Toxic Pet Product Manufacturers, Retailers Sued in California

In a new scientific analysis released as the lawsuit was filed on Thursday, NRDC identified high levels of propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos, TCVP, another carcinogenic neurotoxin common in household pet products, on pet fur after use of ordinary flea collars.

"Just because a product is sold in stores does not mean it is safe," said Dr. Gina Solomon, NRDC senior scientist and physician. "Under California law, consumers have a right to know if a flea control product exposes them to health risks before they buy it."

NRDC filed suit in California Superior Court in Alameda County against 16 retailers and manufacturers including Petsmart, PetCo, and Petstore.com, for failing to comply with California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65, which prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing consumers without proper warning to any chemical "known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm."

Cat with a new flea collar (Photo credit unknown)

These companies have failed to caution consumers about exposure to propoxur from the use of their products, which should have been labeled with a warning as of August 11, 2007. Proposition 65 provides for penalties of up to $2,500 for every violation.

NRDC also is petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, calling for the removal of these chemicals from pet products. The federal agency is accepting public comments on the petition through June 8, 2009. Click here for comment instructions.

"The EPA's evaluation of these chemicals was dangerously flawed and underestimates the risks to children," said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, NRDC scientist. "There is no reason to use carcinogens and neurotoxins to fight fleas and ticks when there are other safer and effective treatments available. The EPA should not allow these toxic chemicals in pet products."

NRDC's new report, "Poison on Pets II," found flea collars containing TCVP and propoxur pose serious neurological and cancer risks. TCVP is an organophosphate insecticide.

These chemical-laden flea collars expose humans to hazardous chemicals that can damage the brain and nervous system and cause cancer. The NRDC warns that children are particularly at risk from these pesticides because their neurological and metabolic systems are still developing. They are also more likely than adults to put their hands in their mouths after petting an animal, leading to the ingestion of hazardous residues.

For the study, NRDC tested the fur of dogs and cats wearing flea collars to measure pesticide residues left on the pets from these collars. This analysis, which was the first study of propoxur residues on pet's fur, found that propoxur levels are so high in some products that they pose a cancer risk in children that is up to 1,000 times higher than the EPA's acceptable levels, and up to 500 times higher for adults.

The study also showed that after three days, 100 percent of the pets wearing collars containing propoxur and 50 percent of the pets wearing collars with TCVP posed a significant neurological risk to toddlers.

Testing also revealed that unsafe levels of pesticide residue remain on a dog's or cat's fur two weeks after a collar is put on an animal. Families with multiple pets that wear flea collars have even greater exposure risks.

The EPA has never compiled data on pesticide levels found on a pet's fur after use of flea collars.

The availability of many effective and safer alternatives for flea and tick control makes the continued use of these pesticides an unnecessary risk. NRDC's groundbreaking 2000 report "Poison on Pets" led to the ban of six other pesticides in pet products, but products containing TCVP and propoxur are still on store shelves.

NRDC's recommendations for safe flea and tick control include the frequent use of a flea comb, regular bathing of pets, as well as vacuuming and washing of their bedding regularly. If chemical-based flea control is necessary, the safest options often containing the least toxic chemicals are those dispensed by pill.

NRDC maintains the Green Paws online flea and tick product guide for pet owners that ranks more than 125 products, categorizing products by the level of their potential health threat at: www.greenpaws.org.

The U.S. EPA is intensifying its evaluation of spot-on pesticide products for flea and tick control for pets due to recent increases in the number of reported incidents, the agency announced April 16. Adverse reactions reported range from mild effects such as skin irritation to more serious effects such as seizures and, in some cases, the death of pets.

Flea and tick products can be appropriate treatments for protecting your pets and your family's health because fleas and ticks can transmit disease, the EPA says. While many people use the products with no harm to their pets, EPA recommends that pet owners follow label directions and monitor their pets for any signs of an adverse reaction after application, particularly when using these products for the first time.

Incidents with flea and tick products can involve the use of spot-on treatments, sprays, collars and shampoos, but the EPA says the majority of reported incidents are related to flea and tick treatments with EPA-registered spot-on products.

Spot-on products are generally sold in tubes or vials and are applied to one or more localized areas on the body of the pet, such as in between the shoulders or in a stripe along the back. This advisory pertains only to EPA-registered spot-on flea and tick products; these products have an EPA registration number on the label.

Health Canada has identified similar concerns about the use of spot-on flea and tick products. Health Canada and EPA will meet shortly with spot-on product manufacturers to address the issue, including whether further restrictions are necessary to protect the health of pets.

EPA recommends that veterinarians use the National Pesticide Information Center's Veterinary Pesticide Adverse Effects Reporting portal to report incidents: http://npic.orst.edu/vet

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2009. All rights reserved.