Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterPets Can Have Reactions To Topical Flea Medication
Media General News Service
Published: May 12, 2009
Those spot-on flea and tick preventatives available for a few bucks at the grocery store are not what the doctor ordered, and federal regulators are warning consumers to take care when using them on pets.
The pesticides are being evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency following an increase in complaints of bad reactions.
The problem isn’t new, said veterinarian Andrew Armani of North Bay Animal & Bird Hospital in Tampa.
“It’s been happening for years and years,“ he said. “I’ve seen burns that look like chemical burns all the way to seizures and death. People try to save money by buying a cheaper alternative [to vet-recommended treatments] at the grocery store.“
The review includes all over-the-counter spot-on treatments, the type squeezed from a vial onto an animal’s skin, usually at the base of the neck or along the back. They’re usually used once a month to keep fleas and ticks away.
The EPA logged 44,000 complaints about them last year.
Adverse reactions are a bigger problem among cats than dogs, Armani said.
Sometimes, the animal just doesn’t respond well. But other times, it’s poisoned after the product is applied incorrectly. The pesticides aren’t meant to be eaten and are supposed to be applied where a pet can’t reach to lick them off.
“But people don’t see fleas there and they say, ‘I’m going to put it where I see the fleas.‘ So they put it on the tail and at the base of the tail,“ Armani said. “You know a cat; a cat is going to do everything to get it off. The poor cat will ingest it all and develop serious seizures.“
In late April, the EPA announced it was reviewing products that accounted for about 80 percent of the complaints. But it recently expanded the scope to all spot-on products sold over-the-counter. Most are low-cost treatments available in discount stores.
Products purchased at vets’ offices can cost five times more. But Armani said there are almost never problems associated with those.
“We scrutinize anything we use or recommend,“ he said.
The top brand in retail stores is Hartz, which ran into problems with the EPA in 2002 over some of its spot-on products for cats and kittens. The company agreed to discontinue four of those in 2005.
Only 2 percent of the current complaints involve Hartz products, said Melinda Fernyhough, the company’s manager of scientific affairs.
“I think it is important to stress all topical drops are regulated in the same manner ... and are held to the same standards of efficacy and safety, whether sold through vets or at retail,“ she said.
Spot-on products have become the most popular way to control fleas, preferred by 74 percent of cat owners, according to a 2008 survey by the American Pet Products Association.
Information from the Sun-Sentinel was used in this report.
PROTECT YOUR PETS
• Consult your veterinarian before using any flea and tick treatment.
• Do not use products meant for dogs on cats, and vice versa.
• Avoid products with these names in the active ingredients: chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, phosmet, naled, tetrachlorvinphos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl and propoxur.
• Carefully follow application instructions, and note weight or age guidelines.
• If your pet has an adverse reaction, bathe it immediately and call your vet.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To report a reaction to a flea and tick product go to http://www.pesticides.custhelp.com, call 800-858-7378, or tell your vet.
For information on flea control without pesticides, go to: http://www.greenpaws.org.
