Message Board
January 2012
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)
***************************************************************************************
LET THE EPA KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!
The EPA recently released its long-awaited cumulative (human health) risk assessment for pyrethroids and pyrethrins -- the class of pesticides most commonly found in household pesticides, including flea and tick control products. Incredibly, the assessment found that exposures from these products do not pose risk concerns for children or adults.
To read the EPA's cumulative risk assessment, go to:
To read what Beyond Pesticides wrote about it, go to:
To submit comments to the EPA about this cumulative risk assessment, go to:
Please tell the EPA to protect children and pets from dangerous flea and tick products!
Comments must be submitted to the EPA by February 8, 2012.
***************************************************************************************
Bt: The lesson not learned
Science News reported 60-plus years ago how indiscriminate use of DDT ruined
that chemical's value: Now history seems to be repeating itself with Bt
By Janet Raloff
The more things change, the more they stay the same, as a Dec. 29 Associated Press report on genetically engineered corn notes. Like déjà vu, this news story on emerging resistance to Bt toxin — a fabulously effective and popular insecticide to protect corn — brings to mind articles I encountered over the weekend while flipping through historic issues of Science News.
More than a half-century ago, our magazine chronicled, real time, the emergence of resistance to DDT, the golden child of pest controllers worldwide. Now much the same thing is happening again with Bt, its contemporary agricultural counterpart. Will we never learn?
The new AP story cites rather vague references to the fact that corn genetically engineered to produce the insect-targeting Bt toxin no longer knocks out a major scourge — the Western corn rootworm — as it recently had. These beetle larvae are developing resistance to the toxin (named for its initial source, the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis). And the worst part: Early evidence of resistance occurs in secret as the voracious larvae again chomp away at roots buried beneath a masking layer of soil.
Although the AP report doesn’t cite research establishing rootworm resistance, it does exist. As I noted back in early August, Iowa State scientists published a report in PLoS ONE about rootworms able to feast on supposedly protected crops. “This is the first report of field-evolved resistance to a Bt toxin by the western corn rootworm and by any species of Coleoptera [i.e. beetles and weevils],” Aaron Gassmann and his colleagues noted. “Insufficient planting of refuges and [genetic] inheritance of resistance may have contributed,” they said.
A few weeks later, Mike Gray of the University of Illinois reported in the Aug. 26 issue of The Bulletin that he recently had been called in to “verify severe corn rootworm pruning on some Bt hybrids.” The concerned farmer had relied exclusively on genetically engineered Bt to protect his corn. When Gray arrived, “[rootworm] adults were numerous and easy to collect. It was also easy to find plants with two to three nodes of roots completely destroyed. A shovel was not required for removing the plants from the soil.”
This brutal pest lops off anchoring roots, after which corn stalks fall over like just so many trunks of felled timber.
Gray advocates tackling rootworms using “a long-term, integrated approach that includes multiple tactics, such as adult suppression programs, use of soil insecticides at planting, rotation of Bt hybrids that express different [toxins], and rotation to nonhost crops.”
In fact, he and other extension agents warn farmers that they must do this if Bt corn is to prove reliable into the future. And there are a range of complements to Bt that can be employed. (I reported more than a decade ago on a particularly innovative one the feds were developing, based on bitter melons.) But growers often go for expediency over long-term investments in multi-pronged and labor intensive crop protection. As Gray observes, “Many producers have relied on a single tactic for too many years, and unfortunate consequences are beginning to emerge.”
The irony: Bt toxin has been part of the agricultural arsenal for nearly a century. Farmers first began employing it — by seeding crops with spores of the parent bacterium — around 1920, according to a website run by Raffi Aroian’s lab at the University of California San Diego. But as spore-based products could wash away or be degraded by sunlight, biochemists sought a more effective way to ensure the toxin stayed with plants. And they found it: incorporation of the gene responsible for making the toxin directly into high value crops.
“The first genetically engineered plant, corn, was registered with the EPA in 1995,” the Aroian lab notes. Already, however, concerns about the invincibility of Bt were emerging in lab studies (see SN: 9/12/92, p. 166). And precisely because Bt toxin had proven such an effective insecticide for so long, crop-protection specialists warned that to safeguard Bt’s potency, growers would have to resist the temptation to overuse it.
That gets back to how we now appear doomed to repeat that history we failed to learn.
While perusing old issues of Science News, I encountered hosts of stories describing heavy and apparently indiscriminate use of DDT.
