Lords call for urgent action to tackle flea treatment 'forever chemicals' pollution

The relationship between pet medication suppliers and regulators appears as murky as the waterways their flea treatments are polluting, a House of Lords inquiry has concluded.

The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee has found intensive and unnecessary overuse of Pet Parasite Medications (PPMs) in companion animals, is not supported by robust scientific evidence.

The cross-party inquiry heard while the chemicals transfer into the natural environment, threatening aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, there is worryingly insufficient evidence to assess whether or not they are harmful to human health.

It’s believed washing pets after treatment flushes the pesticides into sewers, before it is regularly discharged into rivers.

Another pollution route for the chemicals is through dogs swimming in rivers and lakes.

The pesticides are thought to be having a significant impact on the invertebrates living in and around watercourses, as well as birds and mammals.

University of York Environmental chemist Professor Alistair Boxall, who has spent two decades studying the impact of pet parasite medication on Yorkshire’s rivers, told the inquiry into treatments leaving ‘forever chemicals’ were being seen in very high concentrations in rivers. He added concentrations of chemicals such as highly soluble organofluorine compound trifluoroacetic acid, appeared to be rising.

Prof Boxall said while European guidelines on the drugs required an environmental assessment, some have been developed for livestock medicines and aquaculture medicines and testing was patchy. He said: “Effectively what a market authorisation applier will do is work through a set of questions and, if they meet some of those questions, they stop. That is one of the issues with the pet medicines.

The report stated: “The true scale of environmental harm resulting from PPMs is not known. This is not because their impact cannot be measured, but because the drug authorisation process does not require system-wide environmental testing and catchment-wide field research has been limited.

"Despite clear evidence showing that pet parasiticides enter the environment from the home, they are not made to go through the necessary Environmental Risk Assessments required to quantify the risks that they pose to our habitats and biodiversity. Two of the most frequently used PPMs, imidacloprid and fipronil, are banned from use in agriculture because of their harmful effects on beneficial invertebrates including pollinators such as bees.”

The report concluded the veterinary pharmaceutical industry is not incentivised or mandated to support rigorous assessments of their products’ environmental harm. It stated: “Indeed, it appears that industry is itself embedded within the regulatory and advice-setting frameworks, with the risk that they could be ‘marking their own homework’.”

The committee has urged the Government to:

• Establish a clear and comprehensive evidence base on the use of PPMs, including the volume of products sold, the proportion of pets routinely treated, and the prevalence of pet parasites.

• Address, as a matter of priority, the significant evidence gaps concerning the environmental impacts of PPMs, including their accumulation in soils and sewage sludge, and the potential risks to human health.

• Require more rigorous Phase II Environmental Risk Assessments for all existing and future PPMs.

• Advocate for a more precautionary approach to PPM use to reduce the number of unnecessary treatments.

• Review the relationship between the VMD, industry and VICH to ensure that any risk, or perceived risk, of regulatory capture is eliminated.

Baroness Sheehan, chair of the committee, said the report raised serious questions and concerns about the environmental risks of pet flea and tick treatments as well as how they are sold to pet owners. She said: “Their over-use on household pets is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The lack of scientific evidence and data, poor customer guidance and the relationship between the pet medication suppliers and regulators appear as murky as the waterways these flea treatments are polluting.”