Should we be using Imidacloprid?

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:39:25 GMT

[quote user="vs0u "]Most dogs and many cats very rarely get fleas. And if they do, it's not a major problem and can easily be treated as needed.[/quote]Not sure where you live but in the south east most dogs and cats have fleas unless prophylactically treated with an effective product like imidacloprid or selamectin. In the greater scheme of things a flea infestation is a nuisance rather than a serious risk to health but try telling that to a cat with severe FAD or the person whose house is so infested it is going to take years to clear it.

For the record I use Program injection on my cats but whose to say that won't be leached into the environment and affect insects?

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Bob Russell — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:08:21 GMT

Drugs don't get banned due to overuse. They get banned because of misuse.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Christina Smith — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:04:05 GMT

And guess who the public will blame when these drugs are banned due to overuse ?

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:42 GMT

[quote user="Edward Jones"]And good question about fluralaner. It's clearly very potent.[/quote]

Going by the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use Assessment it appears the 90% of fluralaner is excreted unchanged in the faeces, so it will be getting in to the environment, but this is their comment on environmental risk:

"A Phase I environmental impact assessment is provided in line with the Guideline on Environmental Impact Assessment for Veterinary Medicinal Products – Phase I (CVMP/VICH/592/98-FINAL). According to the Phase I decision tree, no Phase II assessment is required since the product is intended for the treatment of non-food producing animals only, and furthermore, the treatment is given on an individual basis; therefore exposure of the environment to the product is considered insignificant. CVMP assessment report for Bravecto (EMEA/V/C/002526/0000) EMA/18748/2014 Page 14/22 The product is not expected to pose a risk for the environment when used according to the SPC."

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/veterinary/002526/WC500163860.pdf

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Edward Jones — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:47:40 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Are we really using toxic chemicals? Mammalian studies show imidocloprid is very safe.[/quote]

It's safe as houses for mammalians, it's the bees and other bugs that are exposed to a contaminated water table that are the concern - because imidocloprid is potent and persistent.

Essentially, every vial we sell ends up being sprayed around and about in your catchment area.

Without know the relative quantities from each source (i.e. as compared to agricultural use), it's hard to know if veterinary products have a strong relative impact. Are neonicotinoid used in farm animal practice?

For comparison, cats and dogs as a source of distribution of antibiotics in the environment is likely relatively low (especially when compared to farm animals) but we still try to minimise antibiotic use in pet species, no?

Arguably, responsible use of veterinary pesticides should potentially be of a higher priority than responsible antibiotic use. After all, the veterinary pesticides end up being distributed in the very place where they can cause a problem (i.e. in the natural environment where the bees and bugs live).

Some light googling reveals that agricultural use of neonicotinoids on flowering crops was banned in 2013, and it's likely to extend to a complete ban soon. Without knowing our relative use we're behind the curve, and we're soon to become the largest users of the products.

And good question about fluralaner. It's clearly very potent.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Bob Russell — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:05:10 GMT

Untreated dogs and cat around here frequently arrive with fleas and ticks. Probably quite a few are shi++ing toxocara eggs.

I might agree a little more if owners were a little more observant but they just aren't!

Are we really using toxic chemicals? Mammalian studies show imidocloprid is very safe. Not sure it is quite as effective as it was even five years ago but that is a different topic.

Remember Nuvan Top? That really was toxic.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

vs0u — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:50:42 GMT

Over the counter flea treatment contains imidocloprid as well (Johnsons/Bob Martins).

I agree with Mark. I've long thought monthly preventive flea treatment is a marketing scam and we've fallen for the sales talk from the pharma companies (plus the money to be made from healthy pet schemes). Most dogs and many cats very rarely get fleas. And if they do, it's not a major problem and can easily be treated as needed. Not worth risking the health of rivers for. I'd only want to treat regularly in the case of FAD or in an animal that kept getting reinfected.

It's akin to putting a toxic chemical on your child every month to prevent them getting headlice a few times during their childhood.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Robin Grimmer — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:39:52 GMT

I just can't believe that a dog that's had some Advantage on it can pollute a whole lake! Don't tell the homeopaths or it will prove their theory!

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Mark Holmes — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:47:33 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I am not that convinced that imidocloprid is a devils compound.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/imid.pdf

Not that enthusiastic a supporter for Bayer but they do seem to acknowledge the potential effects the compound has, particularly on bee husbandry.

The stability of imidocloprid in water appears low. This would fit with the apparent ease that swimming decreases the effectiveness of the flea products.

Persistence in soil seems far more likely to be a problem and closely controlled and targeted use of the compound as a seed dressing would seem far more important than a dog going swimming.