One January 1946 piece observed that dog shampoos laced with DDT can eliminate fleas for months. An August 1947 article described wallpaper manufacturers adding the chemical to their product so that it would kill flies on contact. And federal scientists had begun evaluating DDT’s safety in the paper used by stores to wrap groceries. A 1949 story described the insecticide’s utility as a treatment for rivers: Just two quarts were needed to deal with fly- and mosquito-infested regions up to 25 miles downstream. Our magazine also prophesied that thanks to DDT (and good sanitation), families could plan on soon kissing their flyswatters goodbye: “We are within sight of a flyless age.”
Five years later, pest control operators were singing a very different tune. Early claims of DDT resistance, initially shrugged off, eventually were shown to be prescient hints that a useful chemical had been overused to the point of abuse. Once a means to kill bedbugs and the lice that carried typhus — a major killer — DDT was quickly losing its potency. Malaria mosquitoes were all but laughing at the insecticide and Agriculture Department entomologists had bred a line of houseflies that could live in a jar coated with DDT (SN: 4/28/56, p. 266).
In 1957, Ralph Heal, executive secretary of the National Pest Control Association, all but conceded defeat. Along with wild houseflies, the German cockroach, bedbug, dog flea and brown tick were all exhibiting extensive resistance to DDT. Where this chemical failed to knock out pests, the newer malathion was proving effective. But Heal added that scientists already feared insects would soon develop resistance to these alternatives as well.
We’d like to think we learn from our mistakes, but collectively society can prove pretty stupid. Or selfish. Or oblivious. In the end, the bottom line is little changed: We still make way too many of the same mistakes.
***************************************************************************************
Is it time to ban Bio Spot?
Permethrin spot-on products have been on the market since 1990, but due to an oversight,
the EPA did not assess the human health risks of those products until 2006.
When permethrin spot-on products were finally assessed, they were found to exceed EPA's level of concern for toddlers. Instead of mitigating the risk by reformulating or removing those products from the market, the EPA chose to rely on an unpublished pet study -- submitted by Bayer -- which purported to show that permethrin-treated pets do not pose human health
risks:
That study was so flawed (according to those who reviewed it), EPA should have classified
it as unacceptable. Instead, the EPA continues to rely on it to support the registration of pet spot-on products!
There are many concerns about children's exposure to permethrin:
The EPA has classified permethrin as a likely human carcinogen:
Permethrin spot-on products are also reported to be the single most common cause of poisoning in cats:
Concerns over permethrin poisoning in cats from canine spot-on products have been
widely reported since the late 1990s:
In 2008, Wellmark International -- the manufacturer of Adams, Bio Spot, and Zodiac brand flea and tick products -- sent a letter to the EPA, acknowledging EPA's concerns over cat deaths resulting from accidental direct or indirect exposure to permethrin spot-on products,
as well as cancer risks that these products pose to applicators and children:
For the past decade, the EPA has attempted to reduce cat deaths by making the
warnings on permethrin spot-on products more clear, but these label warnings have
proven to be inadequate and ineffective.
In 2010, the EPA met with manufacturers of spot-on products and once again urged
them to make label directions and warnings more understandable:
Many of those recommendations have yet to be implemented.
It's time to protect children and stop the needless suffering and deaths of pets
by removing permethrin spot-on products from the marketplace.
***************************************************************************************
FidoPharm Develops a New PetArmor Plus
Takes Steps to Re-Enter the U.S. Market
***************************************************************************************
'Spot-On' Flea and Tick Products - Alleged to Cause Serious Harm to Dogs
and Cats - Prompt Ark Naturals CEO to Suggest Pet Owners Consider
Natural Botanical Alternative to Chemical Pesticides to Control Fleas & Ticks
Class Action Suits Increase as More than 75,000 Complaints of Pet Injury
and Death Reported to EPA
NAPLES, Fla., Jan. 11, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- A Dec. 8, 2011 press release issued by East Brunswick, N.J. law firm Green & Associates, LLC announcing additional class action suits against makers of pesticide-based "spot-on" (topical) flea and tick products has prompted Naples, Fla.-based Ark Naturals CEO Susan Weiss to recommend pet owners to use a natural botanical alternative to effectively control fleas and ticks.
"The Green Associates' press release was alarming and frightening at the same time," said Ms. Weiss, whose Ark Naturals company has been marketing natural pet products for 16 years, including Flea Flicker! Tick Kicker!, a formula developed recently as a natural, botanical alternative to chemical pesticides in controlling fleas and ticks.
