EPA calls for label changes for flea products

As a follow-up to my post, regarding flea prevention, the EPA has decided to meet with spot-on manufacturers to discuss ways to better inform pet parents about safety probably with bigger and better labeling.

The concern is not efficacy, or whether its working, it's human nature. Because of the relative ease in securing these products, many without veterinary input, adverse reactions have skyrocketed.

The most common reactions were the result of cats exposed to dog products, using products on pets weighing less than the weight range allowed and using spot-on products on pets younger than the age permitted on the label. According to the EPA report published in DVM Magazine, May 2010, "most of the reactions occurred on dogs younger than 3 years of age and smaller breeds."

This report speaks volumes about our inherent nature.

Cats are not small Dogs!

Somewhere around 9 pm after a hard days work, the kids exclaim that the cat is scratching. Worried that "something" on the cat could harm the children and/or infect (or is it infest?) the bedroom and the house, we rationalize that if it's good for dogs, it should work well on cats.

Logic flies out the window.

What does Dr Johnny know? He was simply trying to sell us on two separate products for the dog and cat. And didn't he say that the cat flea is the same flea that infests (infects?) the dog? Any right-minded individual with more common sense than money will tell you buying two products when one will do is a waste.

And so, the cat gets the dog dose of flea prevention which unlike the cat dose contains a unique additive to kill ticks. Your cat goes into convulsions, starts to vomit, and you, looking for someone to blame, file a report with the EPA.

The EPA initiated a study, in April 2009, after adverse reactions jumped from 28,000 in 2007 to 44,000, including 600 deaths, in 2008.

They surmised, "while 270 million doses were sold that year, the uptick in reports may have been caused by increasing popularity of these products leading to greater chances of adverse events or mishandling."

Or simply . . . laziness.