Message Board
November 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)
***************************************************************************************
Chemical Review of Fipronil (Frontline)
Excerpts:
Fipronil is a broad spectrum phenyl pyrazole insecticide that is used in both agricultural and veterinary situations. It controls insect pests in a wide range of agricultural crops, it is used as an insecticidal seed dressing, and it is used for the control of termites, cockroaches and ants in residential and commercial buildings.
In veterinary situations, fipronil products are used as spray or concentrated spot-on formulations to control fleas, ticks and other ectoparasites on dogs and cats, and the products are used for the treatment and control of flea allergy dermatitis.
Fipronil was nominated for review following the receipt of a number of reports of adverse experiences in humans and animals. Reports primarily involved veterinary chemical products and included skin reactions in animals and humans, neurological signs and deaths in target animals (often involving concurrent infestations with paralysis ticks), and deaths following off-label use in domesticated rabbits.
The APVMA commenced the review of fipronil in September 2003. The review considered concerns over toxicity, primarily related to skin irritation and induction of skin sensitisation, but also the potential of fipronil to form toxic photodegradation products, occupational health and safety issues, animal safety, and the adequacy of label instructions.
In the preliminary review findings, the APVMA recommends that there should be no change to the approval status of fipronil or to the ongoing registration of existing fipronil products in Australia. However, some amendments are recommended to the first aid instructions and safety directions for most agricultural and veterinary chemical products. New or revised re-entry intervals are also recommended for many agricultural uses and a rehandling statement is recommended for veterinary spray products.
Additional warnings are recommended when fipronil products are used on dogs and cats. This includes warnings about the possibility of skin reactions in dogs and cats treated with the spot-on formulations, avoiding applying fipronil products to ‘non-healthy’ skin, and for the spray, treating animals in open areas, and ensuring they are not placed in confined spaces until the spray has dried. (emphasis added)
Fipronil is not recommended for use on non-target animals, especially rabbits. Additional label warnings concerning off-label use on rabbits are recommended due to the severity of reactions (including death) in this species.
***************************************************************************************
Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)
Excerpts:
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is thriving, spreading from New York City to hundreds of cities around the country and to the world.
Its evolution is remarkable given initial disregard or criticism from corporate media, and demeaning characterizations by congressmen ("mobs") and presidential contenders ("unpatriotic").
Initiated largely by young people, this vibrant movement resonates with people of all ages, political affiliations and virtually all socioeconomic classes -- the "99 percent" of the U.S. population who are economically disenfranchised by the "1 percent" who control at least 40 percent of U.S. wealth, according to Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz.
But OWS and its supporters would be wise to take notice of a separate but allied movement that predates them but is also growing: "Move to Amend" which specifically addresses one of OWS's main concerns, "Corporate Personhood."
Indeed, OWS opposes "corporate personhood" as a main source of economic inequity and corruption of democracy.
Addressing that very demand, "Move to Amend" www.movetoamend.org was formed by a coalition of nonpartisan citizens and organizations in January 2010 in response to the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the FEC, which affirmed corporations as "legal persons" with first and 14th Amendment protections including speech, due process and equal protection.
That ruling opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending on elections as constitutionally protected "free speech."
Like OWS, "Move to Amend" is ambitious in its aims, calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish "corporate personhood" and reestablish a government of, by and for human beings.
Is it any wonder that the OWS movement has emerged and is growing?
Surely it reflects the frustration, helplessness and even cynicism that vast numbers of U.S. voters feel with regard to their attempt to influence their government.
As Americans including OWS, look for ways to address our huge socioeconomic disparities and the corruption of our democratic process, "Move to Amend" the Constitution offers a concrete path towards change.
***************************************************************************************
Merial knows, diverting veterinarians assert
***************************************************************************************
More veterinarians sue flea products broker WTF Wholesale
***************************************************************************************
EPA Releases Pyrethroid Risk Assessment, Ignores Numerous Health Effects
(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2011) On November 9, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroid class of insecticides, concluding that these pesticides “do not pose risk concerns for children or adults,” ignoring a wealth of independent data that links this class of chemicals to certain cancers, respiratory and reproductive problems, and the onset of insect resistance. The agency went as far to state that its cumulative assessment supports consideration of registering additional new uses of these pesticides, potentially opening the flood gates for manufacturers to bombard the market with more pyrethroid pesticides, endangering the health of the public.