Fleas and ticks are a way of life for dogs and cats but controlling them is a matter of choice, and the pesticide solution seems to be wrought with serious problems, said Ms. Weiss.
Reports of dangerous side effects associated with spot-on flea and tick products date back to 2000 when the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report called "Poisons on Pets: Health Hazards from Flea and Tick Products." The report revealed a link between chemicals commonly used in flea and tick products and serious health problems in both people and pets.
More recently a 2008 study by the Center for Public Integrity reported at least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot-on treatments with pyrethroids were reported to the EPA over the last five years, according to an analysis of EPA pesticide incident exposure data by the center. The EPA assigns risk levels to all pesticides for their potential dangers to humans and some flea and tick products contain chemicals, specifically permethrins, which are "likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
Moreover, the Center reported that pyrethroid spot-ons also account "for more than half of 'major' pesticide pet reactions reported to EPA over the last five years - that is, those incidents involving serious medical reactions such as brain damage, heart attacks, and violent seizures. In contrast, non-pyrethroid spot-on treatments accounted for only about six percent of all major incidents."
Ms. Weiss said that the recent New Jersey class action suits claim the EPA has done nothing to change the advertising, marketing or labeling of pesticide-based flea and tick products to alert pet owners of the possible serious side-effects, which could include shivering, salivating, dilated pupils, vomiting, tremors and skin irritation.
"Our natural botanical Flea Flicker! Tick Kicker! is labeled as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) ingredients by the EPA and FDA. It is easy to apply and leaves a mild, fresh smell. You simply spray on a light application, massage into pet's coat, and it starts to work immediately to repel and kill fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes."
Nancy Scanlan, DVM, Executive Director of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association and past president of the Veterinary Botanical Medical Association, said she has long been aware of the problems associated with the chemical and pesticide-based flea and tick products.
"I prefer natural botanicals over pesticides for treating fleas and ticks and there are a number of good natural products that work without harsh side effects," said Dr. Scanlan. "Herbal flea and tick products tend to be safer than pharmaceutical or pesticide flea and tick products, but all products that are formulated to rid pets of fleas and ticks pose some percentage of risk."
As a way of doing business Ark Naturals provides a full disclosure of its Flea Flicker! Tick Kicker! product and is one of the few, if not the only company, that includes a "cautionary statement" on its website http://www.arknaturals.com.
"The pet's guardian should always process the overall health and or age of their dog or cat. Both issues factor into the safety of using our product as well as any other type of product in the flea and tick category," said Ms. Weiss. "Remember at the end of the day you are your pet's guardian. Your four-legged guys are counting on you to make the best decision."
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 1/12/12)
Please send me EPA's technical review of the following study:
Wrzesinski, C. (2009). SCH 783460 (Indoxacarb): One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460 From Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs. MRID 47834502.
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 1/12/12)
Please send me EPA's technical review of the following study:
Wrzesinski, C. (2010a). SCH 783460 (Indoxacarb): “One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460 from Spot-On Treated Cats. MRID 48010801.
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 1/12/12)
Please send me EPA's technical review of the following study:
Wrzesinski, C. (2010b). SCH 783460 (Indoxacarb and Permethrin): “One-Month Dislodgeable
Residue Study of Indoxacarb and Permethrin from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs. MRID
48135326.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
A Longitudinal Approach to Assessing Urban and Suburban Children’s
Exposure to Pyrethroid Pesticides
Abstract:
"We conducted a longitudinal study to assess the exposure of 23 elementary school–age children to pyrethroid pesticides, using urinary pyrethroid metabolites as exposure biomarkers. We substituted most of the children’s conventional diets with organic food items for 5 consecutive days and collected two daily spot urine samples, first morning and before bedtime voids, throughout the 15-day study period. We analyzed urine samples for five common pyrethroid metabolites. We found an association between the parents’ self-reported pyrethroid use in the residential environment and elevated pyrethroid metabolite levels found in their children’s urine. Children were also exposed to pyrethroids through their conventional diets, although the magnitude was smaller than for the residential exposure. Children’s ages appear to be significantly associated with pyrethroids exposure, which is likely attributed to the use of pyrethroids around the premises or in the facilities where older children engaged in the outdoor activities. We conclude that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides. Because of the wide use of pyrethroids in the United States, the findings of this study are important for both children’s pesticide exposure assessment and environmental public health."
