Tiny Timmy's Healing Journey

Life & Times of TT, neurologically damaged from exposure to toxic OTC flea & tick products.

Road to DC to Create Change – EPA, FDA & lawmakers

Written By: Tiny Timmy - Sep• 30•12

This push is on again this year, my friends. Each year for the past three years we have been able to travel to Washington, DC to meet with the EPA and lawmakers to discuss the issues with harmful flea and tick products and safer alternatives.

JOIN US

YouTube Preview Image

TO HELP

1. Chip In – The ChipIn System lets people microfund projects and causes. This money gets us to Washington, houses us, provides money for outreach and helps us continue to film our documentary which will help other causes make a difference. You can help by contributing at the CHIPIN site by clicking here.

2. If you are on Twitter, please retweet the following message:

RT @US_FDA Please honor mtg requests from @OliverDCat@TinyTimmySpeaks meeting request for October in DC? Plz RT #BeTheWave

3. Contact via email, phone or fax the following people at the FDA and request that they respond to our meeting request. Don’t be shy – feel free to blow up their fax machines. Aundria Arlandson and I have attempted to get a meeting with the FDA, who regulates a small amount of these products, for the past several months, emailing daily after the first few requests went unanswered. This tactic works and was able to get our foot in the door with the EPA our first year in DC. We scored that meeting in 72 hours because of your efforts. Here’s the contact info:

Commissioner Hamburg,

 margaret.hamburg@fda.hhs.gov

phone 888-463-6332

(no fax number)

Dr. Bernadette Dunham, Director of Veterinary Medicine

phone 240.276.9300

askdvm@fda.hhs.gov

(no fax number)

Executive Secretary, Jennifer M. Cannistra

Phone…….: 202-690-5627

Fax……….: 202-205-2135

E-mail…….: Jennifer.cannistra@hhs.gov

Deputy Executive Secretary, Barbara J. Holland

Phone…….: 202-690-5627

Fax……….: 202-205-2135

E-mail…….: Barbara.holland@hhs.gov

We realize many people are having a hard time these days. Not to worry! Even $5 helps us towards our goal! Sharing is also as important because through you sharing this post and information, you will be a ripple, passing on our story. Many ripples become great waves and those waves reach a point where they create change.

Mercury in Pet Vaccines – Company fined by EPA

Written By: Tiny Timmy - Sep• 25•12

Boehringer, a company in St. Joseph, MO that makes vaccines for pets has been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for mishandling mercury which they use in their vaccines.

Boehringer Ingelheim will pay more than $68,000 for mishandling mercury waste in St. Joseph.

The company will also build a $300,000 state-of-the-art hazardous waste storage facility as part of its agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

According to the EPA, inspectors found several violations at the company’s St. Joseph facilities in 2010.

The violations include storing mercury without a permit, sending mercury waste to a non-authorized facility and transporting hazardous waste without a license.

Boehringer uses mercury as part of its vaccine production process.

[Source]

Hog & Swine Pesticide Slyly Marketed as Dog Flea & Tick Treatment

Written By: Tiny Timmy - Sep• 25•12

I picked up this little tidbit from the website of a “consulting” company that says they can save manufacturers time, money and apparently effort in registering their pesticides with the EPA.

As we ramp up for our annual meeting with the EPA to discuss harmful flea and tick products, this one has me a bit floored. How much of the profit made on the backs of our dogs was this fine? Long and short it shows my theory, based on years of research, that our household pets have become the dumping ground for many pesticides, including some banned by the EPA for household use.

Southwest Missouri Pet Supply Dealer to Pay $56,632 Penalty for Re-Labeling, Selling Misbranded Cattle and Hog Insecticide

A southwest Missouri pet supply dealer has agreed to pay a $56,632 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by repackaging, relabeling and selling an insecticide meant for use on cattle and hogs as a flea and tick treatment for dogs.

Hunte Kennel Systems and Animal Care, Inc., of Goodman, Mo., will pay the civil penalty under terms of an administrative consent agreement filed today by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan.

The allegations stem from findings made by the Missouri Department of Agriculture during inspections of the company’s facilities in Goodman and Buffalo, Mo. The inspections found that the company had bottled the pesticide Prolate/Lintox-HD into different packaging and sold it as another pesticide, Paramite.

During the inspections, the company was ordered to immediately stop selling the repackaged pesticide. Prolate/Lintox-HD is formulated for use in the control of flies, lice, mange and ticks on cattle, and for the control of lice and mange on swine. Paramite is no longer manufactured as a flea and tick treatment for dogs.

[ original source]

Perrigo to Acquire Sergeant’s Pet Care

Written By: Tiny Timmy - Sep• 22•12

Thanks to our friends over at Broken Hartz for Tweeting about this news earlier.

