‘Parasiticide stewardship’ chance for profession after Lords report

The House of Lords’ parasiticide report should be viewed “as an opportunity for all stakeholders” to improve stewardship, a leading parasitologist has argued.

European Scientific Counsel Companion Animal Parasites UK and Ireland (ESCCAP) head Hany Elsheikha said the inquiry “raises some important and legitimate questions for the veterinary profession, regulators and pharmaceutical industry,” but its findings do not “justify a blanket conclusion that prescribing of parasiticides is inappropriate”.

The cross-party Environment and Climate Change Committee concluded “intensive and unnecessary overuse” of pet parasite medications (PPMs) “is not supported by robust scientific evidence” and “potentially causing widespread environmental damage”.

Prof Elsheikha, who is also chairperson of interdisciplinary parasitology at the University of Nottingham, said: “The inquiry should be seen as an opportunity for all stakeholders to improve parasiticide stewardship. It should not be interpreted as a verdict against preventive parasite control.”

Among the report’s recommendations are an interim general sales ban on PPMs while evidence gaps are filled, while committee chairperson Baroness Sheehan led calls for them to be removed from pet care plans.

Turning point

Sue Morgan, chief executive of conservation charity SongBird Survival, which gave evidence to the inquiry, said: “This report should be a turning point. As the committee has recognised, there is enough scientific evidence of the environmental harm of pet parasiticides to justify an immediate change to their use.

“We now need the Government to act on this report by urgently assessing the environmental impact of flea and tick products, strengthening regulation and making them prescription only, ensuring access is maintained but with proper veterinary guidance.”

Prof Elsheikha said he supported “more professional oversight of appropriate parasiticide use” and that individualised risk assessment could reduce unnecessary use. But he added: “Before implementing a general-sale ban, I would want to see a clear assessment of the likely consequences for animal welfare, access to affordable treatment, veterinary capacity, owner compliance and the treatment of existing infestations.

“I would also want consideration of potential unintended consequences, including the possibility that some owners might seek products through less controlled routes.”

Current practice

On PPM inclusion in health plans, he argued the profession “should take a serious look at current practice”.

And on Baroness Sheehan’s suggestion the VMD has been “behind the curve” on PPMs’ environmental impact, Prof Elsheikha concluded: “I think there is a case for reviewing whether the VMD’s processes – particularly around environmental risk assessment and monitoring – are sufficiently robust.

“That does not necessarily mean the organisation itself requires an overhaul, but it does mean there should be a willingness to strengthen or change current arrangements where the evidence shows they are not adequate.”