There was a news article I read recently which told of the dangers of
over the counter flea and tick medicines. Vets are supposedly seeing a
large increase in the number of animals with liver and other problems
due to these medicines and chemicals in the pet food.
What medicines do you all think are good and safe to use to get rid of
fleas and ticks and also heartworm medicine?

We have small dogs and one is sensitive to meds. He has had an
allergic reaction to shots and also some sort of a nervous system
problem from a heartworm pill. (both of these problems went away with
no lasting issues)

Thanks

There was a news article I read recently which told of the dangers of
over the counter flea and tick medicines.

First of all, don't panic. The EPA has issued a statement that also contains
the following:

"Flea and tick products can be appropriate treatments for protecting your
pets and your family's health because fleas and ticks can transmit disease."

EPA link:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...0!OpenDocument

The only problems we've seen are with the over the counter products and
these are two-fold:

1. Owner compliance. People are applying the product wrong and pets are
licking it and getting it in their system. The EPA's press release states
the following: "Pet owners may also want to consult a veterinarian about the
responsible and effective use of flea and tick products." The worst reaction
we are seeing is when people put the dog product on a cat. That's horrible.
This why it is so important to have proper interaction with a veterinarian
with these products.

2. It just doesn't work, especially long term. They don't address all the
life cycles of the flea.

That's not to say that the RX products don't have reported adverse events.
Looking recently in our adverse and sentinel event log, there have been
very, very few in the last 2 years and these were very minor, usually having
to do with initial sensitivity to the odor or liquid. There are major
concerns with people getting the RX products from non-veterinarians. Most of
the manufacturers of these products do *not* sell to non veterinarians and
the DEA and EPA have found that these have been counterfeit, meaning that
they are not what they seem although labeled and packaged as such. Or that
they have been bought overseas, re-labeled and sold here all while stored in
bad climate and temperature conditions. When bought through a veterinarian
(only), the manufacturer guarantees the products.

Vets are supposedly seeing a
large increase in the number of animals with liver and other problems
due to these medicines and chemicals in the pet food.

Chemicals in the pet food?? I'm sure Chard "Harold Hill" will jump on this
bandwagon with her trombones, but this is new to me.

What medicines do you all think are good and safe to use to get rid of
fleas and ticks and also heartworm medicine?

We recommend the Advantage products. We also carry Frontine, Revolution and
Promeris. One product does not address all three (fleas, ticks, heartworm).
Advantage Multi covers fleas, heartworms and some internal parasites, but
not Ticks. You can use Advantix which covers fleas and ticks and supplement
monthly as well with Heartguard or Iverheart Max for heartworm prevention.

*note: Revolution does address fleas, ticks and heartworm, but only one
particular tick*

On Apr 27, 10:25�pm, "Sharon Too"
wrote:
There was a news article I read recently which told of the dangers of
over the counter flea and tick medicines.

First of all, don't panic. The EPA has issued a statement that also contains
the following:

"Flea and tick products can be appropriate treatments for protecting your
pets and your family's health because fleas and ticks can transmit disease."

EPA link:http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...3c85257359003f...

The only problems we've seen are with the over the counter products and
these are two-fold:

1. Owner compliance. People are applying the product wrong and pets are
licking it and getting it in their system. �The EPA's press release states
the following: "Pet owners may also want to consult a veterinarian about the
responsible and effective use of flea and tick products." The worst reaction
we are seeing is when people put the dog product on a cat. That's horrible.
This why it is so important to have proper interaction with a veterinarian
with these products.

2. It just doesn't work, especially long term. They don't address all the
life cycles of the flea.

That's not to say that the RX products don't have reported adverse events..
Looking recently in our adverse and sentinel event log, there have been
very, very few in the last 2 years and these were very minor, usually having
to do with initial sensitivity to the odor or liquid. There are major
concerns with people getting the RX products from non-veterinarians. Most of
the manufacturers of these products do *not* sell to non veterinarians and
the DEA and EPA have found that these have been counterfeit, meaning that
they are not what they seem although labeled and packaged as such. Or that
they have been bought overseas, re-labeled and sold here all while stored in
bad climate and temperature conditions. When bought through a veterinarian
(only), the manufacturer guarantees the products.