On September 14th, a press release went out stating Perrigo Company planned on acquiring Sergeant’s Pet Care for a cash settlement of $245 million.

In line with almost every other over the counter flea and tick product company, Perrigo Company is a manufacturer of private label OTC pharmaceuticals and focuses on healthcare products, generic prescription drugs, active pharmaceutical ingredients and consumer products. It’s interesting isn’t it? The two enmeshed markets for flea and tick products are the pharmaceutical industry and agricultural pesticide companies.

I was curious about Perrigo and the CEO Joseph C. Papa. Mr. Papa owns a slew of companies, most of which have some variation of Perrigo in them. The FDA investigated his company L. Perrigo of Allegan, Michigan from November 17, 2009 to January 14, 2010 for “significant” violations in the Current Good Manufacturing Practices regulations. Due to their inability to safely make the drugs they sell, the FDA decided their products were caused to be adulterated.

What did the FDA find at L. Perrigo? (Bold is my emphasis added)

1. Your firm failed to reject drug products failing to meet established standards or specifications and any other relevant quality control criteria [21 C.F.R. § 211.165(f)].
For example, your firm failed to reject a lot of lbuprofen Tablets 200 mg (lot 9BE1961) that was contaminated with metal shavings due to an equipment failure. Although your firm segregated a portion of the lot that was affected, you released and shipped a subportion of that segregated lot, resulting in a recall of the entire lot.

2. Your firm failed to thoroughly investigate the failure of a batch or any of its components to meet its specifications whether or not the batch has already been distributed and extend investigations to other batches of the same drug product and other drug products that may have been associated with the specific failure [21 C.F.R. § 211.192].
For example, your firm did not thoroughly investigate possible foreign tablet contamination in your filling equipment. After finding a brown, round Ibuprofen tablet (lot 8ME1624) in a lot of brown, oval Ibuprofen caplets (lot 8ME1731), you did not inspect the lot of orange, round Ibuprofen tablets (lot 8ME1728) that was packaged between lot 8MEl624 and lot 8ME1731. Without extending your investigation to lot 8MEI728, there is no assurance that this lot was not also contaminated.

It looks like Mr. Papa’s rule of thumb is to snub regulations at the cost of human health. Metal shavings? Really? Who made the decision to release those tablets? And contaminated ibuprofen that no one thought was important enough to look into?

You might think that this man is so far removed from what goes on in his plants that he could not be held personally responsible for the failings of his company. Perhaps. However, as a great boss of mine taught me once when I was very young, “Shit always floats downhill”. What I mean by this is that the CEO hires the people who hires the people and so a culture of misconduct is rarely a middle-management issue. A company creates a culture from the top down, not the other way around.

At some point, this issue is serious enough for Mr. Papa to have at least be read into the issue and potential resolutions available.

The Quality Control department also seems to have some issues. They failed to follow written procedures, and as such allowed mislabeled Milk of Magnesia to be released, and later recalled. Apparently they also can’t be bothered to put the correct values on their product for ingredients.

…verifying the accuracy of label ingredient disclosure quantities of magnesium and calcium in Regular and Mint Flavored Milk of Magnesia and identifying incorrect values as changes from expected label specifications.

Mistakes do happen, but it’s then for responsible companies to fix the issues at hand and put procedures in place so they won’t happen again. Sadly everything in government regulation land takes so very looooooong to get anything done. What does that mean for companies like L. Perrigo? It means they can continue bad behavior, even paying wrist-slap penalties and consider them a “cost of doing business”. This wasn’t the first issue found at this very same plant. (My emphasis added.)

FDA investigators documented your firm’s failure to follow Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) during the last three FDA inspections, as well as in other inspections since 1998. Although your February 1, 2010 response acknowledges the procedural errors and recalls in both examples above, your response does not provide the corrective actions your firm plans to take to prevent reoccurrences in the future.

According to the FDA, Perrigo has had a long history of “mixups” and has made promises to be good and fix the issues.

Your firm has had an ongoing program since 2005 to address mixups. However, your firm continues to receive complaints regarding this issue, and despite past assurances that previous enhancements would control this problem, deviations continue. Your firm failed to implement sustainable corrective actions to prevent mixups as well as other continuing problems.

What does this have to do with your pet and flea and tick products? Good question. Several times in the history of flea and tick products pets have died at record rates due to packaging being wrong. An example would be a Great Dane dose in a Chihuahua package for weight class. Worse, a dog dose and product in a cat labeled product. Many of the ingredients in dog products are lethal to cats.

There were two other letters from the FDA warning Perrigo Company to clean up it’s act.