Bayer may have been economical with the truth at times but the sometimes hysterical anti-neonic brigade are not so honest either.

[/quote]

Actually in water sediment where the bugs live - Imidocloprid is stable and slow to break down - with a half life of 128 days. 90% of imidocloprid is excreted as parent compound via urinary tract - it not just swimming dogs. Its all our patients receiving the product.

Degradation of neonicotinoids often produces secondary metabolites in water, some of which have been proven to have an equal or greater toxicity than their parent compounds (Suchail et al. 2001).

I think we need to be paying far more attention to the environmental consequences of the drugs we use - particularly when they are used prophylactically ie not in response to immediate animal disease.

Its not good enough to justify their use because someone else uses them. The Veterinary industry should be leading the way on this - whole food chains are at risk and not just responding to the actions of the cereal and forestry industries.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Edward Jones — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:23:41 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]Neonicotinoids (of which imidacloprid is one) are widely used as pesticides in agriculture[/quote]

I was under the impression that their use had been recently significantly curbed.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Bob Russell — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:15:57 GMT

I am not that convinced that imidocloprid is a devils compound.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/imid.pdf

Not that enthusiastic a supporter for Bayer but they do seem to acknowledge the potential effects the compound has, particularly on bee husbandry.

The stability of imidocloprid in water appears low. This would fit with the apparent ease that swimming decreases the effectiveness of the flea products.

Persistence in soil seems far more likely to be a problem and closely controlled and targeted use of the compound as a seed dressing would seem far more important than a dog going swimming.

Bayer may have been economical with the truth at times but the sometimes hysterical anti-neonic brigade are not so honest either.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Mark Holmes — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:54:16 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

Neonicotinoids (of which imidacloprid is one) are widely used as pesticides in agriculture in seeds, soil and leaves.

http://www.pan-uk.org/about_neonicotinoids/

While I don't doubt their environmental significance, I think the environmental contamination arising from pet spot ons is probably negligible.

[/quote]

I’m not sure it as easy as that. Culmulatively there are a lot of dogs treated monthly. Can you in good conscience prescribe a drug prophylactically with such a poor environmental profile? When do we as Vets need to consider the wider animal population over the individual?

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Robin Grimmer — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:48:55 GMT

Neonicotinoids (of which imidacloprid is one) are widely used as pesticides in agriculture in seeds, soil and leaves.

http://www.pan-uk.org/about_neonicotinoids/

While I don't doubt their environmental significance, I think the environmental contamination arising from pet spot ons is probably negligible.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Mark Holmes — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:38:11 GMT

https://www.buglife.org.uk/sites/default/files/QA%20Neonicotinoids%20in%20water%20in%20the%20UK-%20final%20(2)%20+NI_0.pdf

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Mark Holmes — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:05:23 GMT

Well 90% of Imidacloprid is excreted at parent compound via urinary tract hence into water table. Neonics are persistant and highly potent - dressing a seed is sufficient to protect crops 6 months later. They last in the environment.

The forestry treat trees but largely off site before planting - with occasional “top up” treatment in areas effected by pine weavel.... but I’m not sure that’s the point.

At what point do we need to consider the environmental consequences of the drugs we apply - it’s particularly imporant when we treat prophylactically as by definition most of the treat is applied unnessarily.

I’m not sure what extent the contamination comes from pets and what from other sources. There are few trees and other sources on large parts of Cairngorm so it depends where the samples were taken - but we do contribute.

Its a bit like saying my car doesn’t count because of China.

I’m confident Bayer have insufficient data to say it is safe

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Rob Davis — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:55:56 GMT

I find it hard to believe that there are detectable levels of ectoparasiticides in the water of fast-running streams in the Cairngorms purely from treated dogs swimming in them. I agree that their use needs to be monitored, but I'm not sure that I would take this story at face value...

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Christina Smith — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:43:01 GMT

This really should be up for debate. Pampered pooches destroy the environment! Very topical. Is it justifiable ? I don't treat my own pets unless I see a parasite. They rarely need more than one treatment as I have found diligent nit combing works very effectively.

RE: Should we be using Imidacloprid?

Beats — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:43:10 GMT

As a closet tree-hugger, I've always struggled to reconcile my hatred of fleas with the environmental impact of routine prophylaxis with effective products on pets.

What are your thoughts on least horrible chemical if using?

I've not read any sensible opinions on the more recent options like Bravecto yet. Their killing of arachnids as well as insects obviously sounds bad, but I can see potentially that if oral, given infrequently, low ongoing excretion and feces bagged and land-filled for few days after administration then perhaps that can be a reasonable option?

Thoughts?