No consensus on potential parasiticide POM-V plans

Limiting the availability of parasite treatments at the centre of an environmental row may not be enough to prevent harmful impacts, a senior VMD official has conceded.

The admission, made during evidence to a House of Lords inquiry, follows one veterinary organisation’s call for products containing fipronil and imidacloprid to be reclassified as prescription only (POM-V).

But other senior clinicians and industry figures have warned the approach could prove “price restrictive” for many pet owners seeking treatment.

Considerations

Medicine regulators are currently considering measures that would restrict the availability of products containing fipronil and imidacloprid to vets, pharmacists and other suitably qualified persons (SQPs).

Officials argue the plan, which emerged when the Government’s pharmaceutical in the environment group issued a call for evidence in April, would ensure consumers received professional advice on appropriate usage at point of sale.

But former RCVS president Lord Trees raised concerns about the potential risks from online sales during the latest evidence session of the Lords’ environment and climate change committee probe on 23 June.

He described a “mystery shopper” exercise undertaken by the committee where a product containing one of the chemicals under scrutiny, imidacloprid, was purchased without usage guidance, prescription or any indication of what an SQP may have said or done prior to the sale being completed.

He asked: “Do you think that’s a satisfactory way of distributing products which are potentially quite harmful to the environment?”.

Category review

VMD chief executive Abi Seager acknowledged there was a need to review distribution categories, but argued that was part of the call for evidence, which closed last month.

She added: “In answer to your question, no, we don’t think necessarily it’s sufficient, which is why we’re asking more broadly for evidence to support us looking into that.”

The exchange followed a submission to the call for evidence by the Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA), which claimed POM-V designation was a “minimum” requirement.

It argued the present proposals were unlikely to prevent online sales occurring without appropriate advice being given.

Point-of-purchase advice

But while the merits of reassessing both current distribution categories and point-of-purchase advice were recognised, senior figures who gave evidence during earlier committee sessions voiced concerns about the potential consequences of tighter restrictions.

European Scientific Counsel Companion Animal Parasites (ESCCAP) chairperson Ian Wright said: “I think making these products POM-V only would be a price-restrictive issue for many pet owners.”

BVA senior vice-president Elizabeth Mullineaux also suggested a market shift was needed to make the products more affordable, though she acknowledged they would be prescription only “in an ideal world”.

‘Key part’

Meanwhile, NOAH deputy chief executive Donal Murphy insisted effective parasite control remained “a key part” of the responsibility to keep pets healthy and safe.

But the PVA submission questioned whether routine or subscription-based parasiticide use represented best practice and warned commercial considerations “must not override” either that or broader environmental obligations.

It added: “The evidence that companion animal treatments contribute to environmental loading is now sufficiently robust to require urgent regulatory intervention.”

However, Environment Agency chief scientist Robert Bradburne told the committee the organisation had “no strong evidence of cause and effect” on the invertebrate population, a key aspect of environmental concerns to date, despite the chemicals being present at levels where impacts would be anticipated.