Vets are supposedly seeing a

large increase in the number of animals with liver and other problems
due to these medicines and chemicals in the pet food.

Chemicals in the pet food?? I'm sure Chard "Harold Hill" will jump on this
bandwagon with her trombones, but this is new to me.

What medicines do you all think are good and safe to use to get rid of
fleas and ticks and also heartworm medicine?

We recommend the Advantage products. We also carry Frontine, Revolution and
Promeris. One product does not address all three (fleas, ticks, heartworm).
Advantage Multi covers fleas, heartworms and some internal parasites, but
not Ticks. You can use Advantix which covers fleas and ticks and supplement
monthly as well with Heartguard or Iverheart Max for heartworm prevention..

*note: Revolution does address fleas, ticks and heartworm, but only one
particular tick*

Thanks for the reply Sharon.

Chemicals in the pet food??

Yeah, it's an attitude that really irritates me. Sorry in advance if
this rant is preaching to the choir:

Chemicals, you know, stuff like proteins, carbohydrates, essential
minerals, all those things which sound real scary when you break them
down to their actual chemical name rather than their common name.

Which is scarier: Sugar, Sucrose, saccharose, C12H22O11, or $B&B(B-D-
fructofuranosyl-(2$B"*(B1)-$B&A(B-D-glucopyranoside? Yet nothing has changed
except the preconceptions of the reader.

Did you know you table salt contains sodium chloride and water
contains hydrogen and hydroxide ions in a solution of dihydrogen
monoxide? All life is chemistry. To claim anything less is fear
mongering and sophistry. "Added chemicals" can simply mean any added
ingredient, including water.

So any claim like this which blames something on "chemicals" without
naming the particular ones irritates me. It's all chemicals, as are
you and I and the dog. I for one refuse to give in to the mindless
hysterical handwaving at any mere mention of "chemicals" as if they're
all magically bad and unnatural. Look up the formula for any number
of "natural" ingredients and look at their chemical complexity. Just
because it comes from a source you can identify, like "an apple",
doesn't automatically make something safe or pure. Coal is natural,
dirt is natural, dog hair is natural, dead bugs are natural, but I'm
not rushing to add them to my or my pets' food.

Thanks for letting me rant,
--Glenn Lyford

Glenn Lyford wrote:
Chemicals in the pet food??

Yeah, it's an attitude that really irritates me. Sorry in advance if
this rant is preaching to the choir:

Chemicals, you know, stuff like proteins, carbohydrates, essential
minerals, all those things which sound real scary when you break them
down to their actual chemical name rather than their common name.

Which is scarier: Sugar, Sucrose, saccharose, C12H22O11, or β-D-
fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside? Yet nothing has changed
except the preconceptions of the reader.

Did you know you table salt contains sodium chloride and water
contains hydrogen and hydroxide ions in a solution of dihydrogen
monoxide? All life is chemistry. To claim anything less is fear
mongering and sophistry. "Added chemicals" can simply mean any added
ingredient, including water.

So any claim like this which blames something on "chemicals" without
naming the particular ones irritates me. It's all chemicals, as are
you and I and the dog. I for one refuse to give in to the mindless
hysterical handwaving at any mere mention of "chemicals" as if they're
all magically bad and unnatural. Look up the formula for any number
of "natural" ingredients and look at their chemical complexity. Just
because it comes from a source you can identify, like "an apple",
doesn't automatically make something safe or pure. Coal is natural,
dirt is natural, dog hair is natural, dead bugs are natural, but I'm
not rushing to add them to my or my pets' food.

Thanks for letting me rant,
--Glenn Lyford

Ewwww, chemicals!!!!

Have you seen the Penn and Teller video clip about signing a
petition banning dihydrogen monoxide?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

FurPaw

--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Apr 30, 11:17Â*am, FurPaw wrote:
Glenn Lyford wrote:
Chemicals in the pet food??

Yeah, it's an attitude that really irritates me. Â*Sorry in advance if
this rant is preaching to the choir:

Chemicals, you know, stuff like proteins, carbohydrates, essential
minerals, all those things which sound real scary when you break them
down to their actual chemical name rather than their common name.

Which is scarier: Sugar, Sucrose, saccharose, C12H22O11, or β-D-
fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside? Â*Yet nothing has changed
except the preconceptions of the reader.

Did you know you table salt contains sodium chloride and water
contains hydrogen and hydroxide ions in a solution of dihydrogen
monoxide? Â*All life is chemistry. Â*To claim anything less is fear
mongering and sophistry. Â*"Added chemicals" can simply mean any added
ingredient, including water.

So any claim like this which blames something on "chemicals" without
naming the particular ones irritates me. Â*It's all chemicals, as are
you and I and the dog. Â*I for one refuse to give in to the mindless
hysterical handwaving at any mere mention of "chemicals" as if they're
all magically bad and unnatural. Â*Look up the formula for any number
of "natural" ingredients and look at their chemical complexity. Â*Just
because it comes from a source you can identify, like "an apple",
doesn't automatically make something safe or pure. Â*Coal is natural,
dirt is natural, dog hair is natural, dead bugs are natural, but I'm
not rushing to add them to my or my pets' food.

Thanks for letting me rant,
Â* --Glenn Lyford

Ewwww, chemicals!!!!

Have you seen the Penn and Teller video clip about signing a
petition banning dihydrogen monoxide?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

FurPaw

--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

You both are idiots if you do not know the difference between
naturally occurring substance and man made substances. Thanks for the
informative post, did you just watch Fox news?
You should both have a cup of chlorine bleach, it wont harm you.

Binder Dundat wrote:
You both are idiots if you do not know the difference between
naturally occurring substance and man made substances. Thanks for the
informative post, did you just watch Fox news?
You should both have a cup of chlorine bleach, it wont harm you.

Guess you missed the joke.

The punchline is: people who think all
chemicals are bad are FUNNY.

In article ,
Tara Green wrote:
The punchline is: people who think all
chemicals are bad are FUNNY.

Oh, you spoiled it.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Sharon Too wrote:
There was a news article I read recently which told of the dangers of
over the counter flea and tick medicines.

First of all, don't panic. The EPA has issued a statement that also contains
the following:

"Flea and tick products can be appropriate treatments for protecting your
pets and your family's health because fleas and ticks can transmit disease."

EPA link:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...0!OpenDocument


Actually those "products" are pesticides and can cause more harm than
the fleas and ticks.

Each year, Americans purchase and apply to their pets a vast array of
toxic chemicals intended to kill fleas and ticks. These products are
designed to poison insects, and they usually do just that. But they can
also poison pets and the people who handle them. Moreover, when these
products are combined in the home, as they often are, with other toxic
chemical products in common use -- pesticides, herbicides, and other
products -- they can pose a serious health risk, especially to children.

Adults are at risk from these flea and tick products as well -- pet
workers who apply pesticides to animals on a daily basis, for example.
But it is children who are most vulnerable. Because children's bodies
are still developing, they can be more sensitive to the effects of toxic
chemicals than adults. Studies with laboratory animals have raised
concerns among scientists that children exposed to certain of the
pesticides in pet products -- even at levels believed to be safe for
adults -- face much higher risks, not only for acute poisoning, but also
for longer-term problems with brain function and other serious disease.
Moreover, children's behavior often makes them more vulnerable than
adults. In particular, toddlers' hand-to-mouth tendencies make it easy
for toxics to be ingested -- and not just by children who pet the family
dog and then put their hands in their mouths. Children spend their time
where the toxics from pet products tend to accumulate -- crawling on
rugs, playing with pet toys, handling accumulations of household dust,
and more.

Many and perhaps most Americans believe that commercially available
pesticides, such as those found in pet products, are tightly regulated
by the government. In fact, they are not. Not until the passage of a
1996 law focused on pesticides in food did the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) begin examining the risks from pesticides in pet products
in earnest. To this day, the EPA allows the manufacture and sale of pet
products containing hazardous insecticides with little or no
demonstration that a child's exposure to these ingredients would be
safe. Just because these products are on store shelves does not mean
they have been tested or can be presumed safe.

Of course, as bad as these products may be for pet owners and
caregivers, they often are worse for the pets themselves. Based on the
very limited data available, it appears that hundreds and probably
thousands of pets have been injured or killed through exposure to pet
products containing pesticides. As with small children, pets cannot
report when they're being poisoned at low doses.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/pets/execsum.asp


The only problems we've seen are with the over the counter products

Lies, lies and more lies....

more lies snipped

Vets are supposedly seeing a
large increase in the number of animals with liver and other problems
due to these medicines and chemicals in the pet food.

Chemicals in the pet food?? I'm sure Chard "Harold Hill" will jump on this
bandwagon with her trombones, but this is new to me.

That's a shame you are so out of touch. Especially you since you are
supposed to be so knowledgeable.


What medicines do you all think are good and safe to use to get rid of
fleas and ticks and also heartworm medicine?


There is no such thing as heartworm "medicine". Those are also pesticides.

And a properly fed dog would not have to worry about an infestation of
heartworms.


We recommend the Advantage products. We also carry Frontine, Revolution and
Promeris. One product does not address all three (fleas, ticks, heartworm).
Advantage Multi covers fleas, heartworms and some internal parasites, but
not Ticks. You can use Advantix which covers fleas and ticks and supplement
monthly as well with Heartguard or Iverheart Max for heartworm prevention.

*note: Revolution does address fleas, ticks and heartworm, but only one
particular tick*

And they are all pesticides.


In this Section

* Main Page
* Global Warming
* Energy
* Air
* Oceans
* Water
* Wildlands
* Wildlife
* Health
* Environmental Justice
* U.S. Law & Policy
* Nuclear Energy, Waste & Weapons
* Smart Growth
* Recycling
* International Issues

Issues: Health

* Health Main Page
* All Health Documents

Popular Tags [ View All Tags ]:
air quality
asthma
cancer
children's health
consumer products
food
global warming
hurricane katrina
lead
mercury
pesticides
pet products
water quality

* Health Main Page
* All Health Documents

All Tags [ View Popular Tags ]:
ab 32
agriculture
air fresheners
air pollution
air quality
air water pollution
allergies
Appalachia
arsenic
asthma
atrazine
bottled water
bottom trawling
BPA
buses
bush administration
California
cancer
case studies
chemicals
children's health
china
chlor-alkali plants
cigarette smoke
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
coal
coal-fired power plants
consequences
consumer products
diesel
diesel buses
diesel exhaust
drinking water
drought
endocrine disruptors
energy efficiency
EPA
farms
farmworkers
FDA
floods
food
formaldehyde
global warming
global warming and health
global warming emissions
global warming legislation
groundwater
growing green awards
habitat protection
health effects of pollution
heat waves
hog farms
human health
Hurricane Katrina
hurricanes
India
integrated pest management
interviews
Kids' Health
latinos
lead
livestock farms
low impact development
manure
maps
melting ice and glaciers
mercury
mold
mountaintop removal mining
nanotechnology
New York
New York City
nitrogen oxides
organic food
ozone
particulate pollution
PCBs
pesticide alternatives
pesticides
pet products
photos
phthalates
pig farms
polluted runoff
pollution
poultry
power plants
radon
renewable energy
respiratory illness
schools
seafood
sea-level rise
sewage
smog
species protection
storms
stormwater
sulfur dioxide
tap water
tennessee
toxic chemicals
toxic waste
trucks
vehicles
Water Pollution
water pollution
water quality
weather
what you can do
wildfires
wildlife
workers' health