***************************************************************************************
Double-Digit Growth Predicted for Pet Medications
http://www.petproductnews.com/pet-health-news/double-digit-growth-predicted-for-pet-medications.aspx
The combined U.S. market for pet medications, including those sold through veterinarians, retailers and websites, was nearly $5 billion in 2007, up 11 percent over 2006, according
to New York-based Packaged Facts, a unit of MarketResearch.com. The market research group projects continued double-digit growth in the sector for the foreseeable future, with
sales hitting $8.6 billion by 2012—an annual growth rate of 11.6 percent.
By comparison, the pet medications market grew at an annual rate of 12.5 percent between 2003 and 2007.
The prime mover of the market: the aging pet population, according to the research firm,
which released “The U.S. Market for Pet Medications: Prescription and Over-The-Counter Remedies as Consumer Products” report in October. Older pets presumably use more medications because they have age-related conditions, notably joint issues.
The report cites American Veterinary Medical Association data showing the percentage of U.S. dogs aged over 6 years increased slightly from 42.4 percent in 1996 to 43.9 percent in 2006 and the percentage of cats older than 6 years increased sharply to 44.1 percent from 37.4 percent during that timeframe.
An increasing number of overweight pets also boosts pet medication usage, as conditions associated with excessive weight include osteoarthritis, cardiac disease, respiratory conditions, dermatological issues and compromised immune function, according to the report.
Despite the influence of older pets, antiparasitics, including flea and tick treatments and heartworm preventives, “dominate the market,” Packaged Facts reported. Veterinary channel products account for about three-quarters of antiparasitic sales, the research firm estimated.
Seventy-nine percent of dog-owning households use heartworm products and 64 percent use flea medications, compared to 22 percent of cat-owning households using heartworm products and 49 percent using flea medications, according to the report.
Today’s economic situation could provide opportunities for “value-positioned OTC and private-label pet products, both in pet specialty stores and in trip-saving formats such as supercenters and price-shaving outlets such as club stores,” according to the report.
For example, users of Merial’s Frontline are slightly more likely than average pet owners to believe OTC store brands are as effective as advertised brands (32.6 percent to 30.9 percent), according to Simmons Market Research Bureau, cited in the report.
***************************************************************************************
The Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing a series of actions to increase the safety
of spot-on products for flea and tick control for cats and dogs. In 2010, the EPA met with
the manufacturers of these products to discuss product-specific risk mitigation.
On September 30, 2011, the EPA sent letters to the manufacturers of pet spot-on products concerning "necessary label changes to reduce adverse events associated with your pet
spot-on product(s)."
Why did it take the EPA 12-17 months to notify the manufacturers of these "necessary
label changes"? The letter states that revised labels must be submitted no later than six months from the receipt of the letter, which means these label changes may not benefit consumers until NEXT YEAR. Furthermore, the EPA has NOT required that existing
inventory be relabeled, which means that unsafe products will remain on store shelves
until they are sold!
A key provision of these label changes involves adding a lower weight limit to the smallest package size. The lower weight limit must correspond to the lower limit
of the dose ranges used in the manufacturer's companion animal safety studies.
In 2010, after conducting a yearlong investigation of pet spot-on related incidents, the EPA
reported that small dogs are most susceptible to adverse reactions from these products:
***************************************************************************************
Thanks, Jim for posting the letters on your site. A fingertip bandage approach for a
problem that requires a full body cast. What a disgrace that LABEL UPDATES is
the best the EPA can do following the mitigation study in protecting consumers from
the effect of toxic pesticide ingredients in spot-on products. And look how long it
has taken for this very small advancement. Notice that OPP are allowing 6 months
for the registrants to even respond let alone putting the label changes into effect.
Lois Rossi, head of the OPP, in the letter informs the registrants how to construct
verbiage for the instruction of use insert regarding monitoring their pet following the application of the spot-on product and writes the following as an example `monitor
your dog after application. Side effects may include signs of skin irritation, redness,
scratching or other signs of discomfort, gastrointestinal signs such as vomiting,
diarrhea also have been reported. If these or other side effects occur consult
your veterinarian or the Registrant (1-800-)
Is it possible Ms. Rossi and her staff MISSED the thousands of reported serious,
life threatening, fatal and near fatal adverse reactions? `Diarrhea and vomiting' is
the most serious indicators they mention....? Well, Ms. Rossi, let me tell you about
`vomiting' and illness that turns into severe anemia and requires four blood transfusions
and requires three years of follow-up care and $10,000 in veterinary care. And to add
insult to injury Ms. Rossi is suggesting the consumer call the registrant to report the
adverse event. The Merial registrant informed me when I reported my pet's reaction
that their product would not cause such a reaction! So the cycle goes round and round
via the scope of the registrant being provided full charge in collecting adverse reaction
data.