EPA issued the final pyrethins/pyrethroid cumulative risk assessment in the Federal Register and is requesting comment until January 9, 2011, including information that may be used to further refine the assessment. Pyrethroids are a widely used class of insecticides used for mosquito control and various insects in residential and agricultural settings. However pyrethroids are highly neurotoxic and have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, suppression of the immune system, and various reproductive effects. This class of chemicals includes permethrin, bifenthrin, resmethrin, cyfluthrin and scores of others. Read Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet “Syntethic Pyrethroids.” Once the agency completes and approves the pyrethroid chemical assessment, it is likely that new uses of these pesticides will be added. The agency claims that more pyrethroid registrations may help combat recent pervasive pest problems, such as stink bugs and bed bugs, even though this class of chemicals is already known to be ineffective against these pests due to growing resistance issues compounded with continued pesticide use. However, serious issues such as the carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting potential of several pyrethroids were not mentioned in the risk assessment even though a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that low-dose, short-term exposure to esfenvalerate, a synthetic pyrethroid pesticide, delays the onset of puberty in at doses two times lower than EPA’s stated no observable effect level.
Most troubling is the agency’s decision to reduce the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) protective safety factor from 10X (an additional margin of safety of 10 times) to 1X for children and adults over six years, and to 3X for children under six years of age. The FQPA safety factor is intended to protect vulnerable infants and children to account for their special susceptibility to pesticides taking into account the potential for pre- and post-natal toxicity. Given that children are especially sensitive to the effects of synthetic pyrethroids like permethrin, this reduction in the special safety factor is egregious. Studies have found that certain pyrethoids like permethrin are almost five times more toxic to the young compared to adults. Additionally, studies have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development. In this new cumulative risk assessment, the agency even states, “Based on pharmacokinetic data, there is evidence that indicates an increase in sensitivity to pyrethroids of the young compared to adults,” which is attributed to the difference in the ability of the adults and juveniles to metabolize pyrethroids. EPA’s modeling data also predict a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid concentration in juvenile brain compared to adults. Similarly, researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a published study conclude that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides. Despite all this, EPA chooses to forgo this evidence and green light more uses of pyrethroid chemicals which will inevitably impact more vulnerable children.
With the phase-out of most residential uses of the common organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, home use of pyrethroids has increased. Pesticide products containing synthetic pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators and community mosquito management bureaus as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers.” While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chyrsanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic, take longer to break down, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency, and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide.
As a consequence of their widespread use, many pests such as bed bugs are now becoming resistant to pyrethroids. A recent study shows that modern bed bugs have developed the ability to defend themselves against pyrethroid pesticides, with a required dosage of as much as 1,000 times the amount that should normally be lethal, due in part to the widespread use of such treatment methods. Due to the ability of these organisms to develop resistance to chemical agents, exposing these bugs to more pesticides would lead to higher rates of resistance among insect populations, a point that EPA does not acknowledge.
EPA is mandated to complete cumulative risk assessments for chemicals that have the same mechanism of toxicity. In 2009, EPA conceded that pyrethroid chemicals did in fact have a common mechanism of toxicity. In this risk assessment, not all pyrethroids were evaluated and various routes of exposures, such as dermal and inhalation exposures, were not adequately examined, with the agency stating that these exposures “generally do not significantly contribute to the overall risk picture,” even though numerous pyrethroid formulations of ‘apply to skin’ mosquito repellent and indoor bug sprays are widely available. In an EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory study, several synthetic pyrethroids and their degradates were found in indoor dust collected from homes and childcare centers in North Carolina and Ohio, meaning that children inhale contaminated dust particles daily while these exposures go unevaluated. Given that asthma is the most common long-term childhood illness today, persistent residues of pyrethroids in house dust and air need to be taken very seriously.
Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritation, and skin sensations. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies permethrin and cypermethrin as possible human carcinogens, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. EPA also lists permethrin as a suspected endocrine disruptor. Synthetic pyrethroids have also been linked to respiratory problems such as hypersensitization, and may be triggers for asthma attacks. Material Safety Data Sheets, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for pyrethroid products often warn, “Persons with history of asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory tract disorders may experience symptoms at low exposures.” Although synthetic pyrethroids are often seen as safe alternatives to organophosphate insecticides, they are persistent and are making their way into human bodies at alarming rates. CDC ‘s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals reports that widely used pyrethroids are found in greater than 50% of the subjects tested.
At the same time, there are clear established methods for managing homes and schools that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to this chemical class, an increase in synthetic pyrethroid use is hazardous and unnecessary.
