Many of the other chemicals used in tick in flea treatments are known to be harmful to human health or the environment. They are, after all, designed to kill living organisms and therefore need to cause harm – at least to the target species – in order to be effective.
By focusing on banning pesticide active substances from inclusion in pet medicines, we are not saying that alternative treatments are safe or even necessarily less harmful. There is so little research out there that, in reality, we simply do not understand the true impacts that the chemicals contained in pet medicines are having on health or environment. We certainly need more research to be conducted in this area, but this should not be a reason for inaction. In fact, this scientific uncertainty is exactly why UK pesticide regulation is underpinned by the precautionary principle which allows regulators to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high. Under the precautionary principle, regulators do not have to wait for the evidence of harms to be definitive, an often-unattainable goal.
This is why we have focused on banning pesticide active substances known to cause harm. These five chemicals have been through the regulatory system and deemed too harmful for use on crops. It simply makes no sense to allow them to be routinely applied by millions of pet owners every month. If we want to tackle chemical pollution, then we urgently need to take a more holistic approach and close this loophole. Where alternatives exist, which they absolutely do in the case of pet medicines, chemicals known to be harming wildlife should be taken off the market. Meanwhile, the government and others should fund research into less-toxic, and ideally non-chemical, alternatives so that pet owners can rest assured that they are not driving pesticide-related harms to health or environment.