“During the Inspection, the KDA discovered 227 units of Hartz Ultra Guard Plus Flea & Tick Collar being offered for sale at the Colby, Kansas, Walmart store.”

💡 This confirms inspectors found hundreds of unregistered pesticide units at a major U.S. retailer.

“The Hartz Ultra Guard Plus Flea & Tick Collar products found during the Inspection were manufactured by Hartz and were intended for exportation to, distribution in, and sale in Mexico.”

💡 Hartz manufactured these collars for a foreign market but they ended up on U.S. store shelves.

“The labeling on the Hartz Ultra Guard Plus Flea & Tick Collar products found during the Inspection did not contain an EPA registration number and, apart from the name of the product, was entirely in the Spanish language.”

💡 American consumers could not read safety instructions and the products lacked required federal registration markings.

“Section 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(A), states that it shall be unlawful for any person in any state to distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is not registered under Section 3 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136a, or whose registration has been cancelled or suspended.”

💡 Federal law explicitly prohibits selling pesticides without EPA registration, a requirement Hartz violated.

“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 156.10(a)(3), all label or labeling text required to appear on a pesticide shall appear in the English language.”

💡 Federal regulations mandate English labeling so consumers can understand safety information, which these collars lacked.

“For the purpose of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent: (a) admits the jurisdictional allegations set forth herein; (b) neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations stated herein.”

💡 Hartz paid the penalty but never had to publicly admit it violated federal pesticide safety laws.

“Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Five Dollars ($11,955).”

💡 The total fine for 227 violations amounts to roughly $52 per unregistered pesticide unit, a trivial cost for a major corporation.

“Section 14(a)(1) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136l(a)(1), authorizes a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 19, increased these statutory maximum penalties $24,255, for violations that occur after November 2, 2015.”

💡 Hartz paid less than half the maximum penalty, showing how settlements dramatically reduce corporate accountability.

“Full payment of the penalty proposed in this Consent Agreement shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations alleged herein. Complainant reserves the right to take any enforcement action with respect to any other violations of FIFRA or any other applicable law.”

💡 The settlement imposed no product recall, no consumer notification, and no requirement to fix the distribution systems that allowed this violation.

“Section 2(u) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136(u), defines pesticide to mean any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.”

💡 The flea and tick collars fit the legal definition of pesticides and therefore required EPA registration before sale.

“Section 2(q)(1)(E), 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(E), states, in pertinent part, a pesticide is misbranded if any word, statement, or other information required by or under the authority of the subchapter to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.”

💡 Spanish-only labels violated the federal standard requiring information ordinary consumers can read and understand.

“Respondent certifies by the signing of this Consent Agreement that it is presently in compliance with all requirements of FIFRA and its implementing regulations, to the best of Respondent’s knowledge and belief.”

💡 This vague language imposes no concrete audit or monitoring requirements to prevent future violations.

“Respondent consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Final Order and consents for the purposes of settlement to the payment of the civil penalty specified herein.”

💡 Hartz agreed to pay but the settlement structure allows the company to avoid public acknowledgment of the underlying facts.

“By allegedly bypassing this registration requirement, Hartz deprived regulators of the opportunity to review the product’s safety profile and ensure correct usage instructions in English, as mandated for the U.S. market.”

💡 EPA registration exists to protect public health, and Hartz short-circuited this entire safety review process.

“Respondent understands that its failure to timely pay any portion of the civil penalty may result in the commencement of a civil action in Federal District Court to recover the full remaining balance, along with penalties and accumulated interest.”

💡 The only enforcement mechanism for non-payment is additional legal action, and the base penalty remains negligible for a major brand.