After a number of comments from our canine cancer froum members, we looked into this matter and wrote about available natural flea prevention and relief for pets. Your readers might be interested to know that many have found these solutions helpful for their dogs with weakened immune systems, during chemo therapy trearments for instance. Thanks for this post!

tripawds.com April 27th, 2009 12:57:49 PM

Stuff like this makes it very difficult to trust corporations & regulatory bodies at all. I know there are good, trustworthy business out there making safe, beneficial products, but how do you know what is safe and what to avoid when the regulartory bodies seem to be in collusion with big business to keep potentially life saving information from the public?

I get it, that business is about making money, but why do I want to keep giving my money to a companies that may be putting their bottom line above the health and lives of their customers? Why do I want to continue to patronize a poorly regulated industry where there is no way to tell the difference between those who make a product to help us solve our problems, and those who would happily kill our pets for a buck, if only they can get away with it for a little while longer?

It's easy to understand how people become paranoid. With all the breaches of trust by big industry over the last few years, I'm moving toward a life style that involves reducing processed stuff, making things on my own more, alternative therapies, smaller suppliers & producers and overall having more control over what I allow into my life and better awareness of where things come from and how they are made.

Sadly, it seems all too clear that business are willing to breach your trust and then try to hide it for as long as possible, rather than being responsible and the very agencies that are supposed to protect the public are willing to bow to pressure to protect these companies' bottom lines instead.

I feel bad for all the companies that produce good, safe products that are going to loose business because of this incident, because trust in their whole industry is being erroded.

Anlina Sheng - abnormalloveofcats.com April 27th, 2009 01:03:37 PM

When I was young, I was in Civil Defense (CD).  At school, they taught us that it was safe to bathe in water even if that water wasn't quite safe to drink while, at CD, I was simultaneously being taught how to don full body protection gear with a gas mask because hazards could be absorbed through the skin (although they didn't think it could be so easily absorbed as we now know it can) as well as inhaled.  "Will the same shameful history be repeated again today?"  Oh, yes, as it has been over and over since we began mass production of chemicals and will continue until we decide to stop demanding them as the easy solution while ignoring the impact they have.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 01:13:31 PM

The list of natural flea/tick products linked above includes a product called "Flee Flea"... I would be very careful using any product that contains pennyroyal oil. While the toxic dose for cats and dogs in unknown, pennyroyal oil has been implicated in the deaths of infants and has been shown to be toxic in rat studies. The mechnism of toxicity is quite similar to acetominophen (tylenol), so I would also be extremely careful using pennyroyal in houses with cats and on animals with liver damage.

Megan April 27th, 2009 01:21:38 PM

Tripawds, thank you for the information! Very useful. Can you also suggest a product or source of information on effective alternative tick prevention? There is a lot of information on the Internet, but I want to be sure the products are effective since I have stopped vaccinating my dogs for Lyme's disease. For now I have been using Frontline Plus, but I would like to switch to something less toxic but still effective. Thanks in advance.

Natalie Kramer April 27th, 2009 01:24:21 PM

I should also note that I've used Bert's Bees insect repellant quite successfully on my corgi when we go up to the Boundary Waters... Her big ears are a prime target for biting flies and mosquitos, and we've found the spray works really well. I do wash it off as soon as we come back inside, as I try to limit prolonged exposure to any essential oil.

Megan April 27th, 2009 01:24:43 PM

I did see that list before it was removed and I seem to recall not only Frontline but also Hartz and an assortment of other know products on the list. Many of them were the same product under a different name which they had nicely grouped together. Hopefully the list will re-appear soon enough. I could be wrong about the Hartz but its sticking out in my mind.

Kathy April 27th, 2009 01:44:35 PM

Google is your friend.  :)

.

80490-2: Promeris Spot On for Dogs and Promeris for Dogs. 65331-5: Frontline Plus for Dogs.

65331-4: Frontline Plus for Cats.

2724-504: RF2004(CCSO), Zodiac Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Cats 5 lbs. and over and Zodiac Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Cats & Kittens Under 5 lbs.

2724-497: RF9908 Spot On, Zodiac Groomers' Spot On Pack, Zodiac Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Small Dogs 16-30 lbs., Zodiac Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Medium Dogs 31-60 lbs., Zodiac Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Large Dogs Over 60 lbs., and Zodiac Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Puppies, Toys & Miniatures under 15 lbs.

2517-85: Sergeant's Cyphenothrin Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sergeant's Silver Flea and Tick Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sentry XFC Flea and Tick Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sentry XFC Squeeze-on for Dogs and Sergeant's Silver Squeeze-on for Dogs

2517-80: Sergeant's Cyphenothrin + IGR Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sergeant's Gold Flea and Tick Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sentrypro XFC Flea and Tick Squeeze-on for Dogs, Sentrypro XFC Squeeze-on for Dogs and Sentrypro XFC Flea and Tick Squeeze-on for Dogs Extreme Flea Control.

Debbie April 27th, 2009 01:50:57 PM

Interesting about the pennyroyal, Megan. I personally am NOT inclined to accept recommendations for "Natural" products because in my own experience, so many of the people into these things are True Believers, and may or may not even know what is in the products, much less how they may interact with other substances that could be in use. I've had friends practically demand that I use this or that favored "natural" treatment, insisting that because it's "natural," it is "safe," only to find later when I research it that A) there are ingredients that are specifically contraindicated for another medication I'm taking, or B) there are ingredients known to be UNsafe in general, not just for someone on a particular medicine. Then again, it's pretty horrendous to have several cats infested with fleas. Leaves me with no idea how to proceed. How disheartening.

Judy April 27th, 2009 02:16:07 PM

Ok, I know there are differences between dogs and humans. I mean we are both mammals though. If something has a warning against humans getting this crap on their skin, why would anyone think it is safe for their dogs?

Chuck April 27th, 2009 02:24:24 PM

Judy, Do your research.  There are pros and cons to "natural" and "artificial".  I use both; lots of research and lots of label reading!  For me, it started with my own reactions to the multitude of chemicals in my house and darned if there aren't a whole slew of them you can just plain live without which improves everyone's tolerance for what's left although it's definitely getting tougher with the increasing general level of chemicals spreading through the environment.  (My son was becoming one of those "True Believers" until he nearly poisoned me.  Sorry, kiddo (aka my son) got to make the same individual evaluations for dosage with "natural" as with script for those with existing health problems and MORE isn't always better :)

Chuck, I lean towards that too but there are multiple reasons for those labels and often they are there because the product hasn't been tested on humans.

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 02:39:02 PM

True, but apparently this stuff wasn't tested on dogs either? Looks like production was the beta? I look forward to hearing about the lawsuits that come of this.

Chuck April 27th, 2009 02:41:59 PM

All too true apparently!  Ditto here.

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 03:05:42 PM

Kathy, you are not wrong: Hartz indeed was on the EPA list, as was Frontline. So I am not sure exactly what the Hartz vet is telling Dolittler, or why. Debbie's list is correct, but it was the earliest version issued. The second version was longer and included 42 separate dog and cat products, and brands Farnam and Tradewinds. Oh, and I saved dated, printed copies of those lists.

Diane April 27th, 2009 03:11:59 PM

Debbie, that's 6 products. I wonder what number 7 is? Did anybody check teh Wayback machine, or was it up long enough?? Should we call the phone number and harrass them?

Stefani April 27th, 2009 03:55:00 PM

OK, evil, and sneaky.

Here is what I got when I checked the WayBack machine: "Robots.txt Query Exclusion.

We're sorry, access to http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

You may want to:

Read more about robots.txt See the site's robots.txt file. Try the page on the live web: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html Search for all pages on the site epa.gov/ Try a different page address, at top See the FAQs for more info and help, or contact us.

I guess that's just how our government agencies respond to pressure from corporate entities. Pet products are big business, and they will go medieval on your butt if you go public with anything that hurts $$$$$$. We saw this when Dr. K wrote about Hartz.

Well, if anyone ends up at the bottom of a lake with cement block on their feet . . .

Stefani April 27th, 2009 04:02:40 PM

Diane, can you scan the lists and post them somewhere?

Stefani April 27th, 2009 04:03:32 PM

I just talked to Mr. Hebert.

Initially, he told me that the list was going to be reposted within a few days, listing ALL spot-ons (not just the original 7-8) and their number of ADEs.

However, he then put me on hold, came back, and told me that "he could not tell me" when teh list would be back up. I said "in a few days?" and he hemmed and hawed, and said to send him an email expressing my concerns and he would forward it to his supervisors. Eventually, they are supposed to put the whole list up with ADEs but sounds like there will be a delay an ** someone ** appeared to be interrupting our call to tell him NOT to promise that it would be re-released anytime soon.

So write him at: herbert.john@epa.gov

Stefani April 27th, 2009 04:10:10 PM

Can anyone tell me about the safety profile of Revolution for cats? My vet is now recommending it because of heartworm protection which is not included with Frontline, which I have previously used.

Stefani April 27th, 2009 04:11:40 PM

Debbie: I spent about 30 minutes yesterday trying to find that! Thanks!! (I feel so stupid not having saved the list after I first saw it). btw, where'd you find it posted in that form?

And Diane: Would you mind sending me the lists? 

I assume the first list of the seven ingredients comprises 80% of the offenders, as the EPA originally had listed on their Website. I assume the second list is for all, including the remaining 20%.

I think everyone here should be very cautious when interpreting these results. We need transparency but that does not mean we need a witch hunt against the 80% or a round of congratulations for the rest. What I'm calling for here is openness and accuracy so that we can all compare apples to apples. It does no one any good to read a list of seven substances that led to 35,000 reports of rashes if the rest of the remaining 9,000 killed the pets, right? 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 27th, 2009 04:16:21 PM

Only use Advantage purchased at the Vets. To many counterfeit products out there at retail Vets have the tightest quality monitoring on these products.

Evet April 27th, 2009 04:20:31 PM

Here's the official response, courtesy of LorriM:

"A new list should be posted on our website in the next few days.  This list will contain all the spot-on products registered by EPA and the number of adverse incidents we have received for each."

Again, I would caution the EPA to list the kind of events we're talking about here.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 27th, 2009 04:21:22 PM

I'm glad they are publicly making the "next few days" commitment. Let's hold them to it as best we can. After all, it's that season when we need to figure out what we are going to do about fleas etc (for those of us who live in areas where we do not have to worry about that year round)

Guess I'm not using Frontline Plus for Cats anymore!

Stefani April 27th, 2009 04:27:24 PM

Greenpaws.. anyone know about them?   http://www.greenpaws.org/report.php

NRDC did a report some years ago, which they just updated:  http://www.nrdc.org/health/poisonsonpets/

EmilyS April 27th, 2009 04:49:27 PM

I seem to recall that both fipronil and imidocloprid (active ingredients in Frontline and Advantage) were used as crop dusting insecticides on humaan food crops long before they were formulated for flea control on pets. Like we had been "safely" eating it on our tomatoes and strawberries for years. Anyone else ever hear this?

Hobson April 27th, 2009 04:59:48 PM

I'm actually surprised that these products have been considered safe for this long. It'll be interesting to see how this story develops. I wish there was more definitive (ie, veterinarian sanctioned) information available on natural products to prevent/eliminate fleas and ticks, as well as heartworm. Dr. Khuly, what do you recommend to your clients in lieu of Frontline, Advantage etc.? Stefani, I took a close look at Revolution when it first came out, together with the holistically oriented veterinarian I worked with at the time, and we concluded that it was not something we felt comfortable recommending to our clients. Unfortunately, it's been three years and the details of why we came to this conclusion escape me. We felt that Interceptor was the better product for heartworms because it didn't have as many chemicals in it (not sure that's a "positive" endorsement, though!)