For updates on the Environmental Protection Agency’s review of spot-on flea and tick products, go to http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/flea-tick-control.html.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Dr. Melinda, from Hartz Mountain Corporation, has posted a blog that is misleading and omits many important facts—facts that are critical to consumers and pet lovers. First, Hartz Mountain Corporation has had a long history of problems with their flea and tick products. In 2005, Hartz was notified by the EPA that their cat and kitten products were going to be terminated as a result of an unacceptable level of injuries and deaths. The EPA issued a Cancellation Order later in 2005 and forced Hartz to remove these products from retail stores in 2006. The product ingredients, phenothrin at 85.7% volume and methoprene at 2.3% volume, are—in combination—neurotoxins that are lethal to cats and also injure and kill dogs and puppies. To the very last day prior to termination, Dr. Jill Richardson, director of Consumer Relations for Hartz Mountain, publicly stood behind the safety of their cat and kitten products (exactly what Hartz is doing today), even though the science has proven that cats cannot metabolize these neurotoxins in a satisfactory manner and were injured or worse in tremendous numbers. The EPA has not yet taken the same action on Hartz’s dog and puppy products even though they contain precisely the same ingredients in exactly the same volumes. Yet, dogs have been injured or killed, not in the same numbers as cats, but at unacceptable levels. Now, as of May 7th, the EPA has updated a Public Advisory cautioning consumers about the use of these products and announcing that they will be receiving new scrutiny. All of Hartz’s flea and tick products—both cat and dog—are among a list that includes all manufacturers of over the counter spot-on’s containing ingredients that are considered neurotoxins. The EPA has stated they are concerned about the number of “adverse incidents”, particularly the tremendous spike in reported incidents in 2008 over 2007. Even today, May 14, 2009, the website that Dr. Melinda refers you to wrongly indicates that not all of Hartz’s products were listed by the EPA. In two different locations on the website, Hartz conveniently publishes the initial EPA Advisory which did not list Hartz’s dog products and some other Hartz cat and kitten products. The EPA announced they were doing a review for completeness…ten days later ALL of Hartz’s products were on their list of products to receive additional scrutiny because of adverse incidents. Dr. Melinda has been interviewed several times and has told the same story—only a few of Hartz’s products were listed, and “it’s notable none of our dog products are on the list”. That’s no longer the case, but Dr. Melinda and Hartz have not corrected the record. Hartz’s cat and kitten products alone had 956 reported injuries and deaths just in 2008. And how many more go unreported—70%-90%? Dr. Melinda is proud of that record. My question is this: Hartz and Dr. Melinda—what do you believe is an acceptable level of injuries and deaths from your products? I believe most pet lovers would find these numbers appalling. And speaking of appalling—how many companies have to build their own website dedicated to a “truth” campaign to defend their product safety? And on the website they continue to mislead and obfuscate. It’s an incredible record.
I would like to address a couple of points in this article.
It is critically important for consumers to recognize that the following statement is not accurate; “federal regulators are NOT warning consumers” about “spot-on flea and tick preventatives bought for a few bucks at the grocery store”. The EPA is reviewing ALL EPA-regulated spot-on products, whether sold by vets in stores, including the popular vet recommended brands, Frontline, Advantage, K9 Advantix, and Promeris. The EPA’s focus is most decidedly not on “grocery store” flea and tick topical products alone.
It is a myth that there is a difference in quality, safety or efficacy as between the more expensive spot-ons sold by vets, on the one hand, and those sold in stores, like Hartz simply by virtue of one set (the expensive set) being marketed through veterinarians. EPA-regulated brands are all graded based on exactly the same standardized safety tests. You may be surprised to know that Hartz UltraGuardŽ for Dogs and Hartz UltraGuardŽ for Cats have been classified by the EPA in the lowest toxicity category available on the market, as low or LOWER than both the leading two veterinarian brands.
You may also be surprised to know that in an independent expert analysis of publicly available EPA data on reported adverse reactions to spot-ons for 2006 - 2008, the vet-recommended brands accounted for almost one-third of all recorded incidents. Whereas Hartz products accounted for less than 5% of ALL reported incidents. You can find this report along with other science-based facts at www.thetruthabouthartz.com.
The large pharmaceutical companies actively promote the perception that the brands they sell to vets are better and brands like Hartz are “cheaper alternatives”. While we don’t presume to represent the entire industry, we can say that for Hartz this is not true. The difference is that for over 80 years, Hartz mission has been to make quality pet care affordable to everyone.
And there is absolutely no fact-based reason to avoid tetrachlorvinphos. Tetrachlorvinphos has been used safely for many years. The EPA recently reaffirmed its use for on-animal application, including sprays, powders and collars, based on a significant number of safety studies. These studies were fully reviewed and approved by the EPA, resulting in the re-registration of tetrachlorvinphos; all of which is available on EPA’s website.
Please email me at DrMelinda@hartz.com with any questions you may have about Hartz flea & tick products, or your pets. I am happy to be of help.
Best wishes,
Dr. Melinda, DVM, Ph.D
Hartz Mountain Corporation
Advertisement