Poisons on Pets
Health Hazards from Flea and Tick Products

This November 2000 NRDC report highlights the potential health hazards
to humans and pets from flea collars and other flea and tick control
products. The report recommends that the EPA ban the use of an entire
class of these products -- those using organophosphates. It also offers
recommendations for pet owners on combating fleas and ticks with a
variety of simple non-chemical steps and/or by applying safer products,
including insect growth regulators. The executive summary of the report
follows; the complete report is available in Adobe Acrobat format
(459k). Click here to get a free copy of the Acrobat Reader from Adobe.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year, Americans purchase and apply to their pets a vast array of
toxic chemicals intended to kill fleas and ticks. These products are
designed to poison insects, and they usually do just that. But they can
also poison pets and the people who handle them. Moreover, when these
products are combined in the home, as they often are, with other toxic
chemical products in common use -- pesticides, herbicides, and other
products -- they can pose a serious health risk, especially to children.

Adults are at risk from these flea and tick products as well -- pet
workers who apply pesticides to animals on a daily basis, for example.
But it is children who are most vulnerable. Because children's bodies
are still developing, they can be more sensitive to the effects of toxic
chemicals than adults. Studies with laboratory animals have raised
concerns among scientists that children exposed to certain of the
pesticides in pet products -- even at levels believed to be safe for
adults -- face much higher risks, not only for acute poisoning, but also
for longer-term problems with brain function and other serious disease.
Moreover, children's behavior often makes them more vulnerable than
adults. In particular, toddlers' hand-to-mouth tendencies make it easy
for toxics to be ingested -- and not just by children who pet the family
dog and then put their hands in their mouths. Children spend their time
where the toxics from pet products tend to accumulate -- crawling on
rugs, playing with pet toys, handling accumulations of household dust,
and more.

Many and perhaps most Americans believe that commercially available
pesticides, such as those found in pet products, are tightly regulated
by the government. In fact, they are not. Not until the passage of a
1996 law focused on pesticides in food did the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) begin examining the risks from pesticides in pet products
in earnest. To this day, the EPA allows the manufacture and sale of pet
products containing hazardous insecticides with little or no
demonstration that a child's exposure to these ingredients would be
safe. Just because these products are on store shelves does not mean
they have been tested or can be presumed safe.

Of course, as bad as these products may be for pet owners and
caregivers, they often are worse for the pets themselves. Based on the
very limited data available, it appears that hundreds and probably
thousands of pets have been injured or killed through exposure to pet
products containing pesticides. As with small children, pets cannot
report when they're being poisoned at low doses.

Healthier alternatives to these pesticides are readily available. Easy
physical measures like frequent bathing and combing of pets can make the
use of pesticides unnecessary. Pet products containing non-pesticide
growth regulators also can stop fleas from reproducing successfully. In
addition, newer insecticides, sprayed or spotted onto pets, have been
developed that are effective against fleas and ticks without being toxic
to the human nervous system. The safety and effectiveness of these
alternatives makes the continued use of older, more toxic pet products
tragically unnecessary.
Pet Pesticides at Work

Approximately 90 percent of American households use pesticides.
According to one study, 80 percent of families surveyed have used
pesticides at home even when a woman in the household was pregnant, and
70 percent have used them during a child's first six months of life.
Half of the surveyed families reported using insecticides to control
fleas and ticks on pets. More than a billion dollars a year are spent on
flea and tick products.

Unfortunately, the wide use of these products is no indication that they
are safe. Quite the contrary, the pesticides they introduce into the
home include chemicals that are hazardous to the human brain and nervous
system, chemicals that may disrupt the human hormone (endocrine) system,
and pesticides suspected of causing cancer.

Flea control products now on the market include seven specific
"organophosphate insecticides" (OPs). OPs work by blocking the breakdown
of the body's messenger chemical, acetylcholine, thereby interfering
with the transmission of nerve signals in the brains and nervous systems
of insects, pets and humans alike. In the presence of OPs, acetylcholine
builds up in the body. The resulting interference with nerve
transmissions is of such a magnitude that it actually kills insects. In
overdoses, OPs can also kill people and pets. But even with normal use
of flea-control products containing OPs, pets and children may be in danger.

The seven OPs are chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, phosmet, naled,
tetrachlorvinphos, diazinon and malathion. They are the active
ingredients in dozens of pet products. A comprehensive list of products
appears in Table 1. It includes major pet pesticide brands, such as
Alco, Americare, Beaphar, Double Duty, Ford's, Freedom Five, Happy Jack,
Hartz, Hopkins, Kill-Ko, Protection, Rabon, Riverdale, Sergeant,
Unicorn, Vet-Kem, Victory and Zema.

Organophosphate chemicals are also used on foods and in other common
household products designed to kill non-pet-borne insects. For families
exposed to these toxic chemicals, however, the route into the home and
the specifics of how the chemicals work are less relevant than the plain
fact that they pose a health threat. From a health standpoint, a
person's combined exposure to one of these OPs, irrespective of its
individual uses, is what is important. Further, because the various OPs
all function by attacking the same chemical in the body, acetylcholine,
exposure to a variety of OPs could have a combined impact.
The EPA's Role

Actual exposure of children and adults to OPs in pet products has not
been adequately measured, and such studies have not been required of
manufacturers seeking to put new pet pesticide products on the market.
Indeed, until passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, EPA
typically assumed there were no risks from these products, often with
little or no scientific basis. In other words, EPA has allowed for
decades the manufacture and sale of products containing pet pesticides
without demonstration that a child's exposure to the products would be safe.

The 1996 law requires something new of EPA: that it estimate the
accumulated effect on people of particular pesticides used on food
products, accounting not just for exposure from foods, but from all
sources. Since OPs used in pet products also are used on food crops, the
law applies to these pesticides. Another provision of the law requires
EPA to estimate the cumulative effect on a person from exposure to all
pesticides and other chemicals that function in the same way. Because
each OP functions by attacking the same chemical messenger in the body,
home exposure to a variety of different OPs should be expected to have a
cumulative health impact as well. The new law directs EPA to account for
this cumulative effect in its risk assessments.

To date, EPA's compliance with the Food Quality Protection Act's
provisions has been incomplete. Its risk assessments have been
handicapped by flawed and inconsistent assumptions that have served to
understate the risk from pet products. For example, in calculating risks
of exposure to one chemical, EPA assumes that adults never hug their
dog, and in a number of instances, EPA makes a variety of unrealistic
assumptions about how long children spend in contact with their pets.

Moreover, four years after the enactment of the Act, EPA has yet to
comply with the requirement that the Agency account for the cumulative
impact of multiple OPs or of other chemicals that function in the same
way. Here again, the result is risk assessments that understate the
health hazards of exposure to the toxics in pet products. Finally, still
today, EPA has never received adequate toxicity tests for these
pesticide products long on the market. Of the seven chemicals that are
the focus of this report, only one -- chlorpyrifos -- has been fully
tested for its impact on a child's brain and nervous system. And, when
the nervous-system testing for chlorpyrifos was recently completed, the
results were so disturbing that the manufacturer itself took virtually
all indoor uses of the chemical off the market.

If you think you or your pet has been affected by a pet product
containing pesticides, call your local poison control center if you need
immediate help, and report the incident to the EPA's National Pesticide
Telecommunications Network, at (800) 858-7378.

BTW, bad reactions to pet chemicals are so very under reported and until
that changes those pesticides will stay on the market.

Binder Dundat wrote:

You both are idiots if you do not know the difference between
naturally occurring substance and man made substances. Thanks for the
informative post, did you just watch Fox news?
You should both have a cup of chlorine bleach, it wont harm you.

Do you think we should ban dihydrogen monoxide? Have you
accidentally consumed any acetylcholine or phylloquinone or
eicosapentaenoic acid recently? If so, be very afraid...

FurPaw
--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.