Ingrid King April 27th, 2009 05:03:13 PM

Evet, There have been several notorious cases of counterfeits that came through wholesalers and distributors.  The end seller/provider (pharmacy, doctor, vet, etc.) can have all the QC in the world and it doesn't deter this much as there is no serial number type tracking for most products and, even if there is, end users don't have access to verify authenticity.

This also adds a layer of difficulty to EPA's analysis because they have to determine if the effects they are seeing are coming from "real" products.

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 05:05:40 PM

I found a list here

<b>

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/182427-Increased-Scrutiny-of-Flea-and-Tick-Control-Products-for-Pets

Elizabeth - from Nova Scotia April 27th, 2009 05:09:34 PM

imidocloprid  Yep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid 

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 05:09:58 PM

fipronil too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fipronil

And looks like they're still in use.

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 05:12:22 PM

http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/BodyBurden/Sources3/Fipronil.html   http://www.sailhome.org/site_map.html

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 05:17:12 PM

About Berts Bees Repellant.

I had the notion that Castor beans and Geraniums were poisonous to pets. Isnt the oil going to go into the skin and have the same effect as eating it ?

Or am I being over cautious?

the natural flea prevention mentioned in tripawds comment and site has penyroyal in it. Isnt that what was just posted as poisonous on here.

Is there any product that is safe ? Revolution perhaps? Or what?

Garlic in food used to be alright but now I`m told that garlic is harmful .

Please tell us?

And please post the full list of flagged products for us when  you get it.

thanks

Heather April 27th, 2009 05:22:45 PM

I have been using Revolution on my cats for a few years now.

BTW Revolution is regulated by the FDA NOT the EPA and was NOT on the list.

I have never had any issues with using Revolution on my 7 cats. I also used it on my 8th cat which has since passed away (age related she was 17).

I highly recommend Revolution, as long as a person is not having a tick problem with their cats. Revolution does not get ticks.

However it does take care of: Heartworms, earmites, fleas, roundworms, and hookworms.

It's a great product and I have not heard complaints of reactions like I have with some of the other products.

cl April 27th, 2009 05:28:34 PM

Personally, I've been using Force Field by McIntyre (sp?) for the last few years.

Not only does it repel fleas and ticks, but also works around the house on ants and flies, works outdoors on mosquitoes, blackflies and horseflies, and is so safe we even spray it around the parrots.

It's also one of the few natural products that is not oily or smelly.  It has a citrusy odor, but it's light - more frangrant than odorous.

That being said, when we do have an issue with fleas (with the foster dogs coming in all the time and the dogs coming to work with me daily, it does eventually happen every few years or so - the last two years it's happened yearly, supporting client's claims that pesticides have been less effective each year) we ALWAYS use Advantage - the regular variety, NOT the multi.

We have - knock on wood - never experienced a reaction to it.  We purchase the large tubes (blue 100's) in a six pack directly from the vet and then dose each pet accordingly to save some money.  This way we can spread the tubes out.  Generally it gets rid of the infestation within a day or two, and one treatment has so far always been enough to wipe out the problem.  Although by "infestation" I mean we've noticed the dogs itching and spotted *A* flea.  As far as I'm concerned, that warrants treatment.

As far as heartworm, when we have used preventative in the past (although I dislike calling it that...) we've always used Heartgard.  Again, we chose this product because of our previous lack of issues, and the incredibly high dosage required to pose any toxicological threat beyond simple sensitivity.  And yes, we've treated numerous collies and other herding breeds with it.

However, we live in a low-incidence area regarding heartworms, and so we choose to test frequently and use bug repellent as described previously whenever the dogs are outdoors.  We live in the city, so mosquitoes are not really an issue, we treat all of our windows with repellent to keep the pests away and all summer long the windows are shut, the A/C is on or the fans run through the A/C filters and the dogs do not go outside for much more than a pee break after dark, except for rare occasions when we travel north - where mosquitoes are plentiful but heartworm is EXTREMELY rare.

Much like vaccinations, it's our belief that flea and heartworm prevention comes down to risk vs. reward.  If you are living in a high risk area, the risk the "preventives" present is small compared to the risk of infection.  However, the line can get grey in some areas, leaving more up to personal choice and educated decision.

Kim April 27th, 2009 05:39:49 PM

FDA v. EPA  It isn't an either/or situation with many products; they could fall to one, the other, or both agencies for oversight.  Remember that when the system was designed, they thought there were pretty clear and apparent lines between "chemical", "food", and "drug" as terms of art.  Hopefully, FDA will be tagging on but they're so much slower than EPA that it could take a while.

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 05:42:52 PM

Here is the product list that was removed from the EPA's website concerning dangerous flea and tick products:

http://www.biospotvictims.org/EPAAdvisory-IncreasedScrutinyList2.pdf

I seriously doubt that the EPA will publish a new list of products.  Why? Because no company wants their product on the EPA's "S#!T LIST."

The EPA plans to meet with the manufacturers of these products early next month to discuss this problem.  I would like to know where and when the meeting will take place.  Will the meeting be open to the public? Who has been invited besides the manufacturers of these products? How can we get a transcript of the meeting?

James April 27th, 2009 05:45:23 PM

James, ask them; then file your FOIA request.

PJBoosinger April 27th, 2009 05:51:14 PM

I sent email to John Hebert, hebert.john@epa.gov and asked him the above questions.  No answer yet.  Don't expect an answer, either.  Perhaps if more people ask, he will have to reply.

James April 27th, 2009 06:03:18 PM

Thanks for the comments regarding the pennyroyal oil in Flee Flea. We'll be looking into that and modifying our post. For the tick prevention, we read that the physical structure of all natural diatomaceous earth is harmful to insects but not animals.

tripawds.com April 27th, 2009 06:09:51 PM

Heather- the compound that makes castor beans toxic (ricin) is not present in the oil extracted for castor beans. The irritating compounds of geranium are found in the plant's leaves, not in the essential oil produced from the plant. Garlic is thought to be toxic to dogs because it is related to onions, which we know are toxic to dogs... but I've yet to see a case study describing an actual case of garlic-related toxicity.

As they say, "the dose makes the poison"... There are lots of things that might be poisonous in large amounts that are safe or beneficial in small amounts.

Megan April 27th, 2009 06:28:41 PM

Thanks to those who commented on Revolution. Boy, lots to think about

Stefani April 27th, 2009 06:51:08 PM

cl: Yes, it's true that Revolution is regulated by the FDA. That's why I didn't list it with the rest. I'm not exactly sure why that's so, but my guess is because selamectin (the ingredient in Revolution) has direct competitors in ivermectin and milbemycin (in Heartgard and Interceptor, respectively). It therefore makes more sense for the regulators to consider it a drug, despite it's topical route of administration.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 27th, 2009 06:55:52 PM

To all the people here advocating "natural" products, and those wanting more information on their safety: There are COUNTLESS sites on the net to get you the information you need. I am not talking about laypersons' websites, nor natural product manufacturers with dubious claims. I'm talking about the medical and toxicology fields with professors and scientists with years of research into these very harmful products. This research goes back as far as the late 70's and early 80's, with data that proves most if not all of the natural oils are toxic for BOTH cats and dogs, cats are most susceptible. There is plenty of data proving these natural products and oils continue to harm pets despite the manufacturers' claims they are safe. The simple truth is, they are not. This information is not hard to find, but you need to search scholarly articles, peer-reviewed research, not the millions of google unsubstantiated sites.

Please remember that with repeated applications, and long-term accumulation, the risk is significantly high for toxicity in both animals and humans. Add the fact that manufacturers of these "natural" products are under no legal regulation, and they never have to disclose the carriers, synergists and other compounds they use to formulate these products. It is those compounds that increase the risk because they ENHANCE the product's mechanism of action (just like OTC flea and tick products). Used alone or with an enhancement compound, the risk is simply too high. Toxicity occurs with inhalation, dermal absorption and ingestion and NO product is without those risks.

Start with thelavendercat.com

The site is currently getting an upgrade, but it is one of the most comprehensive sites for pet owners to start learning. Once you've got an idea on the toxicity of these oils, then graduate onto more toxicology research sites.

It never ceases to amaze me when pet owners claim natural products work, despite evidence many of them do not, nor recognize the substantial harm in these products. Natural is not always safe, and anyone who claims pennyroyal for example, or garlic, are safe, has NOT done their homework. These are only two common examples where people propogate harmful information, yet fail to research all the available evidence. Your pet can't tell you it burns like hell on their skin, or that it has entered his or her mucous membranes and made them ill, or that the accumulation over time has affected their liver and kidneys and CNS system.

Try a simple test on yourself, apply pennyroyal oil to your own cheek, let it sit for at least an hour then come back and tell others how it felt.

lexipup April 27th, 2009 07:24:15 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- several Hartz products for cats most certainly WERE on that list, and I tried to DM you about it but I misspelled dolittler. It was the supreme irony after their cease and desist letters. The Hartz vets are LIARS. HEY HARTZ, MY NAME IS SUSAN ROSENAU, I LIVE IN WASHINGTON DC -- I AM A LAWYER -- GO AHEAD, THREATEN ME. I WILL SUE YOUR ASS OFF.

Susan Rosenau April 27th, 2009 08:25:06 PM

Oh, here's a link to an article with a complete list of the products, including those from Hartz.

Susan Rosenau April 27th, 2009 08:31:52 PM

No, HERE's the link. OOPS.

http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/337/1/EPA-to-investigate-Pet-Flea-and-Tick-Treatments/Page1.html

Susan Rosenau April 27th, 2009 08:32:33 PM

Lexipup - no one is suggesting applying pennyroyal oil full strength.

Really, it's this kind of all-or-nothing talk that confuses the average consumer into thinking that garlic is going to cause their pet to keel over at any moment or that one chocolate chip is going to send their GSD into convulsions.  It's this same fear mongering that prevents people from reaching into their own cupboards to feed their pets, relying instead on supermarket fare and veterinary "preventative" diets.

It never ceases to amaze ME that people still claim natural products and feeding methods are dangerous on the basis that they don't have government oversight and approval.  Here we have DOZENS, probably hundreds, of products on the market that are approved by the EPA for the treatment of parasites and over 44,000 REPORTED adverse effects (a TINY fraction of those actually afflicted by pain, medical issues or even death) and you're going to rage against the uses of a product that contains small amounts of essential oils on the basis that full strength oil causes irritation and/or toxicity?

Any idea how much of your shampoo, moisturizer, sunscreen, conditioner, dish soap, etc are actual product and how much is water?  The answer is that there is a LOT of water for every SMALL amount of product.  The reason?  Simple!  Full strength product, even the most seemingly innocent kind, is extremely irritating and even harmful at full strength.  Extrapolate that further, and isolate a few of the single ingredients - you're going to come up with compounds that are dangerous, even DEADLY.  And yet, you apply them to your body daily without concern, and without long term effects.  How?  Just as full strength Chlorine will burn your flesh, and yet the correct dose, used correctly in a swimming pool not only prevents bacterial and fungal overgrowth but does so mild enough to allow most individuals to open their delicate eyes underwater with little or no irritation.

