Unintended Consequences

March 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm 8 comments

The earth’s vegetation is part of a web of life in which there are intimate and essential relations between plants and animals. Sometimes we have no choice but to disturb these relationships, but we should do so thoughtfully, with full awareness that what we do may have consequences remote in time and place.
— Rachel Carson, Silent Spring

There are widespread reports that Merial’s topical flea and tick treatment Frontline has become ineffective in a disturbingly short period of time. The active ingredient in Frontline is fipronil, an insecticide in the phenyl pyrazole family. Fipronil blocks g-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors and interferes chloride passing through GABA-gated channels in non-mammalian species. At low concentrations, it disrupts nervous system function and at higher doses causes death.

Fipronil has been used in flea and tick preparations around the world since the mid-1990’s. As Heather noted in comments to the previous post, widespread problems with counterfeit Frontline have been documented.  (So much so that I strongly recommend you go to this link to an EPA page that provides information on how to identify counterfeit Frontline.) While I’m sure that the sale of counterfeit product is part of the issue with Frontline, I’m not convinced that it’s the only problem — or even the most troubling one.

Pesticide resistance occurs when a species adapts over a series of generations to have a decreased susceptibility to a specific chemical. Since no pesticide is completely effective in the natural environment, there will always be some organisms that survive exposure. Organisms can receive sublethal doses for a variety of reasons, but because only the most resistant organisms survive to pass their genes on to offspring, resistance can increase exponentially in a population. As Rachel Carson predicted in Silent Spring, problems related to pesticide resistance are increasing all over the world.

My friend Heather quite understandably professed skepticism that exposure to fipronil products applied to our pets would be sufficient to create an environment where widespread resistance could occur. If this was the only route of exposure, I suspect she would be right. But pet products only represent a very small percentage of fipronil use.

Fipronil is active against a wide array of pests other than fleas and ticks, and it is used in a number of different applications. Products containing fipronil were first marketed in 1993 and they are sold under a variety of brand names including Frontline, Regent, Termidor, Combat and Maxforce and they are used:

  • As flea and tick sprays for indoor and outdoor use.
  • In turfgrass management programs at parks and golfcourses.
  • As a termite preventative in some plywood products.
  • To control parasites on livestock in South and Central America.
  • As a replacement for the pesticide Dursban which was de-listed for on lawns and public areas.
  • In baits and other ant control products.
  • As a termite treatment.
  • As a cockroach treatment.
  • As a seed coating
  • As a broad spectrum insecticide treatment on potatoes, corn, cotton, sweet potatoes, bulb onions, cotton and vegetables.

As you can see, there are a lot of places where fleas and ticks can be exposed to fipronil. And in many cases, they’re inadvertently exposed to ineffectively low doses of the compound.

Not only is fipronil used in a wide range of environments, it also has an unfortunate tendency to stick around the environment for a long time. Pesticides like fipronil that break down slowly and remain on soil or vegetation can contribute to selection for resistant organisms for a long time after they are applied. Fipronil degrades slowly on vegetation and relatively slowly in soil. It is listed as being highly persistent on land with a terrestrial field test half life of 75 days.

Fipronil is phototransformed to a variety of breakdown products. One of these breakdown products, fipronil-desulfinyl, is more toxic and more persistent than fipronil.  The persistence of this breakdown product and its high neuroactivity, suggest that it may be a significant contributor to the effectiveness of fipronil. Unfortunately, it’s probably also a significant contributor to the development of fipronil resistance.

It’s possible that less effective (diluted) couterfeit fipronil containing products (especially those that are land applied) may be part of the problem as well. As we see in antibiotic resistance, exposing target organisms to ineffective doses of an pesticide will wipe out some, but not all, of the organisms. The surviving organisms may then become more resistant to the product and spread increased resistance to their offspring.

The low-dose effect may be a problem even when products are used at full potency because pests are exposed to lower doses of the product at the boundaries of the application area. Dilution, diffusion and breakdown effects also create situations where lower doses of persistent products can remain in and adjacent to sprayed areas for weeks or months after application.

I’m not the only one who believes that the indiscriminate use of acaricides (tick-killing agents) all over the world is leading to the selection of acaricide resistant tick strains. And fleas and ticks aren’t the only species that fipronil has had a significant effect on. Regent (a fipronil containing pesticide listed for agricultural use) is effective against a variety of pests, but there are increasing concerns about its environmental and human health effects. It was demonstrated to be responsible for a precipitous drop in bee populations in France. This occurred because fipronil causes bees to become disoriented and unable to return to their hives.

Fipronil provides us with a rather sobering example of the law of unintended consequences — the hubristic belief that humans can control the environment around us. It’s a reminder that management will always eventually fail — and Mother Nature will always bat last.

These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homes — nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the “good” and the “bad,” to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil — all this though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called “insecticides,” but “biocides.”
— Rachel Carson, Silent Spring


Entry filed under: dogs, health, science, ticks, wildlife. Tags: .

Tick Season Already? Worrying Sheep

8 Comments Add your own

  • 1. H. Houlahan  |  March 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    It never occurred to me that the neighbors could be spraying fipronil or an analogue on their corn fields.

    2008 one field was planted in oats, one in soybeans.

    2009, both neighbors planted corn.

    The ticks exploded last fall.

