New York filed a $32 billion putative class action Wednesday alleging Bayer HealthCare LLC and Merial Ltd. regularly make false and deceptive claims in advertisements for their Advantix and Frontline flea and tick pet products.
Mark Bloom, who says he has purchased Merial's Frontline for the past decade, claims that the companies lied about the effectiveness of the products. The insecticides are not self-dispersing over a pet's body, they do enter the bloodstream and are not waterproof, he said.
"Through its sales, marketing and advertising of defendants' products, defendants are abusing the trust of consumers and veterinarians," Bloom said.
Both products are supposed to be applied to just one part of a pet's body. The companies claim that the active ingredients — imidacloprid in Bayer products and fipronil in Merial products — self-disperse via the pet's skin to protect the entire body.
But Bloom claims that this is impossible. Because both of the active ingredients need to make contact with a flea or tick in order to kill it, the recommended spot-on treatment leaves most of the pet unprotected from the bugs, according to the suit.
"There is no known scientific process capable of spreading the active ingredients in defendants' products to other parts of a pet's body by the methods of localizing the active ingredients in the lipid layer, cutaneous exchange dispersion, the physicochemical properties of the active ingredients, wicking, translocation or any other of defendants' many descriptions of defendants' translocation claims," the plaintiff said.
In addition, the active ingredients are highly degradable in water and sunlight, despite the companies' claims that the products are resistant to swimming and shampooing, he said.
Bloom also called the companies' claims that the chemicals in the products permeate into a pet's skin but not its bloodstream "unsupportable."
The plaintiff proposes a class of Frontline and Advantix purchasers and is claiming breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, false advertising, deceptive acts and practices, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. He is seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages of at least $8 billion and punitive damages of $24 billion, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Merial — a subsidiary of Sanofi-Aventis SA — and Bayer collectively sell about $2 billion of the flea and tick products each year, according to the suit.
Representatives for Bayer and Merial could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
The plaintiff is represented by Marc J. Bern, Paul J. Napoli, Hunter J. Shkolnik, Denise A. Rubin and Adam J. Gana of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP.
Counsel information for the defendants was unavailable.
The suit is Bloom et al v. Bayer Healthcare LLC et al., case number 11-cv-07173, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
***************************************************************************************
HI James, I just had to write you...wish I had saw your site prior to my purchasing and/or applying this product to my dog.
Charlie is a mix of border collie and whippet....tall 45 lb dog. I normally use Frontline and since I was out, purchased Bio Spot Spot on Flea and Tic Control for Dogs - Medium size - 31-60 lbs.
Almost immediately after application this past Friday evening, Charlie became extremely restless....couldn't sit, stand, didn't know quite what to do with himself......never saw him behave like this...as soon as I realized what was probably the cause of this behavior, I immediately took him in the shower...normally I have to coax him in...this time he couldn't wait to get in the shower. I bathed him with Aloe shampoo and ran warm water on him for about 15 minutes. He seemed to be so relieved, but once out of the shower, he once again became restless. I finally got him settled on my bed next to me and he became very lethargic. His paws were extremely warm as well as his nose. He was so sick that he didn't even want me to touch him, normally he is right up against me. Living where I do, we do not have 24 hour emergency vet care so I sat up all nite with him, literally praying that he wouldn't die from this. I just sat and watched his chest move so I knew he was still breathing. I must have fallen asleep after 4:30am and woke at 6:15. Thank God, he was much better but I am sure this product was the cause of this erratic physical behavior.
Some time in the middle of the night I found your site. I did promise myself to write you so here I am. I put out a message on my facebook page about this product.
Ironically, I spoke with a friend of mine who this weekend used Bio Spot for cats on her Persians. Out of her 3 cats, one became violently ill, vomiting until dehydrated and spent the day at the vet. I live in PA and she in FL, plus her's was for cats and mine dogs. So I highly doubt this was from the same "batch" so to speak. It's just a bad, nasty product and should be removed from the market!
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. BTW, I did share your site with her!
Sincerely,
Karen 10/16/11
***************************************************************************************
My Bio Spot story!
Here is my review of this product. I now have two Persians I may not be able to breed and am very sad for my "babies". Maybe the maker of these products doesn't realize for some of us our pets are like our children. I am going to keep throwing a stink at our 2 pet stores in town and the farm store to either take this off their shelves or at least educate the employees about the danger of this product!!