An example?  Johnson's Baby Shampoo contains:

Tetrasodium EDTA - prolonged skin exposure can cause irritation, and may even burn.  Quaternium-15 - can instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of skin, or severe respiratory reaction.  In fact, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, the foaming agent used in Johnson's is the subject of MUCH debate - and happens to be the second ingredient in the product... after water, of course.  It has been found to be irritating to the eyes and lungs, to have serious contamination concerns, and there are gaps in the data studying long term toxicology.

The point is, you'd have a hard time finding an FDA, EPA or other government-approved product for use on the human (or animal!) body that did NOT have these kinds of ingredients.

Just as diatomaceous earth can be dangerous if it comes in contact with the eye or the lining of the lungs, it is equally as beneficial when applied correctly, either to the food as a dewormer or directly to the soil/environment to eradicate pests.

While I do agree with you that natural does NOT mean safe, and proper reasearch and precautions should be undertaken prior to the use of any product, commercial or otherwise (preferably including the advice of a holistic or simply open-minded veterinarian) - while you ask for proof that these things are safe, I ask for proof that they are not - when used PROPERLY.

After almost two decades of feeding my pets garlic daily, not to mention the use of a holistic vet who has practiced for over 40 years using not only garlic but essential oils as well on both dogs AND cats (including my own pets) I have to stop and disagree with full voice to your claim that the discomfort and potential (and yes, in some cases proven) toxicity of certain substances used at full strength is equal to the discomfort and potential toxicity of these same substances when used at appropriate levels/dosages.

I echo Megan when I say show me a case of garlic toxicity caused by prolonged exposure to normal levels of ingested garlic.

Kim April 27th, 2009 09:07:28 PM

I still have a copy: Promeris/dogs, Frontline Plus/cats & dogs, Zodiac/cats&dogs, Farnham/cats, Hartz/cats, Adams, Sergeant's Sentry Pro, and Tradewinds TriForce

Hopefully, I can still buy the Frontline w/o the Plus, as I was able to last year. I've stuck with that for over 10 years, the worst reaction being pink skin irritation that usually subsides

my blog & pictures

Barbara A. Albright/NH April 27th, 2009 09:31:22 PM

What's the market share of those products? A product with say 30% of market share accounting for 25% of adverse reaction would be much safer than a product with 3% market share which accounts for 5% adverse reaction.(Assuming equal severity of adverse reaction)

dodo April 27th, 2009 09:35:31 PM

As far as fleas go there is another option for dog owners....the 30 day oral pill; Comfortis. Not saying it is the be all end all of safety but it is regulated by FDA (take that for what you will) and it does have the Green Chemistry award/seal. Which supposedly makes it safer.....again take it for what that is worth. But it is another option for those of you who are looking for something different. It is not labled for ticks and it is not for cats yet. anyway something you all can look into.....

BTW I have been using Frontline Plus for years on my dog and I have not had any problem. I will likely continue to use as I do go to a park a couple times a week that can be a hot bed for ticks. I do think it works and has helped any infestation. I don't particularly want any tick borne disease either. I will monitor her after applications and if ever a change or response then I will re-eval.

J.C. April 27th, 2009 10:06:37 PM

What about lufeneron? I had to use it for ringworm which Toonces apparently contracted while at the vets, but I know it's intended for fleas. For ringworm, you have to give 2x the dose you would use for fleas so . . . for us there were no side effects at 2x the flea dose. Any safety info on that?

Stefani April 27th, 2009 10:18:56 PM

I have heard that Penny Royal is toxic to humans. Cats would lick the stuff right off their body so I myself would not use Penny Royal on them.

Colorado Transplant April 27th, 2009 11:42:54 PM

Pennyroyal was traditionally used as an abortifacient, and its toxicity was a contributing factor (not the only one, of coures) in Hippocrates' writings being so anti-abortion, and the Hippocratic oath including that line about not procuring or providing an abortion. The incidences of death of the woman, or serious health damage, were way too high.

(Earlier, the Egyptians had a different plant, that apparently induced abortion without the high risk of death or serious complications. It was heavily used, and not commercially farmed, and was extinct by Hippocrates' time.)

Lis April 28th, 2009 08:29:49 AM

Go Susan!  I'll help draft.

Kim, Thanks.

lexipup, When doing your research, remember to check who did the research AND who funded it.  Please remember that the chemical companies funded quite a bit of the "de-bunk naturals" research.

In my experience, garlic is reasonably safe for dogs alough I haven't found it very effective.  Personally, I've been tested for allergies and garlic and onions, although related, are not identical.  I'm allergic to onions but not to garlic.

PJBoosinger April 28th, 2009 10:20:10 AM

Comfortis has plenty of side effects--primarily GI (that's all I've seen, though I've recorded more than the 12 % Lilly has reported). The key is that they say so UP FRONT, advising veterinarians to look for certain symptoms and listing contraindications. This product is regulated by the FDA and requires a prescription. This caution makes the biggest difference, IMO. OTC products SHOULD have a higher safety margin.

OTC flea and tick products are more likely to be applied incorrectly, which these companies claim is the problem behind their product reactions. And though I don't necessarily disagree (though I don't know how you could assess this), OTC products should NOT be easy to mis-apply--and they are. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 28th, 2009 11:27:14 AM

Typical backlash response, Kim, but completely flawed logic.  Do the research.  You have the ability to decide for yourself what/how to use a product, and you use your best judgement.  Your pets don't have that luxury.

With all the evidence we have about these products (and your garlic), owners have an obligation not to even take the risks whether they think it helps or not.  Funny how poison centers, toxicologists, professionals in their field repeatedly and consistently warn about this, but here you are, claiming your anecdotes are proof perfect. 

PJBoosinger, I'm fully well-versed how to check validity in research, thank you.  Some pet owners on the other hand, however, choose not to think critically of their sources, and love to cherry-pick what they want to see and hear.  That's the unfortunate thing for the pets.

lexipup April 28th, 2009 11:35:59 AM

I never like the idea of applying any chemical pesticide to my dog's skin. Even Flea collars seem potentially too dangerous-would you wear a toxic necklace? I have been using Damminix Tick Tubes for the last few years. I get them from the website-www.ticktubes.com. They are ecologically sound, but effective against ticks. Using the tubes, and trying to control the landscape of my garden (clearing brush, and also I laid out a wood chip path/barrier around the perimeter) seems to have worked well.

jordan April 28th, 2009 12:01:56 PM

lexipup, that's funny since I'm such a cynic I take anything I read with a grain of salt. IMO there are no "good" or "bad" chemicals (natural or artificial); just good and bad uses and applications. The world of chemicals, which comprise everything we encounter, is a wide range of grays that have to be constantly evaluated and balanced.  It is those who promote "simple" solutions from the black and white aspect that I find suspect.

PJBoosinger April 28th, 2009 12:34:33 PM

When we lived in SoCal, where fleas are a constant problem, I found the best place for flea collars was cut up in the vacuum cleaner bag (kills the ones you clean up in between bag changes). We are fortunate now that living at 5,000 ft = no fleas. Also, wanted to mention that pennyroyal oil is not only an abortifacient, but a trigger for asthma attacks, sometimes even in people who don't normally have asthma.

Maria Shanley April 28th, 2009 12:37:44 PM

"With all the evidence we have about these products (and your garlic), owners have an obligation not to even take the risks whether they think it helps or not."

Citations please? I come up with exactly one study about garlic and dogs, published in 2000 in the AJVR. Dogs were given garlic extract (1.25 ml/kg BW, derived from 5 gm/kg BW of whole garlic) intragastrically daily for 7 days. That works out to be ~45 gm whole garlic for my corgi, or about eight cloves per day. The dogs developed eccenterocytes and their RBC count dropped, but they never developed clinical hemolytic anemia. This hardly seems to be unequivocal evidence for the toxicity of garlic as owners generally feed it.

Now the question of whether garlic actually helps with parasites is another question entirely, and I'll agree that evidence there is sorely lacking.

Megan April 28th, 2009 01:43:25 PM

Aren't topical pet insecticides suspected of causing autoimmune hemolytic anemia?

James April 28th, 2009 02:10:21 PM

Some of the older pesticides have certainly been proven to be related to autoimmune hemolytic anemia.  Sadly, huge companies like Dow can invent and market new pesticides faster than science can test them, especially testing for long term effects.  The bar for approval and use is incredibly low even after Agent Orange, DDT, PCB, etc., etc. debacles.  Many of us with autoimmune problems certainly suspect these chemicals of contributing to autoimmune hemolytic anemia as well as other autoimmune problems.

PJBoosinger April 28th, 2009 02:54:58 PM

James, if you're the same James who posted in the Hartz thread, along with the EPA links, then you know the Hartz testing concluded anemia was evident.   The EPA, to their credit, used those findings to support cancellation of the Hartz products.

And, garlic causes heniz body anemia, in both cats and dogs.  I guess all of the evidence is ignored by Megan.  She only found one study.  Megan, you really do need to learn how to research.  Even research aside, nearly every veterinary site on the net warns about garlic toxicity.  So, Megan, you agree garlic is ineffective for flea control (and there is equal evidence to say for certain, it is not effective in flea control), yet the risk of heinz body anemia is not enough to convince you or prohibit you to suggest it's to other pet owners.  Based on one study you found.  Uh-huh.

lexipup April 28th, 2009 03:02:20 PM

lexipup: You should understand that in veterinary school we are taxed with adhering to rigorous scientific evidence. The problem you point out, that evidence medicine has failed us in this department, is a reasonable assertion. The studies on safety and effectiveness of many non-drug (nutracetical) products are just not there. That's why veterinary medicine cannot speak to it and why we urge significant caution on all fronts (believing in toxicity or disbelieving it, believing in effectiveness and disbelieving it). If the science is not there, it's our job, as scientists, to point this out to you.

It's another point altogether to question WHY this research is not available. And, yes, it's my take that it all comes down to the dollars. After all, what kind of company would fund a study on garlic when they stand to gain so little from its widespread adoption? Nonetheless, it's the veterinary schools that are working hardest to explore these areas. but you can't blame them when they don't. Funding is a huge problem for veterinary programs. It's hard enough to graduate students who have to take on enormous finnacial risks to do the work we do.

But then, I digress. In any case, your point is valid. But Megan's cautions stand. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 28th, 2009 03:39:17 PM

Forgive me for not trusting online sources without hard data to back it up. Can you give me a citation from a peer-reviewed journal that supports your assertation that garlic causes Heinz body anemia in dogs? A Google search doesn't count as "research" when asking for scientific data.

Garlic is generally assumed to cause Heinz body anemia because it is in the genus Allium, along with onions, which we know cause Heinz body anemia. There are all sorts of available data about onion toxicity in animals. However, I only found one study about a toxic dose of garlic in dogs because there only *is* one study about a toxic dose of garlic in dogs (although there is also one study about horses). In the one study I did find, feeding garlic extract didn't cause Heinz body anemia. It didn't even cause anemia. It caused eccenterocyte formation.

There are reasons people feed garlic other than for flea control... The primary reason it is found in dog foods or treats is as a flavoring agent.

Here's my citation... where's yours?

Lee, KW, et al. 2000. Hematologic changes associated with the appearance of eccentrocytes after intragastric administration of garlic extract to dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 61(11): 1446-1450.

Megan April 28th, 2009 03:53:11 PM

Dr. Khuly, I respectfully disagree on at least two issues you bring up.

First, it is among the very professionals you mention, the vets, who have determined the toxicity in many of the products, through clinical experience and recording the adverse reactions.

