A coalition of animal medicine companies has hit back at calls for a ban on the use of several active pesticide ingredients within veterinary medicines.

NOAH officials said the measure would severely reduce treatment options and there is no evidence linking the products to environmental harms.

But one veterinary group that is backing tighter rules has urged regulators to review whether sales of one of the substances in question remain appropriate.

Campaign

The Pesticides Action Network (PAN) last month launched a campaign to outlaw the use of five actives in veterinary medicines: fipronil and permethrin plus three neonicotinoids – dinotefuran, imidacloprid and nitenpyram.

The network, along with more than 20 other organisations, including some veterinary groups, argue such a measure is necessary on environmental grounds and because voluntary initiatives have proved ineffective.

But, although concerns about the potential environmental impact of the substances have grown in recent times, NOAH argued that multiple usages of the chemicals mean the concentrations discovered in rivers cannot be traced directly to veterinary medicines.

In a lengthy statement responding to the PAN campaign launch, the group insisted that it took the issue seriously and any new monitoring data will be “closely examined” by both itself and its members.

Rejected suggestion

But it added: “Currently, there is no evidence of harm to the aquatic environment from the use of veterinary medicines.”

The group also rejected the campaign suggestion that plenty of alternative treatments would remain available if a ban was implemented, arguing that a majority of those products fall under the POM-V designation, meaning they can only be accessed with a prescription from a vet.

Instead of endorsing the PAN proposal, NOAH has highlighted its own campaign, Paws to Protect, which aims to increase pet owner awareness of, and compliance with, the packaging information given with veterinary medications – particularly among younger pet owners.

‘Consequences’

The NOAH statement continued: “The principle of banning a product because it has potential for harm would jeopardise the availability of all parasiticides and many other veterinary medicines, with severe consequences for animal and human health.

“The regulation of veterinary medicines is, therefore, based on a benefit/risk rather than a hazard-based approach. It is important that prescribers and users of these products carefully consider and follow the administration advice on the product labelling and packaging to responsibly use the product.”

The group also endorsed comments made by the BVA president, Anna Judson, who emphasised both the important role of parasiticides and the need to promote responsible usage.

Although PAN chose not to respond publicly to NOAH’s criticisms when approached by Vet Times, other bodies that share its concern have reiterated their unease at the present situation.

Research

One of them is the Progressive Veterinary Association, which has called for increased research into less toxic alternative remedies and a specific review of the availability of one of the key substances under discussion, fipronil.

It argues that, while the substance is still widely available, many veterinary practices no longer prescribe it because of a lack of efficacy.

Director Andre Menache said the use of parasiticides should be “proportionate to both the risk of disease and the risk of toxicity”.

He added: “Given its environmental toxicity and lack of efficacy, we believe that the VMD should re-evaluate whether fipronil remains appropriate for sale and withdraw its authorisation if this is not the case.”

Balanced approach

The VMD insisted it takes a “balanced approach” to regulatory decisions in response to the PAN campaign’s launch, but added that it had commissioned an expert group to look at ways of reducing the products’ environmental impact.

Meanwhile, Andrew Prentis, a retired vet who earlier this year co-authored a report urging much greater caution in the use of parasiticides, said preventive or prophylactic usage should be limited to cases where pets are deemed to be at a “high risk of infestation” and argued the risk of human infections arising from pet parasites was very low.

He added: “Diverting clinic revenue streams from product sales to a combination of parasite testing before treatment and/or carrying out clinical risk assessments before prescribing could rapidly result in significant reductions in environmental load with parasiticide residues, while maintaining practice income.”