VPN Logo   
 Home   About Us   Contact Us
8:42 AM   April 18, 2014
Your E-mail:

Bookmark and Share
Flea, Tick Products Draw EPA Scrutiny

By Marissa Heflin
Senior News Editor

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is intensifying its evaluation of whether further restrictions on the use of spot-on pesticides for flea and tick control are necessary to better protect pets.

The increased scrutiny applies to both over-the-counter and veterinary channel flea and tick products.

An EPA spokesman said the move follows recent increases in reported incidents. More than 44,000 potential incidents associated with registered spot-on products were reported to the agency in 2008.

Federal law requires EPA registrants to submit reports of possible adverse reactions that may be related to the use of their products whether or not the products were used properly and according to label instructions. A report does not indicate a cause-and-effect relationship between products and symptoms.

EPA spokesman Dale Kemery said restrictions under consideration could include additional and more detailed label claims.

“I just can’t say at this point,” Kemery said. “That’s what the evaluation will indicate.”

Though flea and tick product incidents can involve spot-ons, sprays, collars and shampoos, most incidents reported to the EPA are related to EPA-registered spot-on products.

Spot-ons are generally sold in tubes or vials and applied to one or more localized areas on the pet, such as between the shoulders or along the back. The active ingredients in these products are amitraz, cyphenothrin, dinotefuron, etofenprox, fipronil, imidicloprid, metaflumizone, permethrin, pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene.

Adverse reactions reported in relation to the products range from skin irritation to seizures and in some cases death, according to the EPA.

The EPA encourages veterinarians to report any incidents through a new reporting page developed by the EPA and the National Pesticide Information Center at

In the EPA’s Crosshairs
At the time of the April 16 advisory, the EPA expressed concern about products from seven companies in both the veterinary and over-the-counter channels.

But, several weeks later, the EPA extended the list to include all EPA-registered spot-on flea and tick products. Click here for the full list of available products.

EPA officials said their initial list might have led consumers to believe that only the products previously listed were of concern, when in fact, the agency is evaluating all spot-on products.

Specifically, the EPA is checking reports of adverse reactions, product market share, clarity of product directions and label warnings, product ingredients and pre-market safety data submitted in support of registration of these products.

Its assessment could lead to changes in the registration status of certain spot-on products.

Of particular concern is the potential misuse of these products by consumers, according to the manufacturers.

Vets Play Key Role
Common misuses include pet owners applying a spot-on product dose that is inappropriate for the pet’s size and applying a product designed for a dog on a cat and vice versa, said Hal Little, DVM, director of field veterinary services for Merial Ltd. of Duluth, Ga. That is why following instructions and working with a veterinarian are so important, he added.

“The veterinarian is a very important gatekeeper,” Dr. Little said. “Clients should be working with their veterinarian, asking questions, talking about directions and about the products.”

Merial maintains that while the EPA noted a “sharp increase” in the number of reported adverse events associated with spot-ons, company records do not indicate such a case for Frontline.

“The number of adverse events reported per volume of sales has remained consistently low since the introduction of Frontline in 1996,” Little said. “Over 1 billion doses of Frontline have been sold, so there is extensive experience with the product in marketed use.”

Merial and other spot-on product manufacturers are working with the EPA. A meeting was to be held in May in conjunction with the Canadian health department, which has identified similar concerns.

Fort Dodge Animal Health of Overland Park, Kan., is working closely with the EPA to identify and resolve any issues related to ProMeris for dogs, spokes-man Ryan Noonan said.

“Before ProMeris for dogs was released to the market in 2007, it went through extensive clinical testing,” Noonan said. “Because ProMeris is a new product, there may be more questions related to its use, as compared to other available spot-on products that have been on the market for a number of years.”

Mark Levin, vice president of technical affairs at Sergeant’s of Omaha, Neb., said he thinks the increased number of reports can be tied to the fact that products traditionally sold through the veterinary channel are being sold over the counter.