Second, I beg to differ, but there are research studies "out there".  I don't mean to be disrespectful to you in any way, but I have to ask, have you looked, and how much time have you spent looking?  How many journals outside of your normal clinical practice have you persued, evaluated, weighed against non-evidence?  How far back have you gone before you started seeing the most earlest indications of the problems, and then see the propogation in significance throughout the years since? 

I'd be the last person to argue that veterinarians are the last on the forefront to investigate the problems, but toxicology in veterinary medicine is nothing new, and we find incidents every single day that demand further exploration and data and submission into journals of science.  In one respect, it is actually the veterinarian who IS on the forefront, that is the vet who sees the cases, does the diagnostics to confirm, does the treatment to save life. Unfortunately, it often ends there as well.  I couldn't be more thrilled with the new incident reporting databases for veterinarians, hopefully now they will not be limited in their abilities, and will be diligent in this valuable work.

I fail to see where Megan's inclusion of one study alone stands as any "caution" at all (other than the fact that it would be no risk at all if owners didn't give it).  If anything, it is still cherry-picking, which, as we refer in veterinary medicine, is unacceptable.

lexipup April 28th, 2009 04:06:43 PM

I'm not falling for your ad hoc approach, Megan, if you've read any of my recent comments on some of the threads on this blog, you would have learned that I don't use the university of google.  Aside from that, I have posted reference in other threads, but the theme of some of the people here seems to be ad hominem attacks, rather than objective evaluation.   It's not up to me to do your homework.  If you want to take a product at face value, that's your choice.  If you don't want to thoroughly evaluate (or rationally debate) the evidence, that's your problem.

lexipup April 28th, 2009 04:14:38 PM

Megan - actually, google is quite useful for searching peer reviewed literature, you just have to know the proper way to frame the search. For instance, by entering the following in the search field

"garlic causes anemia in dogs site:.edu"

I found this paper

http://csuvets.colostate.edu/pain/Articlespdf/Natural%20Approaches%20for%20Flea%20Control.pdf

which led to said citation:

Lee K-W et al. Hematologic changes associated with the appearance of eccentrocytes after intragastric administration of garlic extract to dogs. AJVR. 2000;61(11):1446-1450.

Where they say, and I quote, "Natural approaches for fleas fall into three main categories: dietary, topical, and environmental. Dietary management (e.g., adding brewer's yeast and garlic to the animal's diet) has the least evidence of efficacy for flea control. In one study on brewer's yeast, dogs received fourteen grams daily for five weeks with no effect.1 Garlic causes Heinz body anemia and "should not be fed to dogs".

There's lots of things that are natural, which will kill the hell out of things (including yourself). In fact, most of the chemical formulations that so many love to decry were synthesized through a firm understanding of various natural compounds.

Oh, and all you people advocating slathering your animals in Pennyroyal oils should REALY read that Colorado State article.

"Pennyroyal oil poses the most clearly defined and well-documented risk to animals and humans from EOs. Pennyroyal is an herbal toxin of public health importance; ingestion of a small amount of the oil, or even a tea made from pennyroyal leaves, has caused several deaths."

el chupacabra April 28th, 2009 04:38:25 PM

With all due respect, the article cited within the CSU article is what I read and based my comments on... To quote the original study:

"In previous reports on experimental onion-induced hemolytic anemia in dogs, the percentage of erythrocytes with Heinz bodies was high (80 to 100%) in dogs given a single dose of dehydrated onions orally and in dogs fed boiled onions. With regard to onion-induced hemolysis, induction of anemia is mainly attributable to Heinz body formation. In the present study, however, the percentage of erythrocytes with Heinz bodies in dogs fed garlic extract was relatively low (mean maximum, 6.91%). Additionally, only 1 or 2 small Heinz bodies were formed in each erythrocyte."

Again, this doesn't mean I think garlic is a safe or effective means of parasite control- the doses needed to control parasites would likely be quite harmful to our pets. But does that mean that garlic in any amount, given for any reason, is harmful? We have no evidence to support that.

And I haven't seen anyone in this comment thread suggesting that we should slather our pets in pennyroyal oil.

Megan April 28th, 2009 05:32:21 PM

Full disclosure- I don't feed my dog garlic, and I use Frontline Plus very successfully.

Megan April 28th, 2009 05:36:28 PM

Megan, since you seem to want to keep the focus on your one study, here is another study that actually updates the thinking of several of the same researchers who did the study you quoted.

http://znaturforsch.com/ac/v58c/s58c0408.pdf

Here are two other studies that give likewise warnings:

http://www2.aspca.org/site/DocServer/vetm0805_562-566.pdf

http://www.jaaha.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/1/68

Ok, you've admitted you're not convinced garlic works.  But, you know it has the potential to be toxic.  So, why do owners, knowing the potential, still keep using it?  My guess is it is wishful thinking (usually always based on anecdotes from other anecdotes, that vicious cycle is never ending), or they are simply biased toward other products which actually are effective.

And again, (how many times, now), you keep forgetting that repeated use and accumulation must be taken into account.  This is a problem pet owners often ignore.

lexipup April 28th, 2009 06:09:13 PM

Here's another proof of the danger of "natural" chemicals!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Lis April 28th, 2009 10:02:10 PM

See, this is the kind of dialogue that can actually get us somewhere!

On the first link- in vitro studies of fractionated components of garlic are an interesting academic exercise, but how useful is this in determining a) the effect of whole garlic on dogs, and b) the potential toxic dose of garlic when consumed by dogs? The conclusion is still an unsatisfying, "There is a possibility that garlic in pet food may cause hemolytic anemia due to some oxidants contained in garlic."

On the second article- This article still relies primarily on the "guilt by association" status of garlic as a member of the Allium genus. Note the only toxic dose mentioned is for onions. I like the citations about the pharmacologic effects of garlic... there might be useful stuff buried in there.

On the third- yay, a case study! This is really what I'd like to see more of. Even in this article, the authors state "This was the first report of naturally occurring hemolytic anemia in a dog associated with the ingestion of Chinese chive and/or garlic." As garlic has been present in some brands of dog food and treats at least since I began paying close attention to ingredients in 2002, that's a whole lot of dogs that consume at least some garlic regularly to only have a single case report...

But, you know it has the potential to be toxic.

The potential to be toxic is still a far cry from actually causing toxicity in animals as owners use it. Rimadyl has the potential to be toxic... So does Frontline, and prednisone, and a huge range of substances and medications. I'm not saying garlic is safe, nor am I recommending people feed their pets garlic, but I still don't think there's enough data to say that feeding garlic in any amount is unsafe. The truth is we know that 5 gm/kg of garlic will cause eccenterocytosis, which can lead to hemolysis, but not necessarily anemia, and we know that one schnauzer developed anemia after eating an undisclosed number of dumplings containing both chives and garlic (both members of the Allium genus).

And again, (how many times, now), you keep forgetting that repeated use and accumulation must be taken into account. This is a problem pet owners often ignore.

And yet do you have any studies that show that repeated small doses of garlic cause hemolytic anemia? Yes, repeated small doses might accumulate and eventually cause toxic effects... or it might not. We can't say without data...

Frankly, a single case report of naturally-occurring anemia associated with garlic ingestion seems like small beans compared to the 44,000 reports of adverse reactions with topical flea and tick medications. Even the ASPCA poison control center writes that "An occasional low dose [of garlic, onions, or chives], such as what might be found in pet foods or treats, likely will not cause a problem, but we recommend that you do NOT give your pets large quantities of these foods".

Megan April 28th, 2009 10:37:16 PM

There's plenty of "proof" that natural AND artificial chemicals are BOTH deadly and life saving.  Personally, I'm fond of the belladonna and nitroglycerine examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade  Deadly, yes; but, ah, some of its components...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyceryl_trinitrate_(pharmacology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin

I'm going to keep eating my daily tiny square of dark chocolate but I hide them from my dogs because, in addition to generalities about chemicals, then there's the species specific issues.  Not likely anyone is going to persuade me to classify a single item as all bad or all good for any species; it's just far more complicated than that and we haven't "tested" the tip of the iceburg yet.

lexipup, I'm not "ignoring" anything.  I'm not persuaded by your all or nothing position.  I live on this planet where I get exposed to all kinds of stuff just by breathing so I have a need to make realistic and reasonable evaluations and choices.

PJBoosinger April 29th, 2009 12:24:52 AM

Dr. Khuly, I wish you hadn't allowed the Hartz veterinarian to convince you that Hartz was not named on the original list...that disinformation led to you writing "...the Hartz brand is not represented among the products listed." That, of course, is incorrect and has been mentioned a couple of times in the 70 plus comments above. Unfortunately, many--maybe even a majority--of your readers will only read your blog and leave believing Hartz is fine. That would be a shame. All their cat and kitten products were on the original list. No one should be surprised if their dog products are on the EPA's revised list. Did the Hartz veterinarian initiate that conversation with you? I do appreciate you continuing to write on this subject. It's hard to believe the EPA would allow products on the market that have over 44,000 reported adverse incidents in a single year. And the year before was over 28,000! And how many go unreported--70%--90%? Who knows how many pets have been killed or injured...how many families have been devastated. Please continue to have the courage to speak out...and don't let Hartz intimidate you...when you state your opinion, rely on facts and the truth they can bluster but they cannot hurt you. Thanks.

Rich April 29th, 2009 02:39:37 AM

Here's an outstanding news item from ABC News released on April 24th on this subject. Unfortunately, ABC was threatened with legal action and pulled this article from its website in a matter of hours. Dr. Khuly, you and the Miami Herald aren't alone in being threatened...Hopefully ABC News will have the courage to post it again soon. Sorry for the length, but it's worth it: Are Your Pets' Flea, Tick Meds Safe? A number of animals have suffered adverse reactions to common flea and tick prevention, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is now preparing to take a closer look at the chemicals in several popular brands of flea and tick products after reports of injuries and side effects increasing more than 50 percent last year. Worcester said she applied Bio Spot brand flea and tick prevention to Ellie's back as directed and when bumps started appearing on her back a day later, they didn't initially make the connection. But when the bumps spread down her entire back and began leaking pus and blood, the Worcestors took Ellie to their veterinarian, who deduced that the medication had burned her skin. The wounds, Worcester said, were so severe, Ellie had to be put under general anesthesia to remove the rotting skin, a procedure she had done more than once, the other times fully awake. At home, Ellie stopped eating and drinking as Worcester's husband took time off work to change her bandages every three hours. "That was the least of her problems, actually," she said. "We were dealing with huge wounds." After a month of treatments, Ellie began to heal. She's now a year old, but the Worcester's once-perfect puppy has massive scars on her back where her fur has not regrown. "I try to tell everybody not to use this stuff," Worcester, a mom of three, said. "They don't listen." Worcester said she filed reports that included Ellie's veterinary records with Bio Spot and the EPA. Bio Spot, she said, paid for Ellie's vet bills. Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the EPA's pesticides and toxic substances division, said the new evaluation is a "fact-finding effort" to determine the causes of some of the more severe side effects reported by pet owners. Kemery said the EPA got 44,263 reports from animal owners last year, up from 28,905 in 2007. Of those more than 44,000 reports, he said, only 1,200, or 2.7 percent, were considered to be "major incidents" like severe injuries or death. Among the more common adverse reactions the EPA saw were rashes, tremors and seizures, Kemery said. OTC Brands 'Not as Good?' The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity released a report last year called the "Perils of the New Pesticides" (http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/pesticides) that detailed adverse reactions to pyrethrins and pyrethroids, chemicals commonly found in many of the flea and tick control products found on store shelves. Looking at numbers provided by the EPA, the center reported that those chemicals were responsible for more moderate to severe injuries than any other class of insecticide from 2003 to 2007. "Good Morning America" resident veterinarian Dr. Marty Becker, who has a practice in Idaho, said the adverse reactions to flea and tick control products are typically caused by two things -- owners not using the products properly and the stark difference in quality among certain products on the market. Becker said the many pet owners look to the shelves of their local stores to buy what he calls "over the counter" flea and tick prevention that is often inferior to the products typically sold through a vet's office, such as Frontline or Advantage. He called out products made by Hartz, Bio Spot and Sergeant's as being popular grocery store-type brands that simply can't compete on quality. "In my opinion, they're not as good," Becker said. "They tend to have older generation chemicals." Becker noted that certain breeds such as collies and Rottweilers have an innate sensitivity to any tick and flea product. Hartz, Bio Spot and Sergeant's are three of several companies listed by the EPA as products named in 80 percent of their reports in 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html). The others were Zodiac, Promeris, TriForce, Sentry and Adams. There were also two Frontline products -- Frontline Plus for Dogs and Frontline Plus for Cats -- that were added to the list. Sergeant's released a statement to ABCNews.com that read, in part, "As the EPA continues to update its list of scrutinized flea and tick control products, it's clear this is an industry-wide issue that affects both over-the-counter products and products sold through veterinarians as well. Sergeant's works with the EPA on a continuous basis and welcomes the EPA's increased evaluation of the use of spot-on pesticides to better protect pets. The health and safety of pets is Sergeant's number one priority." And Central Life Sciences, a division of Farnam Companies, which distributes Bio Spot, said adverse reactions to its products are extremely rare, only in about 1 percent of all applications. "Through our investigations, we have found that in many cases, the reaction is the result of a pre-existing medical condition or misapplication of the product," the statement read, in part. "We urge all pet owners to carefully follow all recommended application guidelines." Central Life Sciences also puts out the Adams and Zodiac brands of flea and tick prevention. Hartz also released a statement saying it supported the EPA's latest evaluation of the chemicals and defended its products as safe and effective when used properly. "Flea and tick products make an important contribution to the health of pets and families, since fleas and ticks can transmit disease," the statement read in part. One Owner Staying Away From Flea and Tick Products Cari Becker, no relation to the doctor, said she no longer uses any flea or tick control on her Italian greyhounds since two of her dogs were sickened after she applied it to their backs in 2001. Becker, who lives in Batavia, Ill., said she had moved into a house in the country and wanted to make sure fleas and ticks didn't find their way into Mia's and Skye's fur. "I was careful to make sure they didn't touch each other," she said. "But in a very short amount of time they were shaking, they were vomiting." As her dogs were seized by tremors, Becker said she immediately scrubbed them with soap and water to get the medication off, and the effects wore off. Though Mia and Skye have since died, Becker said she refuses to use any flea or tick prevention on the two dogs she has now or any of the rescue Italian greyhounds she fosters before placing them into permanent homes. "I don't recommend it to anyone," she said. "I'm not a believer in it at all." Instead, Becker said she's diligent about checking her dogs' short coats to make sure nothing is crawling on them and, so far, there never has been. "When we're sitting with them and stuff, we just check," she said. The Humane Society offers several other remedies to flea and tick prevention on its Web site, including regular vacuuming and grooming with a flea comb as well as frequently lawn mowing and washing of pet beds and blankets. But Kemery and doctor Becker advised against foregoing flea and tick control all together, pointing out that there are insects that can spread to humans as well and cause a hard-to-control infestation. Owners just need to be smart about their use, they said. Becker said it's not uncommon for owners to use products meant for other animals as they try to save a few bucks by buying one product and using it on all animals in the household or buying a product meant for a larger animal and dispersing it among several smaller animals. Because each product is formulated for each species' biology and size, using one product for all animals can cause severe reactions. Cats, for example, often can't process the pyrethrins found in many dog products. "It's not apples and apples," he said. "You can't use a dog product on a cat, you can't use a horse product on a dog." Going to the vet to buy flea and tick medication not only ensures owners are getting the proper dosage and instructions for use, Becker said, the products are usually superior. Vets, he said, are also becoming more sensitive to the economic crunch and will often match prices if pet owners find the same products cheaper online. And the products, even those listed by the EPA, he said, have vastly improved from even just 20 years ago when vets were prescribing baths in pesticides known as "dips" and owners were bombing their house with heavy chemicals to treat infestations. As for Worcester, they now give Ellie a combination medication for heart worm and flea and tick prevention, something that has been decidedly less toxic for her. "The companies do not care," she said. "They're just making their money."

Richard April 29th, 2009 03:05:32 AM

The best way to prevent fleas and ticks on your dogs, is to bath them regularly and use a flea comb.  Avoid harse "flea shampoos", use an aloe or oatmeal based pet shampoo.

If your dog becomes "infested" with fleas then and only then use a flea medication recommended and purchased from your VET.

Shih Tzu Grooming

http://www.shihtzugroominghelp.com

Shih Tzu Grooming April 29th, 2009 06:04:31 AM

In March, 2005, Farnam entered into an agreement with Sergeants to distribute a new etofenprox-based flea control product for cats, called Bio Spot One-Step for Cats. It contained 55% etofenprox and 2.2% pyriproxyfen.

I began reading complaints about that product in July, 2005, describing severe adverse reactions in cats, including seizures and deaths.

By August, 2005, concerned by the number and severity of these reported incidents, Farnam immediately cancelled the product. Here is a letter from Farnam concerning it:

http://www.biospotvictims.org/Farnam.jpg

Also in August, 2005, the EPA forced Hartz to "voluntarily" withdrawal its phenothrin-based flea control products for cats. Hartz then entered into an agreement with Wellmark International to distribute its etofenprox-based flea control product for cats,which contained 40% etofenprox and 3.6% (S) methoprene.

In January, 2006, Farnam was acquired by Wellmark International (maker of Zodiac and Adams pet-care product) and soon began to distribute Wellmark's etofenprox-based flea control product for cats, (the same etofenprox-based product as the one being distributed by Adams, Hartz, and Zodiac).

Here is the PAN Pesticide Database, which shows the names of the manufacturers and distributors of these products:

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_Products.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33231&Chem_Name=Ethofenprox&PC_Code=128965

Hartz claims that their etofenprox-based spot-on product for cats has low toxicity and accounts for only a small percentage of the reported adverse reactions each year, but it was one of the products listed in the EPA Advisory (before the EPA removed the list from their website):

http://www.biospotvictims.org/EPAAdvisory-IncreasedScrutinyList2.pdf

Since the Hartz etofenprox-based spot-on product for cats is identical to the products being distributed by Adams, Farnam, and Zodiac, I believe that all of these products must be viewed as one product.

James April 29th, 2009 01:38:57 PM

Yesterday, I wrote to the EPA and asked about public access to their upcoming meeting with the manufacturers of flea and tick products. Here is their reply:

"Thank you for your inquiry. EPA expects to meet with manufacturers of spot-on flea and tick products the week of May 4, 2009. This is not a public meeting; however, it is standard practice to prepare a summary of the meeting and place it and meeting materials in the docket for the public to view. This meeting is to discuss the registrants' product licenses and what measures might be necessary to better protect pets. EPA is committed to keeping the public informed as this evaluation proceeds. The FOIA Web site is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foia/"

James April 29th, 2009 03:36:10 PM

James, Sorry, I figured they'd go the SOP FOIA route (aka, we ain't telling you nothin' no matter what the new Pres says about openness and transparency of government).

PJBoosinger April 29th, 2009 04:25:49 PM

"Kemery said the EPA got 44,263 reports from animal owners last year, up from 28,905 in 2007. Of those more than 44,000 reports, he said, only 1,200, or 2.7 percent, were considered to be "major incidents" like severe injuries or death. Among the more common adverse reactions the EPA saw were rashes, tremors and seizures, Kemery said."

Since when are seizures not considered to be a "major incident"?

My dog had 4 seizures within 24 hours after I used a permethrin-based spot-on flea control product on him.  It almost killed him.  If I had known that seizures were among the more common adverse reactions to these products, I never would have used it.

James April 29th, 2009 05:41:24 PM

James, back in 2003-2005 over the Hartz cat products fiasco, many of us requested the EPA in their "evaluation" then, include in the label's warnings, "seizure" activity, since most of the OTC carried the exact same warnings.   The problem they knew then, and years later, is that not only are tremors not normal, but pet owners may not differentiate "tremors" with "seizures".  This was nothng more than denial on the part of the manufacturers.   They knew seizure activity was evident years before the label change.  And now they know that seizure activity continues today from these products, and they know that these incidents are increasing despite label changes.  The EPA admitted that after the initial label changes, nothing had changed, and they knew incidents were increasing.

Don't hold you breath.  That little memo from the EPA was nothing more than a pacifier.  I wouldn't be surprised that they do not update the list before their closed-door meeting.  Such has been their history, many many times before.

lexipup April 29th, 2009 06:29:51 PM

Lexipup, you're right.  The EPA won't post another product list - especially after they meet with the product manufacturers and learn first-hand just how safe these highly concentrated spot-on products are for pets.  The only thing that will come out of the meeting will be renewed half-hearted effort from the EPA and pesticide manufacturers to get people to "read the label first" (as if these products are safe as long as you use them correctly).  People should read the label - the entire label.  The part that says, "may be lethal if ingested by cats" may be buried deep in the fine print, or it may not even tell you that it's lethal to cats.  It will just say, "do not use on cats," which is the EPA doublespeak for "this product may be lethal to cats." Also, the warning about not getting it on your skin, and keep out of reach of children (until you apply it to your pet, of course) are also good to know.

These spot-on products are also dangerous to toddlers.  When the EPA uses a deterministic risk assessment to calculate the risk to toddlers from these spot-on products, the estimated MOE (margin of error) is far below the EPA's target level of concern.  In fact, they are one of the MOST DANGEROUS RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE SCENARIOS.  So, what does the EPA do about it?  They recalculate the risk using a Monte Carlo risk assessment and, guess what?  They determine there is no risk!  Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

James April 29th, 2009 07:55:31 PM

After reading all of the comments here and doing my own research, I've come to the conclusion that the only "natural" flea control is a flea comb!

As for anything containing essential oils, whether it's Pennyroyal, Tea Tree, Citrus or anything else, I just don't feel comfortable using them around pets - cats in particular.  The most trustworthy site with regards to using (or rather, not using) oils on cats that I've found is The Lavender Cat - the site is currently being revised, but it's got good information from reliable sources on the topic.  Be aware that some manufacturers of essential oils will try to tell you that their oils are "pure" and therefore safe to use around cats.  I'd rather not take my chances!

Ingrid King April 29th, 2009 09:29:44 PM

Ingrid and others: I'm still all for using topical products on pets for flea control. It's all about risks and rewards, though. I almost never recommend these products for flea prevention unless a pet (or another household member) is allergic to fleas. I do, however, recommend them to prevent tick-borne disease infection for pets who are chronically exposed to ticks. I also recommend flea topicals to treat fleas. 

