Ark Naturals Suggests Pet Owners Consider Natural Botanical Alternative to Chemical Pesticides to Control Fleas & Ticks
My friend sent this to me to post – I thought I would give it a good old college-try argument on ThoughtsFurPaws as there are clearly two sides here… she would like to – as I would – undercover an oft-misunderstood myth… and also remind you guys that pets need winter protection from fleas and ticks.
But there’s a right and wrong way to do so — and to advertise your new product…
What do you think?
“Today I walked barefoot in 20 degree temperatures on a sidewalk with laden with residue from this weekend’s first official winter storm in the northeast. Returning home, I didn’t wipe my feet off but proceeded to jump on your bed and walk around the house. I watched as my roommate put a pair of rubber gloves on her hands. Gasp, I shuddered to myself, why the gloves? She put a funny smelling solution in between my shoulders and said it would help protect me against pests. She said the package of mystery liquid told her avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing and wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.”
Signed,
The Family Dog
Think about it: Our dogs spend their time walking where we take them, eating what we feed them, and hoping that fleas and ticks take the winter months off (they don’t). With paw to pen, Fido would indeed scrawl that across the family memo board…
Contrary to popular belief, fleas and ticks don’t take the winter months off. Fleas and ticks are a way of life for dogs and cats but controlling them is a matter of choice.
Anyhow, a new report suggests that pet owners might consider a natural botanical alternative to chemical pesticides to control fleas and ticks.
A December, 2011 press release issued by the law firm Green & Associates announced that class-action lawsuits against makers of pesticide-based “spot-on” (aka topical) flea and tick products has prompted Ark Naturals CEO Susan Weiss to recommend that pet owners use a natural botanical alternative to effectively control fleas and ticks. (Just Google “lawsuits against flea and tick products” and you’ll see at least five different brands facing lawsuits, some include Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer, Merial and Sergeant’s.)
“The Green Associates’ press release was alarming and frightening at the same time,” said Ms. Weiss, whose Ark Naturals company has been marketing natural pet products for 16 years, including Flea Flicker! Tick Kicker!, a formula developed recently as a natural, botanical alternative to chemical pesticides in controlling fleas and ticks.
Fleas and ticks are a way of life for dogs and cats but controlling them is a matter of choice, and the “pesticide solution” – their words, not mine, “seems to be wrought with serious problems,” Ms. Weiss noted in the release.
Reports of dangerous side effects associated with spot-on flea and tick products date back far; the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report in 2000 called “Poisons on Pets: Health Hazards from Flea and Tick Products.”
The report revealed a link between chemicals commonly used in flea and tick products and serious health problems in both people and pets.
More recently, a 2008 study by The Center for Public Integrity reported at least 1,600 pet deaths (about one pet a day) related to spot-on treatments with pyrethroids to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over a five-year period, according to an analysis of EPA pesticide incident exposure data by the center. The report continued, saying pyrethroid-based flea and tick treatments — from Hartz, Sergeant’s, Farnam, and Bayer — are approved for sale by the EPA, and they are readily available at grocery stores, specialty pet retailers, and hardware stores. But they “have stirred the ire of pet owners…”
Moreover, the Center reported that pyrethroid spot-ons also account “for more than half of ‘major’ pesticide pet reactions reported to EPA over the last five years—that is, those incidents involving serious medical reactions such as brain damage, heart attacks, and violent seizures. In contrast, non-pyrethroid spot on treatments accounted for only about six percent of all major incidents.”
Ms. Weiss said that New Jersey class-action suits claim the EPA has done nothing to change the advertising, marketing or labeling of pesticide-based flea and tick products to alert pet-owners of the possible serious side-effects, which could include shivering, salivating, dilated pupils, vomiting, tremors and skin irritation.
The release goes on to say: “Nancy Scanlan, DVM, Executive Director of theAmerican Holistic Veterinary Medical Association and past president of theVeterinary Botanical Medical Association, said she has long been aware of theproblems associated with the chemical and pesticide-based flea and tickproducts. “I prefer natural botanicals over pesticidesfor
treating fleas and ticks and there are a number of good natural productsthat work without harsh side effects,” said Dr. Scanlan. “Herbal flea and tickproducts tend to be safer than pharmaceutical or pesticide flea and tickproducts, but all products that are formulated to rid pets of fleas and tickspose some percentage of risk.”
