Following the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry into pesticides used in veterinary medicines, the Government has responded to the Committee’s recommendations. This article summarises Buglife’s assessment of that response and the action we believe must follow. Buglife welcomes the Government’s recognition that pet parasite medicines can contaminate the environment and that significant improvements are needed in environmental monitoring, risk assessment and the responsible use of these products.
Of the Committee’s eight recommendations, the Government agreed with six, partially agreed with one and rejected Recommendation 8, which called for changes to product labels concerning advice on bathing pets.
Overall, Buglife urges the Government to establish and promptly implement a clear, enforceable framework for risk-based treatment.
Read the full response in their published PDF.
The Government’s responses to the Committee’s eight recommendations are summarised below.
| Government Response | Recommendation |
| Agree | Recommendation 1: Publish anonymised pet parasite medication sales and usage data to improve transparency and support environmental risk assessment |
| Agree | Recommendation 2: Strengthen the evidence base on environmental contamination from pet parasite medications, including waterways, soils and sewage sludge |
| Agree | Recommendation 3: Introduce Phase II environmental risk assessments for existing and future pet parasite medications. |
| Agree | Recommendation 4: Review governance arrangements between the VMD, industry and VICH to maintain regulatory independence and public confidence. |
| Partially Agree | Recommendation 5: Fund research to address evidence gaps relating to parasite prevalence, zoonotic risks and the environmental and human health impacts of pet parasite medications. |
| Pending | Recommendation 6: Restrict access to pet parasite medications through advice-based supply channels |
| Agree | Recommendation 7: Improve training and advice to support risk-based use of pet parasite medications and reduce environmental risks. |
| Disagree | Recommendation 8: Strengthen product labelling and bathing advice to reduce environmental exposure from pet parasite medications. |
Buglife agrees with the Government’s rejection of Recommendation 8, however our reasoning differs. Although clear information for pet owners has a role to play, longer bathing restrictions or more prominent warnings would not address the main causes of environmental contamination: unnecessary routine parasiticide use and weaknesses in current environmental risk assessments. The priority must be to reduce avoidable exposure at source through more appropriate use, stronger regulation and effective preventive measures.
We welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that, “the threat of parasitic infection or zoonoses from ecto-parasites transferred through companion animals is low” and that “there is enough evidence of environmental harm to justify a judicious precautionary approach to their use”. This is a foundational point. We hope it will underpin clear, meaningful action while providing evidence-based reassurance to people who are not familiar with the research.
Areas for improvement
The Government’s response does not demonstrate the urgency required. Commitments to improve transparency, strengthen environmental risk assessments and develop a more evidence-based approach to treatment are positive, but progress remains heavily dependent on further research and future regulatory frameworks. This reliance risks delaying meaningful action despite existing evidence that toxic substances are contaminating waterways and harming the environment. It also brings into question the Environmental Principles, now mandated under the Environment Act. The Precautionary Principle is applicable where there is plausible evidence of a risk of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, even when there is a lack of scientific certainty about the likelihood or severity of this damage. Despite more research and evidence compared to when these medicines were approved, this significant body of evidence continues to be overlooked.
Although the response recognises the importance of individualised treatment decisions, the proposed approach remains under development. Without practical measures to reduce unnecessary preventative use, improved advice and awareness campaigns alone are unlikely to deliver the scale of change required. The Government’s decision to leave potential restrictions on supply channels pending also represents a missed opportunity to establish stronger safeguards while further evidence is gathered.
The commitment to develop more comprehensive environmental risk assessments is welcome and necessary. However, agreeing a Phase II methodology and approach must be a priority; delay should not perpetuate a regulatory system that may underestimate environmental exposure. Assessments should consider cumulative impacts rather than treating each dose in isolation. They must also cover the full range of relevant active substances, including newer products for which environmental evidence is limited, rather than focusing primarily on fipronil and imidacloprid. More extensive monitoring of waterways, soils, sewage sludge and other exposure pathways, together with the publication of anonymised sales data, will be essential to establish the scale of the problem and identify effective interventions.
The Government concludes that existing arrangements adequately safeguard regulatory independence. Buglife remains concerned that this conclusion differs from the Committee’s findings. Greater transparency about regulatory decisions, the evidence underpinning authorisations and the management of environmental risks is essential to maintain public confidence, demonstrate regulatory independence and ensure that environmental protection receives appropriate consideration.
Protecting animal health and welfare must go hand in hand with protecting the natural environment. Where existing evidence identifies credible risks to aquatic ecosystems and the invertebrates that sustain them, the Government must not defer precautionary action indefinitely while further evidence is collected.
In conclusion, the Government’s response represents progress: it acknowledges the problem and commits to improving the evidence base. However, it falls short of the decisive action needed to protect invertebrates and the ecosystems that depend on them. Buglife urges the Government to move beyond further research and adopt a coherent programme of action: reduce unnecessary parasiticide use, strengthen independent environmental risk assessment, improve regulatory transparency and consider environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle of veterinary medicines.