Living in South Florida, most of you have no idea how we managed before the flea and tick products hit the market. Most of us Miamians still remember the very real horrors of flea anemia and still labor under the stress of tick borne diseases. I always do my best to limit my patients' exposure to toxins, including these (which is why I recommend many non-product modalities), but sometimes it's just not possible to go without.  

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 09:52:54 AM

As to Hartz convincing me their products were not listed, that was only true for the first list. I have taken my lumps on this one and have amended the post to reflect this. 

The Hartz veterinarian is also adamant that I correct something on this post. She argues with this statement:

"Despite the fact that you and I know that anything that goes ON any animal with a porous membrane for protection (i.e., skin) will end up IN him, pet flea and tick manufacturers have long understood that when it comes to animals, life is easier if you’re dealing with the EPA instead of the FDA."

Her take is that these products are not intended to go inside an animal and that they do not, unless they are inappropriately applied. 

But I don't agree. 

#1: Pets will be pets and they have ways of ingesting things that go ON them, no matter how careful we are in applying them. This possibility must always be taken into account when using any product. 

#2: Most of these products are taken into an animal's body through absorption--even in only minute quantities. There are no studies to demonstrate the lifelong effects of chronic exposure to these products. 

Sorry, Hartz, but the statement stands.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 09:58:39 AM

For the Hartz veterinarian, here's a little primer on how spot-on flea and tick products work:

http://www.goodnewsforpets.com/Articles.asp?ID=864

Isn't that how transdermal patches work? You apply the patch to the skin and somehow the medicine ends up in the bloodstream.  I am not a vet or a toxicologist, but I think it has something to do with the fact that hair follicles are ATTACHED to blood vessels (capillary loops).

If these products didn't enter the bloodstream via ingestion and/or dermal absorption, they wouldn't cause neurological symptoms, such as seizures.  Also, there would be no risk of overdosing, nor would the label state, "Consult a veterinarian before using this product on debilitated, aged, medicated, pregnant, or nursing dogs. Consult a veterinarian before using on dogs with known organ dysfunction."

These spot-on pesticide products are also available for horses.  However, they have a curious warning on the label, "Not for horses or ponies intended for human consumption."

James April 30th, 2009 11:14:00 AM

Dr. Kuhly, hold your ground!!  

And since Hartz is reading, perhaps they can explain to consumers how pyrethroids cause neurological and CNS signs and elevated liver enzymes and seizure activity (that's only a partial list of pyrethroid toxicity).  NONE of these reactions should occur with a simple dermal application. 

lexipup April 30th, 2009 11:39:09 AM

Houston it much like Florida.  My approach to fleas here is totally different from when I'm in Missouri where I rarely need more than a comb to deal with the little buggers.  Here, in Houston, it's a constant balancing act of the lesser of the evils; especially for those who have awful reactions to both fleas and the chemicals.

Hartz, REALLY hope you're listening.  We're not buying your B.S.  Cite your sources that what goes on the skin doesn't get absorbed and we'll happily read your materials :)

PJBoosinger April 30th, 2009 04:36:13 PM

The Material Data Safety Sheets for these products say that skin is a route of entry.  I believe the MSDSs because they are required by federal law to be accurate. 

James April 30th, 2009 05:34:27 PM

Here are a few straightforward facts regarding Hartz Mountain Corporation and their flea and tick products:

1)  The EPA issued a Cancellation Order for Hartz'a flea and tick products for cats and kittens in 2005 as a result of thousands of reported adverse incidents.  Those products contained the ingredients phenothrin, 85.7% volume, and methoprene, 2.3% volume, precisely the same ingredients in their current flea and tick products for dogs and puppies. These products were forced to be removed from retail sites in 2006. 

2)  The EPA has not yet taken the same action with the Hartz products for dogs in spite of many adverse incidents.  Dogs have the ability to metabolize synthetic pyrethroids (e.g., phenothrin) better than cats through liver function; however, many dogs and puppies have also been injured and killed. 

3)  Manufacturers like Hartz, Farnam (BioSpot), Zodiac, Sergeant's, and others using synthetic pyrethroids, have accounted for 44,263 potential adverse incidents reported to the EPA in 2008 alone.  In 2007, 28,905 incidents were reported. 

4)  In two years of speaking with veterinarians, veterinary technicians, toxicologists, neurologists and veterinary academicians, I've only found one veterinarian--that's right, just one--who would actually recommend topical spot-ons containing synthetic pyrethroids--and she recommends Hartz Mountain.  That's because she works for Hartz and is the Hartz veterinarian on their website. 

5)  In recent weeks, Hartz Mountain's legal department, has attempted legal threats and intimidation in an effort to silence critics--intimidate those that are trying to create an awareness of the facts.  That intimidation is well-documented on this site--Hartz's "cease and desist" letters to Dr. Khuly and their successful intimidation of the Miami Herald.  Additionally, private citizens have received intimidating letters along with threats directed to other members of the media (ABCNews.com forced to take down their April 24 article titled, "Are Your Pets' Flea and Tick Meds Safe?" and others). 

These are facts.  Fortunately there are people like Dr. Khuly, Dr. Jeff Werber, Dr. Terry Presnell and others, including some members of the media (Miami Herald excluded) who are not easily intimidated, stand their ground when correct and continue to speak up factually and courageously.  My thanks to these people...and thanks to James, Lexipup, PJ Boosinger, Susan Rosenau and others who took the time and effort to post substantive and factual posts on this blog site.  And please--those of you like Dante's Mom, who have had a pet injured or worse as a result of using one of these products--please take the time to call the National Pesticide Information Center, 1-800-858-7378, to report the incident.  They will provide the appropriate detail and information regarding your incident to the EPA.   

Rich May 1st, 2009 01:13:15 AM

One thing people might do, if they have a good relationship with staff at a vet's office, and can ask when the vet is not around, is "What do you use on your pets, and why?"  The reason I say to ask when the vet isn't around is that the staff often know about adverse effect cases, and while they and the vet may not tell other clients complete info on other cases (and that's medical privacy which I have no problem with), it might have an impact on what they choose for their own pets.  While they also know that not every product will effect every pet the same way, their reasoning for choosing one might help in the choice a cklient might make.

Two of us use Sentinel and two use Revolution and Heartgard/Triheart.  Admittedly, none of us have dogs that go to dog parks, groomers, or camping/woods hikes, but then neither do a large number of our clients....

Oh, and Merial has been very proactive to vets, but in a selective way.  I told the vet about this post on Tuesday.  When I walked in last night, a letter from Merial was on the counter.  It referenced the EPA investigation, with lots of defining of what adverse effects could be (ranging from lethargy to death) stating that Frontline was not on the list of products being investigated.  I laughed and pointed out that they did not admit that Frontline Plus IS on the list... (hmmm).  We don't carry Frontline Plus, so not a concern, but we did speak with two clients who asked about this investigation, stressing that no, adverse effects don't happen with every product, on every animal, but that we wouldn't ever consider OTC products and are careful about what we do use.  One did ask us what we used, and we told him. 

KateH May 1st, 2009 08:47:13 AM

OTC products are often faulted (and with good reason) in news stories concerning adverse reactions to flea and tick products, but you rarely hear that vet-prescribed flea and tick products can also cause severe adverse reactions.  I know of one person who used Frontline Plus on her 6 year old dachshund.  Within 3 days, the dog became extremely lethargic and stopped eating.  Her dog has never fully recovered. In the last 3 years, her dog has received 4 blood transfusions and she has spent over $10,000. to keep her dog alive.  Merial has refused to accept any responsibility for her dog's condition.  That's just one anecdotal report, but I have heard from many others who called Merial to report a suspected adverse reaction, including seizures, but were told by Merial that Frontline/Frontline Plus do not cause severe adverse reactions.

ProMeris is another vet-prescribed flea and tick product that was listed on the EPA's Advisory. 

K9 Advantix and Vectra 3D are also vet-prescribed flea and tick products.  K9 Advantix contains 44% permethrin and Vectra 3D contains 36% permethrin (and synergists which increase the toxicity).  Does anyone truly believe that these products are safer than over-the-counter spot-on products that contain the same percentage of permethrin?

James May 1st, 2009 09:31:43 AM

Yes, James. I've written about Promeris before. Though I have not ever seen any reactions to Frontline, I don't discount the possibility. Everyone should know that adverse events cn occur. It is the risk of using medications and products like this. "Anything strong enough to help you is strong enough to hurt you, too." But that does not exonerate companies whose products hurt pets.

Companies like Merial should pay for all the necessary diagnostics for a pet's adverse event. They should pay for treatment if independent veterinarians believe the product caused the reactions. And companies that market products that hurt animals OFTEN, especially when an agency like the EPA is taking them to task for measurable, serious adverse effects, should remove their products from the market--or risk being forced to do so.

Dr. Patty Khuly May 1st, 2009 10:43:57 AM

But, but, but, Dr. Khuly, part of the problem is, Hartz for example, consistently claim their "independent" labs, "independent necropsy results"  conclude that their products are never at fault.  Then they slap a waiver on the client telling them if they want a refund, they must agree to never persue legal action.  Remember also, that people who buy these OTC products usually buy them because they are cheap, but they most often cannot afford legal costs to file a suit.  It's too bad that examples like that are never in the equation.  Another problem is, with some of the veterinary products, when they are obtained outside of a vet's office, the guarantee is void. (i.e., online pharmacies, online petstores, and thus the problem of unscrupulous online merchants who don't obtain the products with the manufacturers' knowledge, despite tracking methods).

Hartz posted on their site they obtained EPA FOIA ADE's from 2006-2008, making claims to support their assertions that they are in the lowest percentage for the OTC products under scrutiny.  As usual, they are shifting blame (you can see this repeated several times in their "reports") to their competitors.  Also interesting is that their "statistical analysis" was conducted by Dr Melinda's (Hartz) alma mater, the WSU large animal vet/professor.  Granted, I suppose they can choose whomever they want to analyze the data, but it would be interesting to see the data analyzed by others, and by non-biased professionals, via non-conflicts of interests. 

http://www.thetruthabouthartz.com/docs/AdverseEventsData.pdf

http://www.thetruthabouthartz.com/docs/OralToxicityStudies.pdf

And the original EPA announcement for the products listed:

http://www.thetruthabouthartz.com/docs/EPAAdvisory-IncreasedScrutinyList.pdf

lexipup May 1st, 2009 11:24:58 AM

Lexipup, thank you for posting this:

http://www.thetruthabouthartz.com/docs/AdverseEventsData.pdf

It's a great document.  Most interesting is the raw data on pages 10-13, which shows the number and severity of the reported adverse events for EACH PRODUCT from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008.

Here are some figures from it:

K9 Advantix - 34 deaths, 17 major events

Frontline Top Spot for Dogs - 24 deaths, 15 major events

Frontline Plus for Dogs - 95 deaths, 42 major events

Frontline Top Spot for Cats - 44 deaths, 5 major events

Frontline Plus for Cats - 110 deaths, 17 major events

Hartz UltraGuard/Plus/Pro for Dogs - 68 deaths, 35 major events

Hartz InControl/UltraGuard Plus for Cats - 27 deaths, 28 major events

Combined totals for all cat products which contain 40% etofenprox (EPA Reg. No. 2724-504) (Adams, Bio Spot, Zodiac, Hartz) - 86 deaths, 90 major events

ProMeris for Dogs - 18 deaths, 0 major events

Sergeants Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs/Sentry Pro XFC/TriForce Canine - 74 deaths, 95 major events

James May 1st, 2009 02:56:39 PM

Synthetic pyrethroids

– A class of insecticides/acaricides—including permethrin,resmethrin and allethrin—that shows properties of low mammalian toxicity but good activity againstinsects, ticks and mites.