Take Action: Tell EPA that more uses of pyrethroids is hazardous and unnecessary. Submit comments and input on the Pyrethrins/Pyrethroid Cumulative Risk Assessment by January 9, 2012, to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746 at Regulations.gov. The assessment and supporting documents are available in this docket.
To submit comments to the EPA about this cumulative risk assessment, click here:
Please tell the EPA to protect children from dangerous flea and tick products!
UPDATE 1/5/12: The comment period has been extended 30 days. Comments
must now be submitted to the EPA by February 8, 2012.
For years, at the urging of the pesticide industry, the EPA refused to acknowledge that pyrethrins and pyrethroids shared a common mechanism of toxicity.
As was pointed out by Beyond Pesticides, not all pyrethroids were evaluated. Notably missing was etofenprox, a non-ester pyrethroid that is commonly found in flea and tick products for cats and dogs. These "spot-on" treatments may contain up to 55% etofenprox (for cats), and the volume of each dose may contain up to 9.0 ml (for very large dogs):
To put that into perspective, the volume of spot treatments for horses are typically 10.0 ml:
What's worse, these etofenprox-based products often take days to dry, which exposes people (including children) to harmful levels of pesticide.
Here is labeling information for one of these products:
Excerpt:
"Do not spread this product by hand over the dog. Although the dog's skin and hair oils will naturally distribute the application over the entire dog, brushing the dog 12-24 hours after application will help to distribute the material over the skin."
EPA risk assessments due NOT account for the actual spreading and drying time of these products! The EPA also relied soley on industry-funded studies to determine the amount of transferable pesticide residue from treated pets, which greatly underestimated the risk to children.
The EPA's cumulative risk assessment for pyrethroids also contained the following:
"In the future, if the Agency determines that a more refined cumulative assessment is
appropriate, the Agency may consider evaluating the cumulative risk to the Type I and Type II pyrethroids separately."
More proof that, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure!"
***************************************************************************************
(Below is email that I received from the EPA on 11/15/11)
Dear Mr. TerBush:
Thank you for your email of August 20, 2011, regarding registrant
reporting of incident data. You ask if it isn’t a violation of federal law
for pesticide product registrants to underreport adverse incidents
and if there is anything EPA can do to enforce it.
It is a violation of FIFRA section 6(a)(2) to underreport adverse
incidents. The registrant is required to report any incident that is
brought to its attention, regardless of whether it believes the incident
was caused by its product. The only exception is when the registrant has
clear proof that the adverse reaction was not caused by its product.
The authority to enforce violations of FIFRA rests with the EPA’s
regional offices. To merit an investigation and enforcement action,
there would have to be proof that the registrant is underreporting. The
EPA office for the region in which the registrant is located would be
responsible for investigating.
Anyone who wishes to ensure that an adverse incident is brought to the
attention of EPA can file a report directly with EPA through our Ask a
Question Portal
or with the National Pesticide Information Center
(http://npic.orst.edu/reportprob.html#anim). Anyone who believes that
there is a pattern of underreporting on the part of any registrant can
contact the relevant regional office to discuss pursuing the matter. In
the case of Wellmark, the registrant for BioSpot, the contact person in
Region 5 for enforcement would be David Star at 312-886-6009.
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Claire M. Gesalman, Chief
Communication Services Branch
Field and External Affairs Division
(Below is email that I sent to the EPA on 11/15/11)
Dear Ms. Gesalman,
According to the EPA's 2010 Aggregate Incident Summary Report for Summit VetPharm's Vectra (EPA Reg. No. 83399-9) and Vectra 3D (EPA Reg. No. 83399-6), there were no human incidents reported, no animal deaths reported, and no major animal incidents reported for those products.
The above products are also distributed by Banfield Pet Hospital's under the name First Shield for Cats (EPA Reg. No. 83399-9-85581) and First Shield Trio (EPA Reg. No. 83399-6-85581), but again, no human incidents were reported, no animal deaths were reported, and no major animal incidents were reported for those products.
To see if that was an anomaly, I checked the EPA's Aggregate Incident Summary Report for every year those products have been registered, and guess what? No human incidents were ever reported, only 1 animal death was reported for Vectra and 8 animal deaths for Vectra 3D (no animal deaths were ever reported for First Shield and First Shield Trio), and no major animal incidents were ever reported for any of those products.
That appears to be a clear pattern of underreporting. Please forward my complaint and request for an investigation to the relevant regional office.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
EPA responds to public comments on spot-on flea and tick products
The Environmental Protection Agency has responded to comments on its action plan to address safety concerns with spot-on pesticides used to control fleas and ticks on cats and dogs.
