Comment submitted by K. Vermeulen

Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231-0016
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Received Date: September 29 2006, at 08:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: October 2 2006, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: December 30 2005, at 02:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: October 10 2006, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 801d022e
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

Products containing metaldehyde should be removed from consumer shelves. As I have now learned, there are safe alternatives availabale so why even sell something that can be fatal to animals and children? Children and pets are usually in a home's yard. As a consumer purchasing an item for the garden, I should not have to question whether a product is safe or not. If it is not, it should be sold and used under controlled situations. At the very least companies should design their packaging with eye-catching warnings. Instead of a warning buried deep within the text or at the bottom in miniscule print, there should be a bright-colored circle with Children/Pets and a line through it on the front of the box. Some metaldehyde registrants are opposed to this as consumers may not use the product. SO WHAT?!!! Many of the safer products are made by the same companies so the financial consequence would be minimal. How about worrying about protecting lives instead of the almighty dollar? Our vet told us metaldehyde poisoning is very common. On a recent Monday our vet saw 5 cases from the weekend. That is only one hospital, one day!!! We left the hospital with an estimate of $1,750 and not much hope our dog would survive. We were one of the lucky ones; our dog survived and we are now more informed. How many have to die before this active ingredient is removed from consumer shelves? Kerry Vermeulen Roseville, CA

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 9
Comment submitted by K. Vermeulen
Public Submission    Posted: 10/02/2006     ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231-0016

Oct 10,2006 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by C. Geiger, San Francisco Department of the Environment
Public Submission    Posted: 10/03/2006     ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231-0018

Oct 10,2006 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by C. J. Wible, The Scotts Company LLC
Public Submission    Posted: 10/12/2006     ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231-0019

Oct 10,2006 11:59 PM ET
Comment submittted by R. D. Blakely, California Citrus Mutual
Public Submission    Posted: 10/12/2006     ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231-0021

Oct 10,2006 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by J. C. Wood, Amvac Chemical Corporation
Public Submission    Posted: 10/12/2006     ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231-0022

Oct 10,2006 11:59 PM ET