Michigan State University, Dept. of Agri

1truthfairy May 9th, 2009 01:38:55 AM

Other Insecticides: Pyrethroids and Acute Toxicity 

Commonly utilized in agriculture, residential settings, public health (vector control)

Mechanism of toxicity Prolong deactivation of sodium channels, excitation of nerve fibers

Systemic intoxication is rare

Local effects from dermal overexposure to concentrated formulations - Transient paresthesias (12-24 hours)

Usually occur in absence of any signs of skin injury Irritant effects (eye, throat, respiratory irritation) from inhalation overexposure

Oregon State University, Dept of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology

1truthfairy May 9th, 2009 02:03:05 AM

When used according to label directions, pyrethrins are safe and effective.

Toxicity related to pyrethrins is usually associated with applying much more of the product than directed.

Overdosing can cause toxic signs in both dogs and cats.

If treated early, the majority of pets suffering from permethrin/pyrethrin toxicity recover enough to go home within 24-48 hours.

The best way to prevent toxicity to flea products is to read the labels and follow the directions

petplace.com

Ask the Vet

1truthfairy May 9th, 2009 02:14:19 AM

Hello 1truthfairy,

Gee, it's reassuring to know that the majority of animals will recover from these products.  Thanks. 

Rich May 9th, 2009 11:38:38 PM

I guess toothfairy isn't paying attention to anything in this thread.

lexipup May 10th, 2009 01:08:32 PM

I'm guessing 1truthfairy is Hartz' "Dr. Melinda", here is another news artcile on the net, read the "comments" posted to it, by "Truthfairy Cat Mother", obviously someone from Hartz.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-flea-product-dangermay04,0,1075447.story

Oh, the tactics, Hartz, how stupid do you think people are?

lexipup May 11th, 2009 02:51:16 PM

When the public becomes fully aware of Hartz's tactics--and they will--there will be a tremendous backlash.  It's a shame--Hartz has had a venerable name with much positive brand recognition over 75 plus years.  They make some wonderful animal products, but they have demonstrated no consumer responsibility or pet care leadership when it comes to their flea and tick products...just the opposite--manipulation, intimidation, obfuscation, accelerated lobbying techniques with the EPA, and just plain old Nixonian mentality.  It's so much easier to tell the truth, take personal initiative and do the right thing.  The solutions are in front of them and they prefer to use tactics that hurt the public and eventually will catch up to them.  What a missed opportunity to separate themselves from the pack.  What a waste of time, resources and pets.  Hartz, and some of their competitors who use similar product ingredients (with the same deplorable results on animals), will someday be part of the Harvard Business School case studies of how not to treat the public...just the opposite of Johnson & Johnson during the Tylenol problem. 

Matt May 12th, 2009 01:26:26 PM

Very well said, Matt.

Unfortunately, I believe James to be right.  It looks like the weeks are nearing (and perhaps even passed) for that closed-door meeting, and I'll bet all that results is yet, another, unfathomable label change.  Maybe a larger, more colorful graphic depiction.  Maybe larger print.  Maybe colored print.  I doubt any of the so-called "warnings" will be changed at all.  You can only re-word and recycle a label so many times, and the incidents will continue to pour in.

lexipup May 12th, 2009 05:05:24 PM

Why are dangerous flea and tick products on the market?  Because the EPA's registration (and reregistration) process for pesticide products is [b]fundamentally flawed[/b].  Here is a letter, written by EPA scientists and risk assessment managers, which accused the EPA of betraying the public trust:

http://www.panna.org/documents/epaScientistsFqpa.pdf

James May 13th, 2009 12:39:47 AM

شات

amal_ May 22nd, 2009 10:15:46 AM

Dr. Khuly,

Could you please publish the "cease and desist" letter that Hartz recently sent you? 

Josie G. June 3rd, 2009 08:02:28 PM

James TerBush - did you ask for the breakdown of the 44,000 adverse reactions from the EPA when you wrote to them? Rich said its all Hartz, Biospot, Zodiac and Sergeants that caused over 44,000, but not Frontline and Advantage. Is that right? So when Hartz said they had stuff from the EPA that gave Adverse Reactions from 2006 to 2008 that said there were about 230 deaths of cats and dogs from Frontline - you posted on it. So Hartz was putting out wrong raw data? Who are consumers supposed to believe? Did you write to the EPA and tell them what Hartz did? You should.

Olivia June 3rd, 2009 09:19:12 PM

Olivia, I did not state that Frontline and Advantage were not part of the over 44,000 potential adverse incidents reported to the EPA in 2008--they most definitely are.

Here's what I wrote on this site on May 1st--"Manufacturers like Hartz, Farnam (BioSpot), Zodiac, Sergeant's, and others using synthetic pyrethroids, have accounted for 44,263 potential adverse incidents reported to the EPA in 2008 alone. In 2007, 28,905 incidents were reported."

Hartz has posted what they claim to be an "independent study" from a Professor Charles Gaskins on their website, "the truth about Hartz". This is definitely not an "independent study", but more on that at another time. The "study" ostensibly covers the period 2006-2008.  Most interesting is the raw data on pages 10-13, which shows the number and severity of the reported adverse events for EACH PRODUCT from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008.  Here are some figures from it:

K9 Advantix - 34 deaths, 17 major events

Frontline Top Spot for Dogs - 24 deaths, 15 major events

Frontline Plus for Dogs - 95 deaths, 42 major events

Frontline Top Spot for Cats - 44 deaths, 5 major events

Frontline Plus for Cats - 110 deaths, 17 major events

Hartz UltraGuard/Plus/Pro for Dogs - 68 deaths, 35 major events

Hartz InControl/UltraGuard Plus for Cats - 27 deaths, 28 major events

Combined totals for all cat products which contain 40% etofenprox (EPA Reg. No. 2724-504) (Adams, Bio Spot, Zodiac, Hartz) - 86 deaths, 90 major events

ProMeris for Dogs - 18 deaths, 0 major events

Sergeants Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs/Sentry Pro XFC/TriForce Canine - 74 deaths, 95 major events

There is also data for Advantage and other manufacturers in this "study".  You can also get the information directly from the EPA for the years 2007 (28,905 potential reported adverse incidents) and 2008 (44, 263 potential reported adverse incidents) or for any year you desire through the Freedom of Information Act.  You probably already know that. 

Please be careful when quoting or commenting about my posts.  I expect misrepresentation from Hartz Mountain but not from truly concerned pet owners or consumers. 

Rich June 6th, 2009 11:21:16 PM

Olivia - Hartz did us all a favor by publishing the EPA's raw adverse effect data, which covered the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008, because it shows that all of these spot-on products, including Frontline, Advantage, and products made by Hartz, are associated with reports of life-threatening reactions and deaths in cats and dogs.  However, I think it would be misleading to attempt to draw any conclusions from it without knowing how much product each company sold during that period. For example, the EPA's raw adverse effect data which Hartz published shows that Hartz UltraGuard/Plus/Pro for Dogs had twice as many life-threatening incidents and deaths reported than K9 Advantix.  Is Hartz UltraGuard/Plus/Pro for Dogs really twice as likely to cause life-threatening reactions and death than K9 Advantix?  Without taking into account the market share of these two products, we simply don't know which one is safer. 

Also, the EPA has stated in the past that it assumes the manufacturers of pesticide products underreport adverse incidents.  That is a very serious problem that the EPA needs to address.

James June 7th, 2009 09:53:59 AM

Who are consumers supposed to believe? Did you write to the EPA and tell them what Hartz did? You should.

Essay Writing  |  Dissertation Help

Smith June 13th, 2009 06:21:18 AM

That is a very serious problem that the EPA needs to address.

Custom Thesis | Buy Coursework 

MikeSmith June 17th, 2009 01:13:57 AM

They make some wonderful animal products, but they have demonstrated no consumer responsibility or pet care leadership when it comes to their flea and tick products...just the opposite--manipulation, intimidation, obfuscation, accelerated lobbying techniques with the EPA, and just plain old Nixonian mentality. It's so much easier to tell the truth, take personal initiative and do the right thing. The solutions are in front of them and they prefer to use tactics that hurt the public and eventually will catch up to them.we concluded that it was not something we felt comfortable recommending to our clients. Unfortunately, it's been three years and the details of why we came to this conclusion escape me....<a href="http://www.free-baccarat-online.com">free online baccarat software</a>

free online baccarat software June 30th, 2009 03:14:40 AM

It's so much easier to tell the truth, take personal initiative and do the right thing. The solutions are in front of them and they prefer to use tactics that hurt the public and eventually will catch up to them.we concluded that it was not something we felt comfortable recommending to our clients. Unfortunately, it's been three years and the details of why we came to this conclusion escape me....

http://www.free-baccarat-online.com

free online baccarat software June 30th, 2009 03:15:44 AM

I used Advantage on my 2 Great Pyrenese on June 24, 2009. By Friday night my legs were itching like crazy, by Saturday night I had massive red blotches with blisters all over my legs. I ended up in the emrgency room due to the pain, itching, swelling etc. Fortunately my dogs did not seem to have any adverse reaction. I am now on antibiotics, steroids, and antihistamines to control the pain/itching. My legs look like I have been whipped. I was very careful in applying the product as directed and I washed my hands thoroughly after using the product. And I did not notice any residue on the dogs after applying. BEWARE - these products are not only bad for dogs they are bad for you too! I'm trying to get the word out to BEWARE of these products. I have had to completely disinfect my home and take the dogs to the groomer to get any residue off of them - $300 just for grooming! Not counting what my medical bills are going to be....If anyone knows of someone I can contact to complain about this product and get the word out, any info would be appreciated.

melissaB July 2nd, 2009 01:25:59 AM

melissaB, it would be really uncommon for such symptoms to show up in 2-3 days, IN HUMANS, as you note.  If anything, had you been allergic to the product, you'd have experienced a reaction within the first 12-24 hours, not days later.  I'm not saying you didn't suffer a reaction by applying this to your dogs, but I'd assume your physician would have discussed with you, the various rule-outs and process of elimination.

In any event, before you go propogating this onto the net, go to the direct source, that being Advantage.  Call them and explain your situation.  Chances are, they would have knowledge of such a situation in humans and tell you how to further proceed.  If you haven't already discussed process of elimination with your physician, you probably should do so.  I'm saying this because this is how misinformation gets propogated, and no manufacturer is going to agree to anything unless and until you discuss the situation with them directly, and/or have the facts from your physician or, in case of pets, your vet.  The most they will do without confirmed facts is offer you a refund for the product (so long as it was purchased by your vet - if you purchased the product elsewhere that was not contracted with the manufacturer, the manufacturer doesn't have to agree to anything).

lexipup July 3rd, 2009 02:51:26 PM

MelissaB, the advice you received from lexipup is solid--you will want to be as detailed and factual as you possibly can.  The facts supported by a physician will add a lot of credibility to your claims.  The one item I do want to convey to you, however, is that it is NO LONGER a medical fact that reactions always occur in animals after the first few hours of application.  It was once thought to be the case--it's no longer accepted as it relates to animals.  However, your physician or medical specialist will have to advise you regarding reactions in humans and, as lexipup wrote, this will be very important as it relates to any action you are planning to take (and I assume you will take action because of your medical expenses). 