“The one item we feel we at least need to get on the table … is that when (veterinary products) are sold to a consumer and the consumer has an issue with that product, they take it and the animal back to the vet,” Levin said. “The vets don’t necessarily report those adverse events back to the manufacturer. Whereas for our over-the-counter products, if a consumer has a problem with our product, they call us directly and we respond with those numbers to the EPA.”

In regard to reports of incidents involving Sergeant’s products, Levin said those numbers are low.

“We don’t feel good about even one case, and we constantly look at any opportunity that we can to improve our products across the board,” he said.

For example, Levin said the company has found cases in which consumers used the wrong size product or used the product on the wrong species. Levin said the company also found cases in which household pets licked each other shortly after application.

Melinda Fernyhough, DVM, Ph.D., manager of Scientific Affairs for Hartz of Secaucus, N.J., agrees that reading the label carefully is important.

“Hartz wholeheartedly en-dorses the EPA advisory’s call to action to pet owners regarding the importance of carefully following label directions and making informed decisions when selecting and using spot-on flea and tick pesticides,” Dr. Fernyhough said. “As the EPA states: ‘The pesticide label is your guide to using pesticides safely and effectively.’”

Fernyhough said that EPA-reported adverse effects for Hartz UltraGuard products for cats decreased in 2008 from 2007 and those for Hartz UltraGuard for dogs maintained the same low ratio of reported incidents to sales.

Matter of Perspective
One needs to temper the 44,000 potential incidents with the available units for sale in the field, said Mark Newberg, director of corporate affairs at Central Life Sciences of Schaumburg, Ill. In that context, he said, the number of adverse reactions turns out to be very small.

“And of those 44,000, I’m going to guess that the lion’s share are mild or moderate reactions,” he said.

Newberg said he believes that many of the reports involve consumers applying the product incorrectly. For example, he said, because of the ailing economy, some consumers buy a product for a larger animal and mete it out over several months instead of buying the proper dose.

“It may sound like something that everybody is preaching, but (it comes down to) the label directions,” Newberg said. “Nowhere on the label directions do you see, ‘Split up doses.’ It says very clearly, ‘Do not use these products on cats’ when they are designed for dogs. I don’t know how much clearer you can be.”

What more can be done?

“That’s exactly what the EPA meeting is for,” Newberg said. “Once we put the cards on the table, we will have the opportunity to look at the adverse reactions. Maybe there will be a submeeting or subgroup that puts together a task force to look at labeling. … They may come back after the meeting and say these instructions are very clear and maybe change the way adverse incidents are reported, so that numbers don’t skew one way or another.”

Whatever the result, Newberg said he is anxious to work with the EPA on this issue.

TradeWinds, a brand of AgriLabs of St. Joseph, Mo., did not return telephone calls.

Keeping Watch
With the updated listing, the EPA reiterated that it is not recalling products nor suggesting that these products not be used.

“EPA recognizes the importance of the products in effective flea and tick control,” said a statement on the EPA website. “EPA’s objective is simply to advise consumers and pet owners to exercise caution when using the products and to monitor pet behavior following their use.”

Specifically, the EPA urged pet owners to carefully follow label directions and monitor their pets for adverse reactions, particularly when using a product for the first time. The EPA also recommended that pet owners consult a veterinarian about “the responsible and effective use of flea and tick products.” <HOME>

 Give us your opinion on
Flea, Tick Products Draw EPA Scrutiny

Submit a Comment

Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.

