We have discussed the routine ‘just in case’ use of flea/tick and worm prevention treatments for dogs and cats, and how it should be discouraged, in previous articles, largely on the basis that the horse world is turning away from routine worming (opting to test for worms first). It is estimated that 30% of dogs and 20% of cats are given regular prevention treatments amounting to millions of doses of insecticide every year.

Now, there is an even greater awareness of the harms being done to the environment by the chemicals used in many of these treatments, and the House of Lords’ Environment Committee has just published the findings of an enquiry that calls for a much more cautious, risk-based approach to the use of pet flea/tick treatments.

The problem lies in the fact that many of the treatments contain ‘forever chemicals’ (e.g. fipronil) – ones that don’t break down, which end up in the environment, and which are harmful to wildlife. They are poisonous for pollinating insects, in particular bees; they can kill fish; and even birds are affected – they lay fewer eggs which are prone to premature hatching. These chemicals are so toxic that they are banned for use by farmers as agricultural pesticides.

The chemicals enter the natural world in several ways: a recently treated dog may go swimming in a pond or river and release the chemicals into the water; an owner may stroke their dog or cat and then wash their hands which, again, allows the chemicals to enter watercourses further down the line; and simply washing a pet’s bedding has a similar impact.

Little is known about the impact these chemicals have on humans, but research undertaken by Imperial College London suggests that there could be links to thyroid problems and underdevelopment of the foetus.

The House of Lords’ Committee came up with several recommendations, including better labelling of packaging so that pet owners are informed of the risks. They also recommended a ban on the sale of flea/tick treatments over-the-counter or online, and only vets, pharmacists or other suitably qualified professionals should be able to sell them.

But the veterinary world has also come in for criticism. While the Royal Veterinary College advocates that flea/tick treatments should be used only when there is an identified need (i.e. a risk-based approach), many veterinary practices encourage their clients to join pet ‘heath club’ schemes which, amongst other things, provide a monthly dose of flea/tick (and worm) treatments.

Sometimes these treatments come in tablet form, but they still contain deadly chemicals. Interestingly, the House of Lords’ Enquiry found that many vets do not treat their own pets monthly, but opt instead to check their pets for fleas using flea combs before applying any treatment.

Taking a risk-based approach to flea/tick and worm prevention treatments is not a practical option in a rescue centre environment unless we have documentary proof (e.g. a veterinary record) of an animal’s previous medical history. This is not the case for the majority of the animals who come to us for rehoming, and so we give them a precautionary dosage of the treatments.

Whilst we usually have some background knowledge of the animals in our care, we know very little in the case of strays – strays like Coupon. All we know is that she’s a relatively young cat, and she was found in Ronague.

Despite her distinctive dark tortoiseshell markings and the white tip at the end of her tail, and the fact that her friendly and confident nature indicates that she is very used to humans, no-one has come forward as her owner. But their loss will be someone else’s gain, because she’s an adorable cat who will bring years of enjoyment to her new owner. Could that be you?