Veterinary science has believed wrongly--until recently--that adverse reactions to organophosphates, carbamates and synthetic pyrethroids, will manifest within 12-24 hours.  Recent veterinary research now shows that clinical signs may in fact not be displayed for as long as 72 hours or more.  And cumulative adverse health effects to infants and children may not be apparent for many years. 

The manufacturers will do everything they can to convince you that your situation could not possibly be related to their products because the clinical signs did not become apparent for a couple of days.  Do not accept this simply because they say so.  It is incorrect as it relates to veterinary medicine and feline or canine toxicosis.  Your doctor will be the best resource for human clinical signs and getting this information will be critical in your future actions. 

All the best to you.  Please let us know how things progress. 

Rich July 4th, 2009 08:52:54 PM

مركز تحميل - مركز تحميل الصور - مركز رفع الصور

JH July 18th, 2009 09:37:10 AM

Yeah, definitely <a href="http://www.genuinewriting.com">custom research papers</a> Thank you.

Lida Jackson August 17th, 2009 10:02:18 AM

These clothes is very cheap,everyone are go shopping.

ed hardy September 7th, 2009 03:03:20 AM

The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .

GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:43:37 AM

sale ugg cardy man is not made for defeat. a ugg bailey button man can be destroyed but not defeated.No rational man can die without cheap ugg uneasy apprehension. Better ugg classic mini be unborn than untaught,for ignorance is the root of misfortune.Genius17 without education is like silver in the ugg classic cardy mine. http://www.ugg2you.com/

Ugg Boots September 14th, 2009 08:51:22 PM

art is a lie that tells the truth ugg classic cardy. Humor has been well defined as ugg calssic thinking in fun while feeling in earnest.The decline of literature indicates the decline of a ugg sale online nation ; the two ugg bailey button keep in their ugg classic min downward tendency. http://www.olugg.com/

ugg boots sale September 14th, 2009 09:28:48 PM

The timberland mens boots world can be changed by man endeavor, and that this endeavor can lead to something http://www.timberboots.co.uk/timberland-mens-6-inch-c-1.html">timberland men's 6 inch new and better .No man can sever the bonds that unite him to his society simply by averting his eyes . He must ever be receptive and sensitive to the new timberland men's classic; and have sufficient courage and skill to novel timberland shoes facts and to deal with them cheap timberland boots. http://www.timberboots.co.uk/

timberlands mens boots September 14th, 2009 10:08:10 PM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Amercrombie and Fitch

Abercrombie and Fitch September 16th, 2009 04:52:06 AM

Hi,

It’s an interesting article on topical pet pesticides. Thanks for sharing.

<a href="http://www.topcustomessays.co.uk"> Essays</a>

Michelle Klare September 17th, 2009 02:53:18 AM

Hi,

It’s an interesting article on topical pet pesticides. Thanks for sharing.

Essays

Michelle Klare September 17th, 2009 02:55:40 AM

It is reported by the British "fashion" magazine website. Last week, <a href="http://www.louisvuittonlive.com" title="louis vuitton">louis vuitton</a> canvas handbag with printed flower pattern has appeared in Europe. The pattern is created in 1888. In order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of British <a href="http://www.luxesaler.com/"> Louis Vuitton</a> Selfridges store launched this exclusive plain canvas handbags (Damier Neverfull). This package is sold in Oxford Street and Manchester's Selfridges store in six weeks.This package was first introduced in the 19th century, while the classic shape of the Neverfull latest had been used is in the well-known Stephen Sprouse series. The second launch of plain square pattern is in 1996, including a complete series, there are handbags and small leather goods. It is proved that such printing can be endured, and <a href="http://www.favorluxury.com/"> Louis Vuitton Replica</a> will have further development under the guidance of the creative Mark - Jacob.This handbag has three sizes, priced range from 380 to 430. The series includes some small leather goods

tgfghbgvbn September 17th, 2009 02:58:56 AM

It is reported by the British "fashion" magazine website. Last week, <a href="http://www.louisvuittonlive.com" title="louis vuitton">louis vuitton</a> canvas handbag with printed flower pattern has appeared in Europe. The pattern is created in 1888. In order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of British <a href="http://www.luxesaler.com/"> Louis Vuitton</a> Selfridges store launched this exclusive plain canvas handbags (Damier Neverfull). This package is sold in Oxford Street and Manchester's Selfridges store in six weeks.This package was first introduced in the 19th century, while the classic shape of the Neverfull latest had been used is in the well-known Stephen Sprouse series. The second launch of plain square pattern is in 1996, including a complete series, there are handbags and small leather goods. It is proved that such printing can be endured, and <a href="http://www.favorluxury.com/"> Louis Vuitton Replica</a> will have further development under the guidance of the creative Mark - Jacob.This handbag has three sizes, priced range from 380 to 430. The series includes some small leather goods

www.favorluxury.com September 17th, 2009 03:03:22 AM

<a href="http://www.louisvuittonlive.com/"> Louis Vuitton</a>

tgfghbgvbn September 17th, 2009 03:05:10 AM

Hi,

Your article has really helped me a lot. It is helpful for all those readers who have a lilttle or more interested in having pets, or already have pets. Good work!

ExpertWriter September 17th, 2009 04:13:55 AM

Please do share some more useful information. I will be looking forward for it. Thank you

<a href="http://www.standardessays.com"> Custom Essays</a>

ExpertWriter September 17th, 2009 04:15:51 AM

I really enjoyed reading your blog I got some very useful information from this article thanks for sharing your info keep update. good work.Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa

Situs murah situs murah

Iklan Baris Gratis Iklan Baris Gratis

Informasi Pendidikan Informasi Pendidikan

Khairuddin syach Khairuddin Syach

Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa

Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa September 22nd, 2009 12:27:36 PM

Nice article.thanks.regards website murah

Richard September 22nd, 2009 02:18:34 PM

Are all products like Frontline, Advantage, Advantix and Promeris basically the same thing? We've used Frontline in the past on our cat, but wondered whether there was a better product out there?

James

- buy HGH and vacuum cleaners.

James September 23rd, 2009 12:10:31 PM

شات السعودية | سعودي كام | بنت | منتديات نوار | كلي سعودي | سعودي كام | دليل كامات | بلوتوث | يوتيوب | كامات |

مواقع الدردشة الكتابية | مواقع الدردشة الصوتية | مواقع المنتديات العربية | مواقع الزواج | مواقع الجولات

مواقع الدردشة الكتابية

شات September 27th, 2009 06:40:29 AM

Hi,

I personally like your post; you have shared good insights and experiences. Keep it up.

Dissertation

Sarah Lawson September 28th, 2009 01:26:06 AM

Hi,I personally like your post; you have shared good insights and experiences. It will really help me in great deal. These discussions are really a great source to learn new things.

A ievel cource work

David Thompson October 3rd, 2009 01:12:48 AM

Blu ray Ripper

vc34 October 5th, 2009 08:20:34 AM

Hi,Nice work, thanks again for sharing such an informative ideas. I appreciate the information, well thought out and written. Thank you

Custom Dissertation

Maria James October 8th, 2009 12:27:59 AM

<a href="http://video.m5zn.com/c-134"> القرآن الكريم</a>

العاب October 11th, 2009 02:38:25 AM

I had the notion that Castor beans and Geraniums were poisonous to pets. Isnt the oil going to go into the skin and have the same effect as eating it ?

-----------------

1000 games

webgames October 11th, 2009 03:00:08 PM

tiffany & co tiffany & co  tiffany & co

tiffany October 16th, 2009 01:01:51 AM

links of london

links london

link of london

london links

jewellery October 16th, 2009 04:00:28 AM

<a href="http://www.ipodtransfertocomputer.com">iPod to Computer Transfer</a>,<a href="http://www.transferipodtocomputer.net">iPod to Computer Transfer</a>,<a href="http://www.avitoipod.net/ipod-to-computer-transfer.html">iPod to Computer Transfer</a>

john810 October 19th, 2009 01:43:32 AM

[url=http://www.ipodtransfertocomputer.com]iPod to Computer Transfer[/url],[url=http://www.transferipodtocomputer.net]iPod to Computer Transfer[/url],[url=http://www.avitoipod.net/ipod-to-computer-transfer.html]iPod to Computer Transfer[/url]

john810 October 19th, 2009 01:44:09 AM

<a href="http://www.ipodtransfertocomputer.com">iPod to Computer Transfer</a>,

<a href="http://www.transferipodtocomputer.net">iPod to Computer Transfer</a>,

<a href="http://www.avitoipod.net/ipod-to-computer-transfer.html">iPod to Computer Transfer</a>

john October 19th, 2009 01:45:24 AM

The new <a href="http://www.cpebv.com">pandora bracelet</a> and her sister used to live with their grandmother.

Nicole Thompsen October 19th, 2009 10:53:08 PM

I've never had any problems with Advantix until this last time.  It didn't seems to work on my dogs (all 3)  I just finished paying a small fortune to get the house and yard treated.  Don't know what else to use.  Advantix before was the only thing that worked well!

KAREN October 20th, 2009 11:02:27 AM

online payday loan canada | bc payday loan | payday loans ca | payday loans in ontario

Thanks for the excellent tutorial. I will refer friends to your site.

OD November 2nd, 2009 01:30:48 PM

What are people supposed to do to prevent tick borne illnesses when chemicals are dangerous, essential oils are dangerous, and garlic is dangerous?

natalie November 4th, 2009 09:28:31 PM

Dr. Kuhly, hold your ground!!

-------------------------------

<p><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net">&#1588;&#1575;&#1578; &#1603;&#1578;&#1575;&#1576;&#1610;</a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.com">&#1588;&#1575;&#1578; &#1589;&#1608;&#1578;&#1610;</a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b/vb">&#1605;&#1606;&#1578;&#1583;&#1610;&#1575;&#1578;</a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=17"><strong style="font-weight: 400">&#1576;&#1585;&#1575;&#1605;&#1580; &#1603;&#1605;&#1576;&#1610;&#1608;&#1578;&#1585;</strong></a> <br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=87"><strong style="font-weight: 400">&#1576;&#1585;&#1575;&#1605;&#1580; &#1575;&#1604;&#1580;&#1608;&#1575;&#1604;</strong> </a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net">&#1583;&#1585;&#1583;&#1588;&#1577; &#1603;&#1578;&#1575;&#1576;&#1610;&#1607;</a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net">&#1583;&#1585;&#1583;&#1588;&#1577; &#1589;&#1608;&#1578;&#1610;&#1607;</a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=20"><strong style="font-weight: 400">&#1589;&#1608;&#1585;- &#1603;&#1575;&#1605;&#1610;&#1585;&#1575; &#1575;&#1604;&#1575;&#1593;&#1590;&#1575;&#1569;</strong></a><br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=83"><strong style="font-weight: 400">&#1575;&#1604;&#1575;&#1601;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605;-&#1587;&#1610;&#1606;&#1605;&#1575;</strong></a> <br><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=73">&#1593;&#1575;&#1604;&#1600;&#1600;&#1605; &#1581;&#1608;&#1575;&#1569;</a><br>&nbsp;

moon November 7th, 2009 10:12:36 PM

Dr. Kuhly, hold your ground!!

<p><a href="http://www.d0r0b.net">شات كتابي</a> -<a href="http://www.d0r0b.net">شات صوتي</a> - <a href="http://www.d0r0b.net/vb">منتدى</a></p>

moon November 7th, 2009 10:22:44 PM