The EPA called for comments in spring 2010 and released its response in fall 2011.
Among other comments, some members of the public requested that the EPA ban pesticide products that can kill cats or require explicit labeling on spot-on products for dogs that describes the dangers that the products pose to cats.
The EPA responded that it does not intend to cancel dog spot-on products containing ingredients that can be toxic to cats, but the agency is working with manufacturers to change labeling of spot-on products to address the risks of these products to cats.
The labeling changes would split spot-on products that can be used in both cats and dogs into separate products, include the word "cat" or "dog" in the product name, repeat "cat" or "dog" throughout directions for use, and add images and language on dog products warning against use in cats.
In addition, the EPA is working with manufacturers to add information to labels about possible adverse effects of spot-on products, including instructions to consult a veterinarian or the manufacturer if any adverse effect occurs.
The AVMA, among its other comments, stated that veterinarians should have a bigger role in the use of pet spot-on products. The Companion Animal Parasite Council, Humane Society of the United States, and members of the public also suggested a need for more veterinary involvement.
The EPA responded that it lacks the authority to require that pet owners purchase pet pesticides only from veterinarians rather than over the counter. The agency does recommend that pet owners consult their veterinarians about how to protect their pets from fleas and ticks.
The EPA's response to comments on spot-on products is available at www.epa.gov/opp00001/health/pets.htm. The AVMA's comments and advice on the safe use of spot-on flea and tick products are available at www.avma.org/animal_health/flea-tick-products.asp.
The EPA recommends that veterinarians report adverse effects of pesticides via the National Pesticide Information Center's Veterinary Pesticide Adverse Effects Portal at http://npic.orst.edu/vet.
***************************************************************************************
My daughter and I just came back from running our cat to the Vets for an emergency visit. We've been having flea problems for the latter part of the summer. We were using Front Line, but due to cost we bought Bio Spot.
Our two dogs are fine, however, after applying the recommended dosage on our cat, she went into seizures or convulsions, her eyes were so dilated there was no color, she couldn't stop shaking. She can walk and ran into the wall.
Our vet said it's the Bio Spot and can KILL a cat and enough if it can harm humans as well.
We dropped off our cat and she will stay overnight for treatment. I don't know how much this is going to cost, but I plan on submitting the bill to the Bio Spot company.
Thinking back, I am positive this is what killed our other cat a few months ago.
Dan 11/17/11
I found the box and what was used was indeed for dogs. I also realized that this cat loves dogs and like to lick them all the time, the dogs like this as well.
I believe it was human error that caused this and not the product. It's labeled all over the box not to be used on cats.
I have been in contact with my Vet twice already since taking the cat in, I have also talked with the makers of BioSpot and Animal Poison Control.
Thanks again.
Dan 11/17/11
***************************************************************************************
Additions Grow the Environmental Risk List
Excerpts:
When it comes to environmental health hazards, children are canaries in the coal shaft.
That’s because children are not just scaled-down adults. "Children are a lot more vulnerable to environmental hazards than adults," Dr. Jerome A. Paulson said at a conference sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment. Factors behind the increased vulnerability include their small mass for a given dose of food or water contamination, increased transdermal absorption due to thinner skin and increased surface-area-to-mass ratio, more hand-to-mouth activity, more time spent on the ground, higher relative minute ventilation, and a longer window of exposure due to their longer life expectancy compared with adults, said Dr. Paulson, a pediatrician at George Washington University and director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment in Washington, D.C.
Children, like adults, face an ever-growing list of potential environmental hazards. Here are some of the newer additions to Dr. Paulson’s list of concerns:
Pyrethrins. This pesticide class has grown more popular as health concerns cut sales of other pesticides. Since 2000, calls to poison control centers and visits to health facilities due to exposure to pyrethrins and the related pyrethroids steadily increased (J. Med. Toxicol. 2007;3:94-9). Pyrethrins are commonly accepted as safe for children, and are in head lice products, but their long-term neurologic effects have not been thoroughly evaluated.
***************************************************************************************
(Below is email that I received from the EPA on 11/30/11)
Dear Mr. TerBush,
The Agency issued a second DCI for etofenprox in October 2011.
Due to the issuance of this DCI, the timeline for the completion of the
etofenprox registration review was amended. The public comment period
for the draft risk assessment is scheduled to open 2014 - April - June.
If you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Wilhelmena Livingston, Chemical Review Manager
USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
Risk Management and Implementation Branch IV
(703) 308-8025
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 11/30/11)
Please send me the Data Call-In Notice that was issued in October 2011 for etofenprox.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
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
