Message Board
December 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)
***************************************************************************************
What's Good for the Pesticide Cartel is Good for the Baby
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993; Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human
Risk Assessment, L.L.C.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 29, 2011, pursuant to
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Council for the Advancement
of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment, L.L.C. (``CAPHRA'') has filed
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identities of the parties
to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual
damages under specified circumstances.
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties
to the venture are: AMVAC Chemical Corporation, Commerce, CA; BASF
Corporation, Durham, NC; Bayer Animal Science, Pittsburgh, PA; Bayer
CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC; Botanical Resources Australia,
Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia; Cheminova Inc., Arlington, VA; DuPont
Crop Protection, Newark, DE; FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA; LG Life
Sciences, Ltd., Clifton, VA; McLaughlin Gormley King Company,
Minneapolis, MN; Meghmani, c/o Chemical Consultants International,
Inc., Stilwell, KS; S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Racine, WI; Sumitomo
Chemical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
Greensboro, NC; Valent BioSciences Corporation, Libertyville, IL; and
Wellmark International (Central Life Sciences), Schaumburg, IL.
The general area of CAPHRA's planned activity is to generate and
submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') studies
necessary to address EPA's concerns for the potential for age-dependent
sensitivity to Pyrethroids. (emphasis added)
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-24874 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
For more information concerning the so-called Council for the Advancement of
Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment, go to:
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/6/11)
Please send me all correspondence (including email and studies) sent to and received from the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment, L.L.C.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
I found your site through a search on google. We gave our dog Arthur Cocoa BioSpot on Saturday... By Sunday he was out of it (slow, unresponsive, depressed) and took him to the vet on Monday. Despite my wife telling the vet that we gave him the flea medicine - he never put two and two together? He suggested that AC had possible mental issues. Awareness is key and it is obvious that the industry is not sharing knowledge unlike your site.
We have given him a bath as referenced on your site and are watching him closely.
Dan 12/6/11
***************************************************************************************
Spot-on Flea & Tick Products Alleged to Cause Serious Harm to Dogs and Cats.
Pet Pharmaceutical Industry Under Fire in Multiple New Jersey Class Actions --
OVER 75,000 COMPLAINTS REPORTED TO EPA ASPCA CONNECTION
NEWARK, N.J., Dec. 8, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Yet another class action was filed this week in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, in the District of New Jersey, against a manufacturer of "Spot-On" Flea and Tick products, neurotoxin pesticides placed directly on the skin of millions of household dogs and cats across the United States.
There is a growing sense of moral outrage and alarming statistics from consumers and pet advocates alike after over 75,000 complaints about the products have been reported to the EPA and nothing has been done to change the advertising, marketing or labeling of the products to alert pet owners of the possible serious side-effects. What's chilling is that those numbers only reflect what has been reported, the actual number of incidents may be much, much higher.
"Spot-On" products generally do not say in their advertising or marketing or even EPA mandated labeling that the products may cause death or other serious side-effects, including paralysis, seizures and ulcerated skin lesions. Consumers are largely unaware of these possibilities when applying the products to their dogs and cats.
Michael Green of Green & Associates, LLC, one of the attorneys that filed the New Jersey class actions, stated, "I've received a number of phone calls from pet owners in the middle of the night, where they are traumatized after their dog or cat has just died in their arms after they placed these pesticides on them. These are innocent pets who were trusting their owner to do the right thing for them. The owners are horrified to think that they gave their pet something that killed them, often in an excruciatingly painful way. Most tragic are those stories where the owner had one pet die only to put it on another pet after being assured there was no connection to the product and have that pet die also. I've gotten a few of those calls too. Unfortunately, the law treats our dogs and cats as just chattel, but if you ask any of these pet owners whose pet died, their dog or cat was a member of their family."
Sold By Major Retailers and Veterinarians
The "Spot-On" tick and flea business is estimated to be an $8 billion a year industry with the products primarily sold by veterinarians and pet store retailers such as PetCo and PetSmart.
This week, PetArmor, a new "Spot-On" flea and tick product for dogs and cats, is being served with the complaint filed against it. PetArmor was launched on April 20, 2011 in a press conference with the ASPCA. The product has been featured in television ads and is sold in major retailer WalMart. It is described by the manufacturer, FidoPharm, as containing the same active ingredients as Frontline, a well-known veterinarian recommended product.