As a way of doing business Ark Naturalsprovides a full disclosure of its Flea Flicker! Tick Kicker! product and is oneof the few, if not the only company, that includes a “cautionary statement” onits website www.arknaturals.com.
Is this just a nice way of this CEO saying that she believes the lawsuits have done nothing – a safe way of her putting her opinion out there…? What do you think?
Now, I am going to take a second to tell you why I believe the EPA has “done nothing…”
As far as my research would take me, this is what I found:
As an honest media representative/blogger/writer/product reviewer, I am noting that in a 2009 report, the EPA, according to a Channel 5 News Report in Cleveland, blamed the vast majority of these unlikely incidents on misuse of the product – i.e., people putting on too much in one spot, the product dripping into an animal’s eyes/ears/mouth – which is specifically mentioned as a hazard on labels, plus, not letting the product set in or not rubbing it in thoroughly as advised on label, etc.
This means human/operator error — not product error.
Ark Naturals’ “natural botanical Flea Flicker! Tick Kicker! is labeled as GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) by the EPA and FDA.
Generally?
Is that supposed to make us feel better about it???
It doesn’t make me feel better…
Anyhow, apparently, all you do to use Ark Naturals is spray on a light application, massage it into the animal’s coat, and it starts working immediately. As a way of doing business, Ark Naturals provides a disclosure of its product and includes a “cautionary statement” on its website.
Currently, nine class-action lawsuits are pending against makers of topical flea & tick products in the wake of an EPA investigation into safety of the pesticides used on dogs & cats.
Hartz, for example, is one of the most well-respected pet product companies in the world; mud-slinging campaigns aplenty have been waged against them online over the years because of the lawsuit against them.
I talked with a representative today from Hartz; this is what they say:
1. The Hartz Mountain Corporation believes that all pets deserve the best care possible; safety is our #1 priority.
2. We are confident in the quality of our topical flea and tick products, including Hartz® UltraGuard® and Hartz® InControl® brands for dogs and cats, all of which are held to the same safety and efficacy testing standards and labeling direction as all EPA-registered flea and tick products.
3. Because safety is our number-one priority, we undertake rigorous clinical tests on all our products. All EPA-approved topical flea and tick products sold through retail channels are held to the same safety and efficacy testing standards as those brands purchased from veterinarians. Labeling direction mandated by the EPA is also consistent for all flea and tick prevention products sold through retail channels or veterinarian offices.
4. We are confident in the quality and safety of our products, and will continue to work with the EPA on labeling and other matters to make sure our consumers better understand the proper use of these products and use them with confidence. Hartz agrees with the EPA on the importance of carefully following label directions when applying topical flea and tick control products to pets.
5. Hartz flea and tick drops accounted for only 4.6 percent of all adverse effects reported to the EPA in 2010 for topical dog and cat flea and tick treatments. In addition, from 2008 to 2010, Hartz reduced the amount of adverse effects reported per total Hartz doses sold by over 38 percent.
6. Per the EPA, most reported incidents were classified as minor, meaning effects were minimally bothersome and rapidly resolved.
My position on this?
(If you care or know the ThoughtsFurPaws writers… here it is…!)
*** Kudos to a company for hopping on the “natural” bandwagon and making a product like this. ***
*** However; don’t EVER use the misfortune of those people who have lost animals or had pet injuries (due to the other products) to announce/promote/sell your own product – that’s just wrong… and it’s a fear-based PR tactic. ***
It’s bad public perception and (PR) manners to blast (however imperceptible) another company to get YOURS ahead…
I believe:
“Blowing out someone else’s candle does not make yours shine any brighter…”
So to all you pet owners who HAVE had a pet injured or lost due to flea/tick topical applications: I am SO sorry for your loss or strife.
I cannot take a side as I am a professional and FAIR journalist… I’m simply reporting the pet world news!