Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Pets and Pesticides: Let’s Be Careful Out There

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Pets and Pesticides: Let’s Be Careful Out There
  • Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:59:35 -0700


Pets and Pesticides: Let’s Be Careful Out There
Are Over-the-Counter Flea-and-Tick Treatments Really Safe for Dogs and Cats?
By M.B. Pell and Jillian Olsen | December 16, 2008
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/pesticides/articles/entry/1080/

Last June Diane Bromenschenkel applied a flea-and-tick product to her English
pointer, Wings, so the dog wouldn’t get ticks while hunting pheasant in the
tall grasslands of western Idaho. Wings, a healthy five-year-old with a sleek
white coat and a chocolate brown mask, enjoyed long walks in the woods, bacon
treats, and burying things in the yard. But three months after the pesticide
was applied, the animal was dead.

It was just hours following the use of the product that Bromenschenkel knew
something was wrong. She noticed her dog walking around in a daze. Wings was
unresponsive. On the advice of her veterinarian, Bromenschenkel tried to wash
off the treatment —Bio Spot Spot On Flea and Tick Control for Dogs — but the
next day Wings was still suffering.

The dog stopped eating and drinking despite the application of appetite
increasers, said Patricia Pence, the veterinarian and owner of South Wind
Veterinary Hospital in Nampa, Idaho, where Wings was treated. “The anorexia
is a direct result of the Bio Spot,” Pence said. She believes the insecticide
in Bio Spot damaged the portion of Wings’ brain responsible for hunger and
thirst. So she inserted a feeding tube into the dog’s neck and for the next
three months Bromenschenkel and Wings were in and out of the veterinary
hospital.

During this period, Bromenschenkel woke up every two hours at night to give
Wings an injection of liquid nutrient through the neck. She spent thousands
of dollars on vet bills. Despite the best efforts of Bromenschenkel and
Pence, however, the damage was done. In September, Wings’ kidneys failed and
Bromenschenkel made the difficult decision to put her dog to sleep. In days
Wings had gone from a healthy dog, running alongside horses in the Owyhee
Mountains, to an emaciated wreck, chasing phantom birds in the kitchen.
“What’s so terrible about it is that if you had known, you would never have
used it,” said Bromenschenkel of the Bio Spot.

Bio Spot contains a 45 percent solution of the active ingredient permethrin,
a synthetic neurotoxin belonging to the pyrethroid family of chemicals. Bio
Spot is one of several over-the-counter spot on (meaning squeezed on to a
particular spot) anti-flea-and-tick products that consumers apply to cats and
dogs between the shoulder blades and sometimes at the base of the tail. The
animal’s natural oils spread the insecticide over its body, making its skin
and fur inhospitable to parasites. These pyrethroid-based flea and tick
treatments — from Hartz, Sergeant’s, Farnam, and Bayer — are approved for
sale by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and they are readily
available at grocery stores, specialty pet retailers, and hardware stores.
But they are also linked to thousands of reported pet poisonings, and they
have stirred the ire of pet owners, the concern of veterinarians, and the
attention of regulatory agencies.

Manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter spot on treatments say the
products are generally safe and effective when used properly, but they
concede there are cats and dogs that either have a preexisting condition or
an acute sensitivity to these treatments that leads to an illness.

The industry position, however, may dismiss safety concerns too casually. At
least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot on treatments with pyrethroids were
reported to the EPA over the last five years, according to an analysis of EPA
pesticide incident exposure data by the Center for Public Integrity. That is
about double the number of reported fatalities tied to similar treatments
without pyrethroids, such as Frontline and Advantage — although these
products also have critics.

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 6 percent of all major incidents.

In the last five years, the EPA received a total of more than 25,000 reports
of pet pesticide reactions of every sort — fatal, major, moderate, and minor
— to over-the-counter pyrethroid spot on products. This compares to 10,500
reports of all pet incidents related to shampoos, powders, sprays, collars,
dips, mousses, lotions, and towels. This analysis does not take into account
how much of each product was used over the last five years as the EPA does
not have that information.

The EPA cautions that it does not confirm the authenticity of these reports
and most of the claims come from consumers and not trained toxicologists. The
EPA uses the database to observe broad trends and to identify significant
spikes in incidents for specific products and chemicals.
Warning Signs

A few websites, run by pet owners, specialize in educating people on the
dangers of over-the-counter spot on treatments. Almost every day someone
posts a new horror story, often involving a late-night emergency trip to the
vet. “I cannot stop crying knowing that if I hadn’t put that on them then
they would still be here playing and loving as they always did before,” reads
one post about a woman’s loss of two kittens in October.

The concentrations of pyrethroids in over-the-counter spot on pet treatments
range from a 40 percent to an 85 percent solution, eight to 17 times stronger
than the strongest pyrethroid product currently approved for use on humans.
Neither the EPA, which generally regulates topically applied products, nor
the Food and Drug Administration, which generally regulates orally applied
pet products, has a product registered for human application containing a
pyrethroid concentration above 5 percent, and that FDA-approved product
requires a doctor’s prescription. In fact, the Sergeant’s Gold Squeeze-On for
Dogs warning reads: “Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin,” while
the application portion of the label directs people to apply the treatment
“to the dog’s skin.”