This frustrates me. The entire industry and government regulation-that-fails-to-regulate frustrates me. I am angry that companies making human medications can continue to produce to faulty standards for over 15 years and still continue to be in business. If this is how lax the regulations are with human medication, you can image what a hey day Perrigo will have with Sergeant’s. Not only flea and tick products, but also dog toys, animal treats and a slew of thousands of SKUs.

If regulators care so little for you and I, do you think they will care any more about our pets?

I should clarify that over the counter flea and tick products, including many sold at the vet, are regulated as pesticides by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Very few are under FDA purview. However, the dance between profits and protection of health is the same. They write letter, the companies respond, they write more letters, they companies respond. Inspections are few and far in between and are not “surprise” inspections in most cases. This gives the companies who want to pull a fast one, clean up at least some of their act before inspectors arrive. Then more letters go out. Maybe a few off the books meetings. Rarely fines and if the companies are fined then it is so insignificant in the light of the profits made off the back of our health and the health of our pets.

Large corporations have very little incentive to fix issues unless their internal moral compass tells them to.

 

PetSmart Fined for Selling Bad Flea & Tick Products

Written By: Tiny Timmy - Sep• 02•12

PetSmart has just settled on a $392,842 settlement for selling unregistered pesticides, including flea & tick products. Trust PetSmart to care about your pets or your family? Maybe not so much. [For the California DPR announcement and a list of the products, click here.]

If a product is not registered with the EPA, it has not undergone approved testing for safety and often contain pesticides that are no longer allowed for use in the United States. California has much stricter laws regulating pesticide products and those known or believed to cause cancer.

In California, any product that contains a certain ingredient must state that it is believed to cause cancer in the state of California. Manufacturers complain this causes a loss of profit and they must carry different labels to educate the California consumer vs. everyone else in the United States.

Brian Leahy, the Director for the Department of Pesticide Regulation in California says:

Pesticides cannot be sold or used in California unless they are registered by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DPR to ensure they do what the label claims and can be used safely without harming people, pets and the environment.

So here’s the rub. A few years ago, PetSmart was one of several retailers that were sued on behalf of consumers by the NRDC and other organizations for selling flea & tick products known to be harmful and not labeled correctly in the state of California. This article also refers to this not being the first time PetSmart has sold unregistered pesticides. Although it seems PetSmart was “cooperative” in remedying the issue, what does this really mean on a larger scale for you and me?

  1. PetSmart started its life in 1987 in Arizona. Currently there are over 1,000 stores nationwide. Currently they are the largest pet retailer focusing on the lifetime needs of pets across the country. That’s a lot of inventory and logistics to manage, even for a team of buyers and merchandisers.
  2. Buyers and merchandisers for the most part rely on their distributors to bring them products that are above board and not from the black market or, in this case, unregistered. Unless there is a protocol demanding for their distributors to give them more detailed decision-making information, the buyers are totally at the mercy of the legitimacy and morals of their distribution channels.
  3. Distribution channels are how most retailers purchase the goods that then are sold to you. Think of it as a funnel system. Thousands of products go into the funnel and are focused to their end market, in this case, PetSmart. The same distributors that work with PetSmart also work with other big box retailers. Depending upon how the buying department and corporation is structured, many companies are limited only to ordering from certain sources (distributors). Ideally this saves the retailer money because each new vendor that’s used costs them money and time to get set up and then creates more work for the accounting team to make payments, often with different stipulations from the vendors.
  4. Keeping this in mind, it’s more than likely these same unregistered products have been sent to many other retailers and are readily available in the market, not just at PetSmart.
  5. Some distributors have a vested interested in keeping bad flea & tick products on the market. In fact, legally they can sue the EPA if they feel a reclassification of a pesticide (like permethrin used in flea & tick products) would cause them financial harm. This actually happened not too long ago. A pet product distributor sued the EPA when they wanted to change the status from possible carcinogen to known carcinogen.

Where these unregistered pesticides really takes its toll is on the numbers of reported adverse reactions. Although the article above says no harm came to any animals from these products, it’s impossible for them to say this. Currently reports can be made to the EPA, the National Poison Hotline and to the manufacturer directly. The manufacturer is required by law to report these cases to the EPA quarterly. Obviously if there is no registration with the EPA there is no way to track these numbers. If the products were from a manufacturer who has other pesticides for your home or pets and you tried to report a bad reaction, your report would be kicked out of the numbers because it lacks the information of the EPA registration number.

Personally, using an intern to call the EPA and check whether a product is registered or not takes very little time and no money for the retailer. Even if they were checking 50 products, they could send an email and get an answer before carrying a potentially harmful product. Sadly, PetSmart isn’t very smart when it comes to deadly chemicals and products.