Other "Spot-On" products sued in the class actions in New Jersey, beginning in January 2010, include Frontline, manufactured by Merial Limited, and those manufactured and sold by the other major animal pharmaceutical corporations Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc., Hartz Mountain Corporation, Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Farnum Companies, Wellmark International, Inc. and Summit VetPharm, LLC.
"Spot-On" Flea and Tick products are now recommended for virtually all dogs and cats, no matter the locale or specific risk. The Spot-On industry and vets who profit in the billions of dollars have not been called to account as to whether the risk vs. benefits really necessitate that common household pets across this country, and the children and other humans in these households, need to be exposed to these pesticides and neurotoxins 24/7. Studies have shown that the pesticides are detectible on the hands after petting.
EPA Complaints
Over 75,000 complaints to the EPA have been made since 2008 regarding these products including complaints of death and other serious side-effects even without a centralized poison reporting center, something the Humane Society is now calling for. In April of 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an advisory and reported that there was a noticeable increase in the number of adverse pet reactions involving the "Spot-On" pesticides which act as neurotoxins.
Nexus Between ASPCA and "Spot-On" Industry
FidoPharm enlisted the aid of the ASPCA in launching an awareness of their "Spot-On" product PetArmor. However, the class action complaint alleges a nexus of relationships between executives of the "Spot-On" product manufacturers and the ASPCA, heretofore known to the public as a non-profit entity established to prevent cruelty to animals.
The ASPCA has selected FidoPharm as its official tick and flea sponsor in its adoption centers and clinics. FidoPharm in turn has donated product and $100,000 to the ASPCA. John Preston, the current chairman of FidoPharm's parent, was the founding executive of Merial, the maker of Frontline.
Dr. Steven R. Hanson, the Senior Vice President and head of the ASPCA's Poison Control Center, where adverse reports of "Spot-On" products may be made, is a former director of Wellmark. Hartz is a corporate donor to the ASPCA and named Dr. Hanson "Veterinarian of the Year." The complaint alleges that calls into the Poison Control Center regarding Hartz "Spot-On" products are redirected to Hartz, allowing Hartz to directly manage any of these adverse events.
In addition, the ASPCA has a for-profit arm, APCC Consulting Services, that provides professional services to animal pharmaceutical corporations, including consultation on product liability. Hartz has been a client of the APCC.
Finally, the ASPCA in a press release, in response to the 2009 EPA advisory regarding "Spot-On" products, quoted Dr. Hanson as stating the products should continue to be used.
The plaintiffs of the class actions allege that the pesticides in the "Spot-On" products cause death, paralysis, seizures and skin lesions to their pets and that these adverse affects are not stated in the advertising or marketing to pet owners.
More information regarding the class action lawsuits filed against FidoPharm and others may be obtained at www.spotoncomplaints.com
Contact: Michael S. Green, Esq., Green & Associates, LLCTel: 732-390-0480, Email: green@msgreenlaw.com
SOURCE Green & Associates, LLC
Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
To read the actual complaint, click here:
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/9/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Fipronext Solutions Inc. (aka Fipronex Solutions Inc.) concerning its request to voluntarily cancel the registration of its fipronil technical, EPA Reg. No. 87650-1.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Class action lawsuit against flea products after pet deaths
CLEVELAND - UPDATE: Another popular over-the-counter flea and tick product is the subject of a class action lawsuit. PetArmor and PetArmor Plus, and the parent companies FidoPharm and Velcera, are being sued after pet owners say their pets died after using the product.
PetArmor is one of many spot-on flea and tick products facing a lawsuit. Hartz, Bayer, Merial, and Sergeant's have also been sued for similar issues.
The product manufacturers believe their product is safe. Sergeant's did not return our calls for comment during our initial story, but click here to read the other company responses .