I have 3 cats, two Persians and 1 large Himalayian/Siamese. I bought this at the locally owned Farm store which I trusted. They only carried Biospot and the the two major more expensive brands. Since I wasn't even sure our cat had fleas I thought I would try this one and if it didn't work well I was only out $12. No where in the instructions did it say to spot test or anything! I applied a full does to the big cat whom we suspected of having fleas and a half dose to each smaller persian. By the time my daughter came home from school the following day she called me in a panic to tell me something is wrong with ALL of the cats! I came home to find the big cat lethargic, one persian confused, disorientated, and twitching, and the other persian had scratched a 3" portion of her neck down to a bloody scab! I had to immediatly bath all of them in Dawn per the vet,,,,and we all know how bathing a cat is, especially a long haired persian and a 17 pound old hima-siamese!! It has been three days and one persian is still lethargic and just not herself. The other persian is still itching despite me applying benadryl etc. Her poor neck looks awful. All her hair gone, just left with bloody sore skin:( I am going to call and report this product and beg the local farm store to take this OFF THEIR SHELVES!
Attached is a picture of poor Lily :(
Charlene 10/21/11
***************************************************************************************
Hello, I am writing to You about My Cat named Cricket. Last week, She was mistakenly give a small dose of BIO SPOT Flea Drops for Dogs. (Both Tubes Look the same) One says Cat, One says Dog. Well the problem is with the imprinting on the tubing. It needs to be darkened or the tubes for Both colors changed to different Colors . Say Orange Dogs, Green Cats. There needs to be a better way to show the difference and also, the printing (not safe for Cats) Needs to be Larger, Changed to a Stop sign of a Cat or some thing. You cannot imagine the Horror That I went through being 1,100. miles away from My Cat when this happened. I am in Texas taking care of My Mother Who has cancer. My Boy friend is at home with the Cats. Due to the economy WE HAVE NO MONEY at this time. I was appalled that the Emergency Vet turned Him Away and Suggested She be Euthanized then and there. I refused and had him take her home. Where I once being a medical assistant Student directed him on what to do and how to do it. He gave her ant seizure medications through the Night and several arm baths. The Next Morning, He rushed her to The Vet that We have used in the Past.
Well, same thing" MONEY" I Was so freaked out that I told that VET, SAVE MY CAT! That I would get him his money. Which was 200. just to get started on her. I started networking my heart out on face book to all of my animal friends and One person called in the 200. to get her started. Several more had called in and at the end of the Day, We had reached our starting goal and More. The Vet Kept in close contact with Me through out the whole ordeal. At One Point, He had her unconscious on the Drug Propophal ( the drug that killed Michael Jackson) Being that this was a drug to put You under for operations, he could not keep her on it long term. Mind You, Cricket is only 7 lbs and 10 years old. He kept her on Diazepam's and Barbiturates and an IV fluid drip through the whole thing. At one point her fever spiked above 105. Then That evening, it was below 95. Both meaning Brain Damage or Organ failure. After treating Her for over 24 hours. She went in on a Weds. Morning. That Thursday evening, She was sitting Up on Her Own. Very week and very Shaky. But had made it that far. Friday Morning, She had pulled her Catheter Out and Dove into food. Not knowing the long term Damage , She was released and sent Home. When Cricket was released her Total Bill was 480. and every penny was paid in full. And I did all of this through net working and prayers through out the World. She was very weak and lost for a while but improved every day. It is now Tuesday, 1 week after her Ordeal . She is completely back as far as we can tell. Jumping and eating and chattering up a storm. We still do not know if there was any Long term Damage But, for now She is alive.
I would like to get her story out there so more people can be aware of the dangers that can happen when making this mistake. It was an honest error and My Cat suffered. So Please Help Me to Help Them.
Cara 10/25/11
***************************************************************************************
BioSpot should not be on the shelves for loving pet owners to buy and poison their dogs or cats. I have a ten pound Maltese named Charlie. I went to Petco to get Frontline but they were out so I bought BioSpot instead. When I put it on Charlie, his two back legs dropped to the floor. He didn't move for days. I had to force feed him and pour water down his throat. His back was twitching where I put the Biospot on. I brought him to the vet and they said it was too late to do anything cause it was already in his blood stream. I just had to wait to see if he would recover. Thank God Charlie survived. The vet said he could have died. I want everyone to know how horrible Biospot is and I want it off the shelves. I can't believe they are still in business. If there is anything I can do to put BioSpot out of business, let me know. It should be known by every pet owner to not buy this poisonous product. I just tried First Shield from my vet and Charlie is having a bad reaction to that as well. Although, it is not as bad as BioSpot, he is panting heavily, not able to fall asleep, itchy and his back is twitching. I feel horrible. I have only had luck with Frontline.
Gina 10/26/11
FirstShield Trio (which is also sold under the name Vectra 3D) contains a large percentage of permethrin -- the same pesticide found in Bio Spot. FirstShield Trio/Vectra 3D was actually created by Hartz. In my opinion, FirstShield Trio/Vectra 3D is no safer than Bio Spot or any flea product made by Hartz.
Copyright © 2002-2011 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
