The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee has concluded its inquiry into Pet Parasite Medication (PPM) and is now considering its conclusions.
The committee received oral and written evidence from a number of parties in the pet, veterinary and environmental sectors following concerns raised by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) and the Environment Agency about the presence of pesticides such as fipronil and imidacloprid in British watercourses, potentially damaging the delicate ecosystems. The VMD has proposed changing the status of certain pet parasite treatments from a general licence to restricting them for sale only through vets, pharmacists, or Suitably Qualified Persons (SQPs) in stores.
The committee is expected to publish its report with key findings and recommendations to the Government at the end of July or early August, and Johnson’s Veterinary Products has called on the Committee and the VMD to ensure that the equalities impact of any regulatory change is properly assessed before conclusions are drawn.
The call follows a poll commissioned by the firm which showed that restrictions on the availability of flea treatments would hit lower-income pet owners hardest. According to the poll, support for reclassification of over-the-counter (OTC) spot-on flea & tick treatments rises sharply with household income, while lower earners are more likely to stop treatment, seek alternatives, or reduce visits to local pet shops.
The online survey carried out by Censuswide during May, gathered opinions from a nationally representative sample of 2,001 UK adults who currently own at least one cat or dog. It showed that, among owners with household incomes under £15,000 a year, only 19.7% support requiring a veterinary consultation or specialist involvement before purchasing flea & tick treatments while, among those with household incomes over £75,000, that figure rises to 36%.
Currently, roughly equal proportions of pet owners are purchasing treatments from veterinary practices (31%) and specialist pet stores (30%), but 43% of respondents saying they would visit their local pet shop less often or stop visiting altogether for pet care purchases if flea and tick treatments were no longer available there. Critically, 11.4% of lower-income owners said they would seek alternative products through other channels, potentially leading to unregulated sources.
Nick Franks, director of Johnson’s Veterinary Products, said: “This data makes it very clear that those on lower incomes, those without easy access to a vet and those already stretched by the cost of living, the people likely to be most affected by reclassification changes away from AVM-GSL (over the counter), are strongly opposed to it.
“The people most comfortable with the idea of an extra consultation fee are those who can most easily afford one. This affordability concern is borne out in the behavioural data. Among the lowest-income group, only 59% of pet owners said they would continue treating their pets as usual if reclassification occurred, compared with 71% of those earning over £75,000. Nearly one in four pet owners said reclassification would cause them to treat their pets less frequently or stop altogether.”