In a statement today, FidoPharm CEO Alex Kaufman said, "We are disappointed to be included in a lawsuit vilifying an entire product segment due to the unfortunate experiences of a small percentage of pet owners. At FidoPharm, we take the well-being of pets very seriously and are committed to their health and safety. Since its launch in April of 2011, we have sold millions of doses of PetArmor and have a very low incidence of adverse events - far below 1 percent of doses sold." Read the full statement here: http://on.wews.com/st8kSk
A NewsChannel5 consumer investigation last month found nearly 35,000 incidents were reported to the EPA during a recent 16-month period. The product manufacturers gave the EPA the complaints after hearing from consumers.
Our investigation looked at what the Environmental Protection Agency is doing about these incident reports, and what's being done to keep your pet safe from an adverse reaction.
While the EPA issued a warning about spot-on products in 2009, it said it believes many of the adverse reactions are due to misuse of the product.
The EPA has met with product manufacturers and is focusing on labeling changes. However, the EPA said consumers are not seeing these changes yet because they are still under review.
The Humane Society of the United States feels labels can be improved, and also feels the reporting system needs to be changed. The Humane Society wants a National Poison Control Hotline.
"I think we are only scratching the surface as far as the actual injuries or deaths that occur as a result of these products," Adam Golfarb of the Humane Society said.
The EPA's own investigation found it needs standardized reporting, but the data is still collected the same way as it was when the EPA began its investigation.
To watch our flea and tick investigation, click on the link .
***************************************************************************************
Last night we lost our second cat to the nuro-toxin of Hartz flea control. On August 2 we had a flea problem, so my wife purchased Hartz flea control and both cats became ill. We took both cats to the Vet on August 6, 2011. On August 8th we were called in to find out the female Tippy had died in her brother's arms. Last night Tippy's brother Bigfoot died in my arms. Our Vet told us Hartz was poison but too late. When are they going to take this poison off the market?
Ed & Carol 12/11/11
***************************************************************************************
For the last 6 days after purchasing and applying Bio Spot, my 2 poms have suffered from terrible itching from Bio Spot. I bathed them, applied anti itch, pain meds and they continue to suffer and it has left a large bald spot where Bio Spot was applied.
Janet 12/11/11
***************************************************************************************
My 1 year old cat, Spooky, died from Hartz Ultra Guard One Spot flea killer, just last night at the vet. hosp. where I took him last Friday because I had applied this POISON to him on Wednesday. I want to join in any lawsuits against Hartz or any of these companies that manufacture this POISON. I live in Christiansburg, VA. Please advise me as to how to go about joining a class action lawsuit against these companies. My baby is dead due to their stupidity and ignorance...I want some peace of mind knowing that this won't happen to any other beloved pets.
Judy 12/12/11
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Bayer HealthCare, Animal Health Division, concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from The Hartz Mountain Corporation concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its registered pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Pfizer Animal Health concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its registered pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Central Life Sciences concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its registered pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Merial Limited concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its registered pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc., concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its registered pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/13/11)
Please send me all correspondence sent to and received from Summit VetPharm (CEVA) concerning product-specific mitigation measures for its registered pet spot-on products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Wow, all I can say who would have known. I was using Frontline on our dog for four years and never had a problem. About 2 months ago, I was in a discount store and found Tri Force. It was 1/5the the price of Frontline, so I figured, ok I will give it a try. Well within a few weeks my dog had a skin infection. We had brought her to get groomed and she played hard with my neighbors dog around the same time, so we thought maybe the clippers cut her hair or my neighbors dog nipped her, not the case. I just got home from the vet, it turns out, $145.00 later, she has a skin infection, which makes me feel lucky, considering the out come of some other pet owners. My wife even said, that she was acting strange as well. This stuff never existed 2 years ago, what are our alternatives? I am almost scared to use Frontline, but like I said we used it for 4 years and never had a problem. Was I lucky? I looked at the ingredients on the Triforce box, it looked like the same ingredient as in other repellents. Anyways, I just threw the Tri Force out and will never use it again.
Thanks for creating this site.
Anonymous 12/17/11
***************************************************************************************
Fumigant Wrongful Death Lawsuit Settled
The wide use of pesticides is having serious health ramifications on humans and children are particularly susceptible. Pesticides can cause cancer, affect neurological systems, memory, and cause a host of other problems; even death. Isn’t the mere fact that pesticides are designed to kill living organisms enough to give one concern? Maybe it will after you hear this story.
A Utah family recently settled a wrongful death lawsuit in the death of two young girls, ages 4 and 15 months, who died from pesticide poisoning nearly two years ago. Authorities said the toxic gas phosphine most likely entered the home through cracks and crevices in the structure.
Bugman Pest and Lawn put out poison bait, not Fumitoxin, at the home several months prior to the incident. When the family experienced more pest problems, they called the company again. The technician sent to the home determined the infestation was severe and decided to use Fumitoxin, placing the pellets alongside a sidewalk leading to the front porch, coming within about 7 feet of the front door and 3 feet of the garage; a hazardous materials cleanup team said the pellets should not be used in burrows that come within 15 feet of a home. Additionally, the Fumitoxin manual recommends 10 to 20 pellets per burrow, but the technician did not know how many pellets he used or burrows he treated. He recorded the amount on the invoice in pounds rather than pellets which is also a deviation from company norms.
The lawsuit alleged that the girls died after their hearts shut down within four days of a Fumitoxin application. The suit sought unspecified damages, claiming negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, nuisance and abnormally dangerous activity. As settlement discussions began, the owner of the Bugman Pest and Lawn of Bountiful and a former employee changed their pleas to “guilty”. Attorneys on both sides filed court papers ending the civil suit; terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
When homeowners hire pesticide service companies, they have a right to expect that the company and its representatives will follow the rules and regulations governing the application of the pesticides they are using. When that trust is broken, tragic cases like this one happen.
Several months after the accident, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outlawed the use of aluminum phosphide, the active ingredient in Fumitoxin, around homes and other occupied buildings. In addition, the state’s pesticide program updated its training program for anyone licensed to use registered pesticides and increases "buffer zones" for the poison's application near any non-residential building that could be occupied by people or animals. More detailed labeling is also designed to provide better protection for the public.
This lawsuit is a harsh reality about the importance of safety standards, training, and warning labels on pesticides. But what is the consumer to do when hiring a professional pesticide company? Ask what product(s) will be used and all the ingredients. Take the time to research the pesticide and learn all the risks. To learn more about the hazards of chemicals in pesticides, visit the Environmental Protection Agency website.
Across the country, lawsuits are being filed to compensate families and to ensure that companies take steps to prevent serious injuries and deaths. The single most important safety device against corporate America is the threat of a lawsuit. Fight back for your safety and the safety of your loved ones.
***************************************************************************************
Industry News You Can Use:
PESTICIDES: EPA Completes Risk Assessment for Pyrethins
EPA recently completed the cumulative risk assessment for pyrethrins and pyrethoid insecticides. The assessment indicates that exposures from the many current uses do not pose risk concerns for children or adults. This is important because the majority of the active ingredients in pet flea and tick control products are pyrethrins or pyrethroids. Further, the cumulative assessment supports consideration of registering additional new uses of these pesticides. EPA is requesting comment, including information that may be used to further refine the assessment. Its target Margin of Exposure for children was 300 and its predicted MOE from all uses of pyrethroids, including pet uses, was 430 providing an ample margin of safety, using very conservative exposure assumptions. EPA Risk Assessment
The EPA's cumulative risk assessment for pyrethrins/pyrethroids was a gift to the
pesticide industry.
To read what Beyond Pesticides wrote about it, go to:
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!
Comments must be submitted to the EPA by February 8, 2012.
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/27/11)
Please send me the registration jacket for EPA Reg. No. 2596-169 (Product Name: Hartz Ref #134).
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
(Below is email that I sent to the EPA on 12/27/11)
Dear Mr. Gebken,
I am writing in regards to a Hartz spot-on product for dogs (EPA Reg. No. 2596-169) that was recently registered by the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/002596-00169-20110929.pdf
Could you please let me know why the following optional/alternate label text claims were approved?
"Gentle protection for dogs (and puppies)"
"Quick drying formula"
"Dries quickly"
"Quick drying"
"Stays on and doesn't rub off"
In my opinion, these claims should have been rejected because they are ambiguous and imply child and pet safety.
These claims are also contradicted by the following optional text claim:
"After application, the treated area may appear wet (or) (oily) for up to 24 hours."