But these high concentrations may be necessary in pet products because pets
are more apt to come in contact with fleas and ticks, according to Margaret
Rice, chief of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs registration branch.
Some human products, like the 5 percent permethrin shampoo, also call for
more of the product to be applied than the just under one ounce in the spot
on treatments.

Pyrethroid toxicity targets nerve and muscle cells in pets, according to a
study published in The Veterinary Journal in June 2008. The study found that
dermal exposure by application to the skin or coat is the most common route
of toxic exposure, potentially causing hyperexcitability, tremors, profuse
salivation, and seizures. The seizures can result in brain damage or, less
frequently, death.

Representatives of Central LifeSciences, the parent company of Farnam, the
distributor of Bio Spot, said that they could not discuss the death of Wings
because their investigation of the incident is still underway. The company
said reports of adverse reactions are rare, about three of every 10,000 doses
for cat products and five of every 10,000 doses for dog products. These
numbers include incidents that resulted from misapplication and preexisting
medical conditions, according to Central LifeSciences. “Bio Spot Spot On Flea
& Tick Control for Dogs has met all applicable EPA registration requirements
and is approved for topical use on dogs,” the company said in a letter they
sent in July to one unhappy customer whose dog had recently died.

Hartz Mountain Corp. representatives said via e-mail that the active
ingredient in the company’s spot on dog treatments, the pyrethroid
d-phenothrin, and the active ingredient in their cat product that kills adult
fleas, the pyrethroid etofenprox, are categorized as least toxic by the EPA,
as opposed to the active ingredient in Frontline, fipronil, and the active
ingredient in Advantage, imidacloprid, which, while much less concentrated,
are rated as moderately toxic. Sergeant’s cat spot on treatments also contain
etofenprox, but the company has spot on dog products that contain
cyphenothrin and products that contain permethrin, moderately toxic
pyrethroids.

Another possible explanation for the number of incidents is that consumers
often misuse flea and tick products, causing the sickness that pet owners
later blame on the treatments, said Jennifer Windrum, a spokeswoman for
Sergeant’s. “Pet owners feel incredibly guilty if they misapply it to their
pet,” Windrum said. “It’s easier to blame a company.” Common misapplications
include applying more powerful dog products to cats, applying the product
where the pet can lick it, and using a treatment meant for a large animal on
a small one. The directions on these products include a description of where
to apply, sometimes a diagram, and if it’s a dog product, multiple warnings
not to it use on cats.

Forest Desmond and his wife Marilynn received a letter from Sergeant’s
offering to pay their $125 vet bill after they applied Sergeant’s Gold
Squeeze-On for Dogs to their five dogs. The letter from Sergeant’s also
stated that the company believed the dogs may have licked the product off
each other, a violation of the application instructions. “The Sergeant’s Gold
Squeeze-On for Dogs is for external use only and has several warnings on the
package indicating such,” the letter says. The product’s label does not
instruct consumers to keep dogs separated after treatment, but Sergeant’s has
submitted a request to the EPA to have the label changed. Sergeant’s “Look at
the Label” website already recommends people separate their pets after
application.

“What they’re trying to say is the dogs licked it off each other and thereby
took it in internally, but they didn’t lick it off, it burned their skin,”
Marilynn Desmond said. “My response to that is they’re trying to shift the
blame from the producer to the user. If this had been my first dog, I might
have fallen for that.”

The authors of the study in The Veterinary Journal agree that misuse of
pyrethroid products is often the cause of illnesses, although they also point
out that accidental ingestion by mouth or during grooming is another common
exposure route. “The best way to avoid serious problems is by educating pet
owners to use products strictly according to label directions,” the study
says. “Veterinarians must advise clients using flea care products to read and
follow label instructions completely before applying them on or around their
pets.” The rub here, some veterinarians say, is pyrethroid spot on treatments
are over-the-counter products, easily purchased without consulting a
veterinarian.

Michael Murphy, a veterinarian and toxicologist at the University of
Minnesota, speaking for the American Veterinary Medical Association, said he
rarely hears of pet reactions to spot on treatments, and when he does it’s
usually because a consumer applied a stronger dog product to a cat. But for
some pet advocates, the misapplication explanation misses the point. The
Humane Society of the United States has heard this reasoning before, but
still recommends pet owners avoid over-the-counter spot on products and only
use treatments recommended by veterinarians, according to Stephanie Shain,
the organization’s director of outreach. “With the number of complaints we
get it seems like an extraordinarily high rate of problems,” she said. “Even
if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it
should be. I think at the very least there need to be much stronger warnings
on those products cautioning pet owners about the dangers involved with using
them.”

Others express similar concerns. “Sometimes I wonder why it’s still
approved,” said Mark Grossman, a co-owner and veterinarian of Roanoke Island
Animal Clinic and a toxicology consultant for the Veterinary Information
Network. “They can’t get it out there without the EPA approving it.
Apparently they say if they do enough tests, it’s still OK. In real life
though, I think we’re seeing more problems than we should.”


Paying the Bills

After Samantha Ribble’s English bulldog, Bella, and pug, Chloe, developed
oozing sores where she placed drops of Sergeant’s Gold Squeeze on for Dogs,
she asked Sergeant’s to pay her veterinarian bill, $309. Without admitting
any liability, Sergeant’s agreed to pay the bill, on the condition that
Ribble sign a release that read as follows: “I agree not to make any oral or
written communication which disparages or has the effect of damaging the
reputation of or otherwise working in any way to the detriment of Sergeant’s.
This Release shall inure the benefit of Sergeant’s heirs, legal
representatives, successors, and assigns and shall bind me and my heirs,
legal representatives, successors, and assigns.” In the same letter,
Sergeant’s notes that its products are closely regulated by the EPA and
tested in “accordance with EPA rules and regulations in order to ensure that
the products are safe.”

This is true. The EPA approved the company’s pyrethroid spot on treatments
just as it has approved all spot on treatments, but the agency has a history
of approving pet products in the past only to pull them from the market
later. The EPA approved the use of chlorpyrifos products, cancelled for use
on pets in 2001; diazinon products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; and
phosmet products, cancelled for use on pets by 2004. The products were
approved, defended aggressively by the chemical industry, and then yanked off
the market. They were largely replaced by pyrethroid products, which are
generally thought to be less acutely toxic.

Even pyrethroid pet products, however, have been approved and then pulled. In
2000, the EPA received a rash of reports from cat owners concerning Hartz
Mountain Corp.’s Advanced Care Once a Month Flea & Tick Drops for Cats, a
spot on treatment containing the pyrethroid d-phenothrin. The agency received
reports of cats losing their hair, salivating uncontrollably, experiencing
tremors, and sometimes dying. Judy Van Wyk of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit
against Hartz in November 2001 on behalf of pet owners whose cats had reacted
to Hartz cat drops. The complaint alleged that “Hartz has also known since at
least March 2001 that adverse reactions in cats to the Drops is a common
problem.” The suit was voluntarily withdrawn in November 2002, which may
indicate an out-of-court settlement, but neither Hartz nor Van Wyk would
comment on the case.

Three years later, after the company and the agency experimented
unsuccessfully with stronger warning labels, the EPA entered into
negotiations with Hartz Mountain Corp. and the company agreed to stop selling
the product.

Rice, chief of the EPA’s Office of Pesticides registration branch, said the
agency knows it has had problems with these products in the past. Still the
EPA holds the position, as with all products registered by the agency, that
pyrethroid-based spot on treatments are not harmful if consumers follow label
instructions. The 25,000 reported incidents alone will not change this
conclusion, Rice said. The EPA is investigating pyrethroid incidents,
involving both humans and pets, and when it finishes this process — the EPA
does not have a target date yet for doing so — it may make regulatory
changes, but until then the agency stands by its conclusion. “Our decisions
to register these products and compounds are done with significant data,”
said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs
registration division. “When we register these products, we feel they’re
safe.”

So safe in fact that Johnson said the EPA does not expect any pets will have
a sensitivity to spot on products leading to an illness; the incident
reports, in Johnson’s view, are not at all definitive. Manufacturers, for
their part, do acknowledge the existence of sensitive cats and dogs. “There
is a certain percentage of dogs out there that, just like with humans, will
have an allergic reaction no matter what,” Windrum, the Sergeant’s
spokeswoman, said. Less than 1 percent of sales result in an adverse reaction
when the product is used as directed by the label, she said.

The EPA cannot make its own assessment because unlike the regulations
directing the FDA’s approval of human products, the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act does not require pet products to undergo field
trials prior to approval. So the agency can only require less extensive
testing, often only on one breed of dog or cat. This makes it difficult to
predict the effects on the broader population of users.

The EPA also considers the need consumers have to control fleas and ticks on
their pets and the benefit provided by low-cost pyrethroid spot ons when
making decisions about these products. The over-the-counter pyrethroid spot
ons are typically half the price of Frontline and Advantage.

EPA scientists continue to monitor the safety of pet pyrethroids. In
November, several EPA employees at the Office of Research and Development
authored a piece in BMC Genomics, an online journal that publishes
peer-reviewed articles, that found exposure to the pyrethroids permethrin and
deltamethrin in young rats “could result in detrimental effects on
neurological function later in life.” The study found this was a possibility
even using doses of permethrin that do not cause immediate, acute symptoms.
The authors of the article suggested many other avenues of research —
including examining the effects of other pyrethroids on neurological function.

The EPA also hopes to improve the quality of incident reports through an
online reporting system for veterinarians that began this fall. In addition,
the agency is analyzing pet incidents to identify patterns that may lead to
additional labeling or further regulatory action, and reviewing the process
of approving pet products to see if changes are warranted.

“We need to make sound scientific decisions,” Johnson said. “On the one hand
we have the data that says this product might be safe and on the other we
have incidents that say it might not be.”





  • [Livingontheland] Pets and Pesticides: Let’s Be Careful Out There, Tradingpost, 11/21/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page