When is Ms. Rossi and her staff going to fess up and provide an interview to the media
and answer some hard hitting questions? So far, in most of the consumer media pieces,
the EPA declines comment. How convenient. The registrants must all support Cheshire
grins walking away with a mere flick of a wrist slap.
Jan 1/14/12
for `Choe' Frontline Survivor
***************************************************************************************
Pet dogs as sentinels for environmental contamination
Abstract:
The presence of environmental contaminants in air, water and food may pose significant health risks to the exposed human population. However, problems associated with assessing chronic exposure to low doses of environmental chemicals, multiple exposure routes, diseases with long latency periods, and non-specific health outcomes make it difficult to conduct the appropriate human epidemiologic studies. It may be useful to complement human epidemiology with animal studies. Animals monitored or evaluated in situ for the appropriate suite of endpoints can provide information about both exposure levels and potential adverse health effects. Animals have served as sentinel indicators for health effects associated with a number of environmental exposures, including pesticides and asbestos. Pet dogs may be particularly valuable sentinels because they share the human environment. In addition, dogs respond to many toxic insults in ways analogous to humans, they have physiologically compressed life spans, and they are free from some important lifestyle risk factors for disease. An example of how pet dogs may be used as sentinels for potential human health hazards involves a study of the genotoxic effects resulting from exposure to a mixture of chemicals from nearby Superfund sites. We conducted a cross-sectional study of exposed dogs (living in the community with the Superfund sites) and controls (living in a nearby community). The pet owners completed a questionnaire, and we collected a blood sample from each dog. The blood samples were analyzed for standard clinical parameters and assays for possible genotoxic effects (peripheral blood lymphocyte micronucleus frequency and lymphocyte subtyping). Pet dogs living near the Superfund sites had a higher micronucleus frequency than control animals, suggesting that the dogs may have been exposed to environmental contaminants from these sites.
***************************************************************************************
(Below is a Freedom of Information Act request that I sent to the EPA on 1/17/12)
Please send me all correspondence between EPA and registrants of pet spot-on products concerning pre-market clinical trials (as mentioned on EPA's website below):
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James TerBush
Website Administrator
***************************************************************************************
Pesticides, pets a delicate combo
Written by Melanie Payne
Gizmo, a 3-pound Chihuahua, had been a healthy, happy, almost 3-year-old dog until his owner applied a flea and tick medication.
Gizmo began salivating and vomiting. The next day, his kidneys shut down. And on the third day, he let out a plaintive wail, vomited blood, and moments later, died in Katherine Korytkowski’s arms.
Korytkowski blamed herself for using the product, Sergeant’s Gold Flea and Tick Squeeze-On for dogs. Korytkowski had split the vial between Gizmo and Chance, her other, larger Chihuahua. Korytkowski is unemployed and broke. So she purchased the medicine — which on the package specifies it is for a 9-to-20 pound dog — put a couple of drops on Gizmo and the rest on Chance. She’d done it before without a problem, she said.
After Gizmo’s death, Korytkowski found reports from scores of people on the Internet who complained about the product and how it had killed or resulted in a serious illness in their dogs. Korytkowski wondered how the product could still be on the market if it were dangerous? Yet she still blamed herself.
“All I can think of is how I killed him,” a distraught Korytkowski said through tears. “Not the product. ... Me.”
Unfortunately, there is some truth to the statement. This product never should have been given to a dog Gizmo’s size — not even a few drops.
“People don’t realize these are insecticides, pesticides, ... that’s why they’re regulated by the EPA,” said Sergeant’s spokeswoman Kelly Lytle. “They’re not categorically unsafe: They’re not. But they have to be used with care just like any bug spray.”
Splitting a dose is particularly dangerous. “You may be giving 82 percent to one dog and 18 percent to the other,” Lytle said. “That’s why we don’t sell a big bottle of it. It’s dosed in a vial with a one-time-only use.”
Lytle said the products are designed for specific weights of dogs, and these are are strict guidelines – not suggestions. They are also species specific; for instance, products for dogs can’t be used on cats. Toy breeds present their own challenges, Lytle said, which is why Sergeant has developed a line of products for pint-sized pups.
he product also needs to dry completely before pets come into contact with each other. Excessive salivation, one of the symptoms little Gizmo exhibited, can happen when a dog licks the product off another dog.