Reader Comments
My husband bought Sergeants Gold flea treatment for our car, and it caused second and third degree burns on him within minutes. We called our vet and scrubbed him with Dawn dish detergent, which if anyone went out to Google, you would see how dangerous this product is. We bought it from Target - look at the product review. The incidents of death and injury are obvious. Thes products need to be removed from the market. If it were humans versus pets, the class action suits would be on national news. I have pictures of the my cat's injuries. It w equal to pouring drain cleaner on his skin. The pain and trauma he went through is heartbreaking. These products need to be removed from the market.
Kelly, Lake Elmo, MN
Posted: 7/30/2012 9:39:55 PM
I'm a trainer, and I've seen many dogs have reactions to this stuff, too many to think that the stuff is OK, so I no longer use it, and have not for some time. I'm beginning to think that my NOT using spot on products may account for my dogs seeming to live longer than those of my friends who do use them. Anecdotal, sure, but worth investigating as a longitudinal study.
Anne, Ipswich, MA
Posted: 4/23/2011 12:24:08 PM
I applied Tri Force (ingredients: Cyphenothrin, Pyriproxyfen), a topical flea and tick product, on my dog following label directions exactly. Within minutes he began salivating and was very agitated. I put him in the bath and washed it off him and his symptoms immediately subsided.
I called the catalog company (Revival Animal Health) that I purchase Tri Force from and reported the adverse reaction to them. They refunded my money and took the product back.
Hopefully they reported this reaction to the company that makes TriForce.
Cheryl, Central, SC
Posted: 4/22/2011 5:51:13 PM
Since manufacturers are the gateway to the numbers of the 44,000 incidences of pet damage and death, these results are skewed. Many properly applied products, to the correct species without grooming each other cases get dismissed and never reported to the EPA. Hartz has been fined several times for under-reporting or not-reporting incidents. Hartz also is in a unique position over other registrants in that they have a sweetheart deal with the ASPCA poisoning hot line. All Hartz related calls are sent to Hartz, and the fee for services are waived. Interestingly, the man running the ASPCA program received "Vet of the Year" sponsored by Hartz the previous year.

Manufacturers claim permethrin is the culprit most of the time in cat-contact-with-dog product. Why then is permethrin an active ingredient in such things as Sergeant's Flea & Tick Spray for CATS, the label directions of which make it impossible to use without breaking almost all of the cautions. Another way manufacturers get to skip the blame for products that have been known to be toxic to humans and animals for decades.

The reasoning of higher incidents reported makes little sense. No, Sergeant's and Hartz products, for example, have not been sold through solely vet channels, so I have no clue why they would state this. Higher awareness has also been raised as to higher numbers, so has more internet use. The fact is, in necropsy, well known to manufacturers and based on studies all the way back to the 1970's by the EPA, these products do not show up in main organs usually examined. Where they do show up, is exactly where manufacturers do not look - the central nervous system.

To allow this to continue, this deceptive use of marketing and hiding behind "trusted names" by large corporations such as ConAgra is disgusting. The public has a right to know and our government agencies should grow a legal, legitimate back bone and start considering the general population, and not industry.

It is harrowing to consider that inert ingredients, generally assumed to be harmless, are withheld even from the EPA as a "trade secret". It has been shown these often contain other toxic insecticides and pesticides that already have been banned for use, or would be considered active ingredients in other products in a like category. Also, certain mixes of inerts make the active ingredients more toxic and absorption quicker and easier. Whole formularies are not required to be tested, only INDIVIDUAL active ingredients. We all know that some things interact differently with other chemicals.

What would you think of a human product that damaged over 120 humans per day, and killed 5 per day? Still leave it on the market?
Timmy, Portland, OR
Posted: 6/1/2010 7:17:11 PM
View Current Comments

Click here to subscribe

Subscriber Services

See all veterinary videos
Featured Vet Grooming Video 
Video Button
BROUGHT TO YOU BY Veterinary Practice News

Copyright ©   I-5 Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.
Our Privacy Policy has changed.
Terms of Use | Guidelines for Participation

Gold Standard

*Content generated by our loyal visitors, which includes comments and club postings, is free of constraints from our editors’ red pens, and therefore not governed by I-5 Publishing, LLC’s Gold Standard Quality Content, but instead allowed to follow the free form expression necessary for quick, inspired and spontaneous communication.