The House of Lords environment and climate change committee is calling for a ban on over-the-counter flea and tick pet treatments, after its report found that the widespread overuse of these medications ‘is not supported by robust scientific evidence’.
Many flea and tick treatments, including shampoos, spot-on treatments and tablets, use neonicotinoid parasiticides such as fipronil and imidacloprid to protect pets against these pests. Pet owners can buy many of these over-the-counter, as part of a monthly subscription, for example. However, this can lead to the overuse of these treatments, causing these chemicals to build up in the environment at unsafe levels. For example, many rivers across the UK contain high levels of fipronil and imidacloprid, posing a threat to aquatic organisms.
In July last year, the UK government unveiled a roadmap to reduce the presence of these parasiticides in the environment. Such chemicals are currently banned in the UK for use in agriculture due to the harm they can cause to fish, bees and other wildlife.
The committee launched an inquiry in May to broaden efforts to regulate all types of parasiticides for pets. Vets, pet charities, retailers, ecologists and regulators have since given evidence on the types, uses, sales and environmental risks of these parasiticides.
Shaista Sheehan, chair of the committee, says that the report ‘raises serious questions and concerns’ about in the impacts of these treatments. She likens the over-use of these treatments to ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’.
The committee’s report suggests that the pet pharmaceutical industry is pushing pet owners to use these over-the-counter treatments. ‘The veterinary pharmaceutical industry is not incentivised or mandated’ to regulate the environmental impacts of its products, the report notes. ‘The industry is itself embedded within the regulatory and advice-setting frameworks.’
The report also finds that the use of products containing fipronil and imidacloprid is declining, with new parasiticides such as isoxazolines entering the market. Yet, there is currently a ‘data gap’ about the ecological impact of this class of chemicals, which are also persistent per- and poly-fluoroalkylated substances (PFAS).
To lower the environmental impacts of these treatments, the committee is suggesting that the government encourages pet owners and vets to reduce the number of unnecessary treatments. Conducting more rigorous environmental testing for existing and new compounds and addressing evidence gaps are other strategies recommended by the committee.
Environmental policy expert Tilly Collins at Imperial College London, UK, said that these recommendations ‘are very welcome’. ‘We need to use these pesticides in a sensible way, both to reduce environmental and human exposure and to maintain their efficacity,’ she added. ‘Going to the vet for advice and appropriate treatment on occasion is considerably cheaper than regularly buying and using unnecessary pesticides.’
Sheehan notes that ‘pet owners deserve accurate evidence-based guidance on the need for, and risks of, the existing and new chemicals which are being prescribed and the impact they are having on their pets, home and the environment’.
No comments yet