“It’s a common tale,” veterinarian Lisa Neuman at the Bayshore Animal Clinic said when I told her about what happened to Gizmo. “They (pet owners) are trying to save money.”
Neuman said she once had a whole family who became sick after treating their pets with an over-the-counter flea and tick application. The products available at grocery and pet stores may be less expensive than those sold by veterinarians, Neuman said, but the “old school ingredients” can cause more adverse reactions, both mild and severe.
The EPA tracks adverse reactions and Korytkowski contacted the agency to make a report. Sergeant’s also has opened up a case on Gizmo’s death, Lytle said. But since Gizmo was not treated by a veterinarian (Korytkowski didn’t have the money to take him to a vet when he got sick), it will be difficult to determine if his death was definitely caused by the flea and tick treatment overdose, ingestion of the product or even some other cause.
Everyone I talked to about Gizmo feels terrible about what happened. And I was hesitant to write this column because I don’t want to blame Korytkowski since I know she feels terrible that her improper use of this product likely caused her dog’s death.
But here’s the deal: If even one person reads this column and realizes they can’t split the doses on these treatments; that they have to get the right product for the animal; that these powerful chemicals, if used incorrectly, can have deadly consequences, then it means someone else’s beloved pet might be saved.
***************************************************************************************
Kids & bees at risk from synthetic 'flower power'
by Kristin Schafer
When I worked in Kenya many years ago, I visited a small farm where they processed chrysanthemums for use as a natural pest killer. I vividly remember the powerful, not unpleasant smell rising from the mesh shelves where the flowers were drying in the sun.
You'd think a pesticide based on flowers would be harmless, right? The promoters of synthetic pyrethroids — which mimic the natural pyrethrum extracted from chrysanthemums — certainly want us to think so. But once again, the latest batch of "safer" pesticides are not as harmless as we thought, and pose particular risks to children. Unfortunately, EPA seems to be turning a blind eye to emerging evidence, and is poised to open the floodgates to more pyrethroid products and uses.
Pyrethroids exploded onto the market more than a decade ago, and are now in widespread use on pets, in homes and gardens, and in agricultural fields. But studies exploring our levels of exposure and the long term health effects have only bubbled up in the past few years.
And the findings raise some serious red flags. A 2010 study on exposure levels, for example, found that more than 70% of us have been exposed to the pesticides, with children facing the highest levels.
Children, bees & poisoning incidents
Our colleagues at Beyond Pesticides have been keeping close tabs on the emerging science of pyrethroids, including impacts of low dose exposure on puberty, the prevalence of the chemical in daycare dust, and impacts of the "new" pesticides on bees.
As we reported here last spring, in early February 2011 a careful, solid study on prenatal exposure found that children whose mothers were exposed to higher levels of pyrethroids during pregnancy were three times more likely to have developmental delays.
A few years back, The Center for for Public Integrity reported that the new, supposedly safer pesticides now lead the pack in terms of number of poisoning incidents nationwide, and the number of moderate to serious incidents — more than 6,000 — is significantly higher than any other group of bug killers.
Huh. Maybe not so safe after all.
Tell EPA not to ignore the evidence
In early November, EPA issued its evaluation of the "cumulative risk" of pyrethroids and pyrethrins (the naturally derived variety). Astonishingly, they concluded that these pesticides “do not pose risk concerns for children or adults,” and are proposing to green light product expansion. As our colleagues at Beyond Pesticides note, this finding ignores a wealth of independent data not only on a range of human health effects, but also on the onset of insect resistance.
So not only are the risks higher than originally believed, but now questions about whether the products even work are emerging as bugs evolve to resist them. Sound familiar?
Take Action » EPA is accepting public comments until February 8. Please sign PAN's petition today, telling EPA that increased use of synthetic pyrethroids is unnecessary and puts children in harm's way.
***************************************************************************************
When All Else Fails: Regulating Risky Products through Tort Litigation
Abstract
It is the prevailing wisdom among both the legal academy and the general public that the regulatory system is better able to ensure the safety of risky products than the tort system. In this article I argue that this is not always the case. Contrary to sharp criticisms of “regulation by litigation” propounded by leading academics such as Richard Epstein, Richard Reich, and Peter Shuck, tort litigation is sometimes the only way to encourage product safety, at least in settings where manufacturers conceal key information needed to evaluate product safety. Without this litigation, we might still be using products that we know now are exceedingly dangerous.
***************************************************************************************
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