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
I just learned that Hartz will soon be announcing a new line of spot-on flea and tick products for dogs. These products, which will be sold under various names (including UltraGuard PRO), will contain (among other active ingredients) 55% etofenprox (a pyrethroid pesticide), and may be replacing Hartz current line of phenothrin-based spot-on products for dogs.
Here is the EPA-approved product label for these new products:
Here is the EPA's review of Hartz companion animal safety studies for these new products:
Here is the EPA's review of Hartz efficacy studies for these new products:
As you can see from the above reviews, the companion animal safety studies were conducted by Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc., in Corapeake, NC. Shortly after those studies were conducted, that facility was shut down over allegations of animal abuse!
Here is an article regarding it:
How ironic is it that Hartz chose a veterinary hell-hole -- located in the middle of nowhere -- to evaluate the SAFETY of its new flea and tick product.
But Hartz is not alone. Other manufacturers -- including Bayer, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Schering-Plough, Sergeant's, Wellmark, and Merial (the makers of Frontline) -- also used
Professional Laboratory and Research Services to evaluate the safety and/or efficacy
of their flea and tick products FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES (EPA).
The efficacy studies for Hartz new spot-on products were performed by three other animal research facilities: Bertek, Inc., in Greenbrier, AR; Young Veterinary Research Services, in Turlock, CA; and ClinVet International (Pty) Ltd., in South Africa.
According to a paper recently released by the Humane Society of the United States, both Bertek, Inc., and Young Veterinary Research Services are among several research facilities that still acquire dogs and cats, or reserve the right to do so, from Class B dealers.
According to the HSUS, these dealers acquire dogs and cats from shelters, auctions, flea markets, private individuals and other sources. Each year, thousands of pets find their way into the hands of one of these notorious dealers.
If pet product manufacturers truly cared about pets, they would stop using dubious research-for-hire facilities to evaluate the safety and efficacy of their products.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Good afternoon and Happy Holidays from American Dog Rescue!
We are writing to see if you can help spread the word for these two precious dogs who so badly need our help. Gracie is a 10-year-old Yellow Lab and Sam is a 6-year-old Chesapeake Bay Retriever. They are docile, well behaved, housebroken and good with other animals.
These two were living happily with their owner and his daughter until one month ago, when they lost the only master they've ever known very suddenly to a heart attack.
The owner's daughter is a minor and must move overseas with her grandparents very soon, making finding a home for these two an urgent priority. They are in the Dallas, Texas area. However, transportation could be arranged if we find a perfect fit to adopt them.
We need a miracle. Can you join us and post on your blog and social media pages, private networks or email lists? You can feel free to direct people with interest to http://Facebook.com/AmericanDogRescue or my email address or phone number if they have any further questions.
We badly wanted to create a Christmas Miracle for Sam and Gracie, but we're not giving up! Thank you for helping us - sometimes it takes a village!
Yours Truly,
Monaica Ledell
Social Media Manager
American Dog Rescue
"A Home For Every Healthy Dog"
(316) 207-3581
***************************************************************************************
We have two dogs. A Rottweiler & a pit bull. I currently have them on Comfortis for flea prevention. However, we decided to go camping for a few days this week and I wanted to use a topical spray for ticks & mosquitoes. I, unfortunately, chose Bio Spot. My pit bull has not shown any problems but my Rottie has vomited, is lethargic and seems disoriented. At first I thought perhaps she ate something that did not agree with her but could not figure out for the life of me what that would be. Then I remembered applying the Bio Spot earlier in the day and decided to google it and found your website. I am so upset right now and furious as well. This company needs to be shut down. I understand that sometimes our pets may have adverse reactions to certain things but this is an absolute non-disclosure to the public. Let me know what I can do to help get this product out of the stores.
Best regards,
Melissa 12/27/11
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 12/30/11)
Please send me the following study:
MRID 47844001, Mizens, M. (2009), Evaluation of the Toxicity of Dog Spot-on RF2042 (CDSO) to Cats and Kittens, unpublished, Wellmark International study number 3617, 13pp.
Also, please send me EPA's review of the above study (if EPA reviewed it).
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