    Of course the deer and the mice spend a lot of time in the cornfields.

    Well shit.

  • 2. Christine  |  March 10, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Thanks for this post–I’ve linked back to it because it gives such good info.

    I’m glad to hear some further discussion on this–I’ve heard people saying they don’t think Frontline works for them anymore. So far, it’s still an amazing resource for me and my dogs–but I know that may not always be true.

  • 3. Wild Dingo  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    I’ve never been a fan of “preventative” drugs for people or animals: flu shots, vaccines, anti-flea, anti-tick, etc. However, because i live in a tick infested forest, I use tick (not flea) collar, Preventic and only use it during high tick season (4 month’s/year). the collar is effective for 3 months. I don’t use flea meds as my dogs do not require them. they don’t get fleas. i don’t know if i’m lucky or if it’s because they don’t live outside, just play outside. so as far as I know, i’ll never use flea meds and will only use a tick collar a few months a year. i agree, just like viruses and bacteria, they become immune to our preventions. best methods are to keep your dog clean (bathe if necessary) in a clean environment and perform a “tick” check after walks. tho one of my dogs is a siberian so i’m certain it would be hard to find ticks on her if i didn’t use the collar….

  • 4. Jen  |  March 12, 2010 at 10:08 am

    AWESOME POST! I’m so glad I found it!!!

    I had a major wake up call early last year when Frontline Plus was being purchased monthly, applied monthly, and still ticks were surviving… for days on my dog.
    So I started researched natural preventative measures and have completely done away with using any chemicals on them at all.

    And now I understand why.
    Thank you for posting this information and making it readily accessible for dog owners! I will link to it.. its a must read!

  • 5. Linda Medero  |  June 3, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Oh, crap here we go again. When will we learn?!?

  • 6. Cathy  |  June 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Very informative. I am grateful for the enlightenment of the effects of Fipronil on our environment especially concerning insect (tick) resistance.
    However….it is human tendency to seek out answers and when we find a solution, believe the problem can be resolved by taking the step of eliminating what we feel is the culprit of our situation.
    More often than not though, there is not just ONE reason for why things happen but a combination of events.
    Mother nature plays a tremendous role in determining what species of insects, as well as everything else on this planet, will survive. A warmer winter, longer rainy season, even the absence of tick eating birds can affect the rise and fall of the tick population.
    Although I agree that pesticides do interfere with her decisions we must keep in mind that the environment (with or without pesticides) influences whether or not there will be a ‘bloom’ of ticks this year or next year.
    There are a lot of reasons why some things do or do not work too. What medication works to help me may do nothing for the next person. Same goes with tick prevention. The dog’s individual chemical makeup also plays a part in this.
    We all build up a tolerance level so it isnt shocking that a product would no longer be effective.
    Once an effective product is found and utilized one must always weigh the benefits, good and bad prior to using it. There are results from NOT using a pesticide too. The lessor of the two evils, saving one and sacrificing in another area, is a personal decision.
    My thoughts are to use the least intrusive, less damaging method of eliminating the problem as possible. So, ideally that would be using things that would not harm the environment or create changes that ultimately might harm the environment.
    However, if that doesnt work and the animal suffers as a consequece of NOT using an effective product, that isnt right either. Lyme disease is one possible ‘side effect’ of not using a pesticide.

  • 7. SmartDogs  |  June 3, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    “if that doesnt work and the animal suffers as a consequece of NOT using an effective product, that isnt right either. Lyme disease is one possible ‘side effect’ of not using a pesticide”

    Absolutely. For a couple of decades I was a consultant to Fortune 500’s on environmental issues. During that time I learned that there are no simple answers to environmental problems. We can only, as you note – consider the options, weigh the anticipated consequences and make informed decisions.

    I’ve quit using Frontline on my dogs because it doesn’t seem to work here. Because we don’t have cats or horses we’re using Preventic collars. So far so good. In fact so far better than Frontline because even though ticks here are thicker than politicians around a pile of pork barrel legislation, I haven’t found any attached to the dogs. Only to me.

  • 8. Cathy  |  June 3, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    While doing some research for a substitute for Frontline this year to use on my dogs, I saw the Preventic collar. I most certainly would have purchased this product over the Frontline to give it a try but both my bitches were pregnant.
    I’d like to try the collars and may order those instead of continuing the Frontline the rest of the year because we do not have fleas here. The Prevenic collar was also more feasible.
    We are situated in a remote heavily wooded area and there are an overabundance of ticks. I have found that allowing my chickens to free range tho has helped tremendously!
    As far as finding the ticks on you and not on the dogs……have you tried the collar yet?? LOLOLOL JK!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Because A Dog’s Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste


Copyright notice

All original content on this Web site is copyright © on the date of publication by this author. All rights reserved except, of course, that others may quote from original content under the 'Fair Use' provisions of US copyright law.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 283 other followers

Recent Comments

lynellex on House of Horrors
Mary on I Hate Jon Katz Too
Susie on I Hate Jon Katz Too
Susan Jaffe on See no evil. Read no evil. Cit…
Top Dog Blog
Featured in Alltop


Add to Technorati Favorites
Dog Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
blogarama - the blog directory
Blog Directory
Blog Directory & Search engine
March 2010
« Feb   Apr »

%d bloggers like this: