Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

[RC] OT- Equitrol Lawsuit - DarkHorseGoddess

I have never believed that feeding this product to horses is safe, and I guess neither did the jury and Vets in this case. Raven
 
News from  COTTONWOOD RANCH
CHRISTOPHER AND CHARLOTTE WRATHER
Contact  charlotte or christopher wrather, lori araki
p.o. box 127, los alamos, ca 93440
(805) 344-1536, (805) 456-3897 fax
info@xxxx

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

This was posted by Michael Bowling, professor at UC Davis.

JURY AWARDS $1,007,500 IN EQUITROL® LAWSUIT

Santa Ana, CA, March 25, 2004 -- The jury in Wrather v. Farnam Companies1
returned a verdict of $1,007,500 in favor of plaintiffs Charlotte Wrather,
Christopher Wrather and Lori Araki.  The jury found that Farnam’s product
Equitrol®, a feed-through fly control product, was defectively designed
(not safe when used in the intended manner) and that it had caused harm to
plaintiffs’ thoroughbred racehorses and thoroughbred and warmblood sport
horses. Mr. and Mrs. Wrather are the owners of Cottonwood Ranch in Los
Alamos, California, a thoroughbred breeding and training farm. Ms. Araki is
manager and trainer at Cottonwood Ranch.

Equitrol® works in the manure to kill fly larvae before they mature.  Its
active ingredient is the organophosphate insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, a
cholinesterase inhibitor and neurotoxin which is also known by the trade
name Rabon®. Feed-through fly control products containing Rabon® are widely
used in beef and dairy cattle and other livestock industries, as well as in
horses.

-- MORE --

Farnam has advertised that Equitrol® is designed to pass quickly through
the horse’s gastrointestinal tract without being digested, and that it is
safe for all horses including pregnant and lactating mares and their
foals.  The Wrathers and Ms. Araki claimed that they fed Equitrol® as
directed, that the organophosphate in it was absorbed into their horses’
systems, and that this
caused or exacerbated a variety of health problems in the  horses including
reproductive problems and birth defects, stunted and retarded
growth,  hyperexcitability and other neurological dysfunctions, laminitis,
immunosuppression evidenced by unusual or unusually severe infections, low
thyroid, diarrhea, colic and more.

Testifying as an expert witness for plaintiffs was Dr. John Madigan,
D.V.M., professor in the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and chief
of the Equine Section at the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School
of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis.  Dr. Madigan
last summer conducted a pilot study of the effects of feeding
Equitrol®.  In his study (forthcoming in the veterinary literature), the
group of test horses fed Equitrol® experienced a sharp drop in their whole
blood cholinesterase to levels consistent with organophosphate
intoxification. The study also revealed statistically significant
differences in behavior while on Equitrol® as compared with the control
group. In a series of behavioral tests, the horses fed Equitrol® exhibited
heightened or intensified flight response, that is, they were “spookier” or
more easily startled or frightened.

-- MORE --

Also testifying for the plaintiffs were Drs. Mark Rick, D.V.M. and Greg
Parks, D.V.M., both of the well known Alamo Pintado Equine Medical Center
in Los Olivos, California; Dr. David Jensen, D.V.M., who practices
privately as San Marcos Equine Practice in Los Alamos, California; and Dr.
Warren Porter, Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of
Wisconsin at Madison.

The Wrathers and Ms. Araki had also alleged that Farnam knew at least since
1981 that 10% to 30% of the organophosphate in Equitrol® was absorbed, so
that the advertising and marketing for Equitrol® contained negligent and
intentional misrepresentations and omissions.  The jury did not find that
this had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
1       Charlotte Wrather et al v. Farnam Companies, Inc., United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Civil No.
03-967 JVS(RCx)(March 25, 2004)