DEAR DR. FOX: I recently received information about the harmful effects of Simparica oral tick and flea medication.

Hopefully you can share some evidence-based information as to its safety. -- W.F., West Palm Beach, Florida

DEAR W.F.: I have done an extensive, documented review on these various oral and topical anti-tick and flea medications, which most veterinarians are continuing to sell to their clients, along with pet food suppliers and large grocery and drug stores.

For details, visit my website (drfoxonehealth.com) and pull up “Companion Animal Risks of Flea and Tick Insecticides.”

I find this whole issue a reflection of a brainwashed society that has come to accept the risks of pesticides because of the well-advertised self-proclaimed benefits by the manufacturers. This brainwashing has been so successful that most farmers believe they cannot farm without pesticides. The net result is insect pesticide resistance and the need for more and stronger insecticides, while beneficial insects and species that help control crop pests are killed, and our food and water are contaminated by such chemicals.

Insanity, indeed. Organic farmers are helping recover agriculture and sanity. So are holistic veterinarians who offer alternatives to control fleas and ticks for clients who want to make the effort and not adopt the easy way out by giving their animals these chemicals on a regular basis. For my holistic, integrative approach, see “Preventing Fleas, Ticks and Mosquitoes” posted on my website.

Products like Simparica and Bravecto are widely advertised in veterinary journals, giving the impression that they are safe for companion animals. But go online and you will find many contrary reports and opinions, such as the following:

FOUR FLEA, TICK PRODUCTS LINKED TO SEIZURES, ATAXIA

Details: avma.org/news/javmanews/pages/181115h.aspx

NEW YORK STATE BANS DECLAWING CATS

“About bloody time,” as we say in my country of origin, where no British veterinarian would consider declawing cats as a routine service for their clients. For details about the harmful consequences of this radical surgical mutilation, visit my website, drfoxonehealth.com.

The New York bill outlaws a variety of declawing surgeries unless medically necessary for the cat, and imposes a fine of up to $1,000 on veterinarians who perform them, the New York Times reported.

Cat declawing involves severing through tendons and nerves and removal of part of the toe/finger bone. The practice is banned in many European countries and Canadian provinces, as well as the U.S. cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Denver. However, the New York State Veterinary Medical Society opposed the bill, arguing in a statement that there were circumstances in which declawing would be best for the well-being of cats and owners, and that the ultimate decision should be left up to veterinarians in consultation with their clients.

Other vets supported the bill. Rochester, New York-based veterinarian Michelle Brownstein said she stopped offering the procedure 15 years ago when she became convinced it caused cats to develop chronic pain or long-term behavioral problems.

“The end result is a barbaric procedure that results in the mutilation of the animal,” she told the Associated Press. “Frankly, if you’re worried about your furniture, then you shouldn’t be getting a cat.”

TOXIC ALGAE THREATENS DOGS IN AFFECTED WATERWAYS

A dog died after playing in the St. John River in Fredericton, New Brunswick, where toxic blue-green algae blooms are frequent. Veterinarian Colleen Bray says the dog’s symptoms are consistent with blue-green algae exposure, and dog owners are urged to avoid the area. (CTV, Canada, 7/14)

In most regions of North America currently experiencing climate change-related increases in heat and precipitation, ideal conditions are being created for the proliferation of toxic algae in fresh-water lakes and streams. This puts dogs who drink contaminated water at risk.

Dog owners and walkers, beware! Also, remember that hot pavement can blister dogs’ feet, and in hot and humid weather, they need extra water to stay cool and to avoid heat stroke.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: With all due respect to the pro-lifers who are striving to limit the scope of Planned Parenthood and curtail women’s rights, we have a deeper issue to examine: Regardless of respecting the life of an unborn child, respect for life is still human-centered and, therefore, fundamentally flawed.

Where is the respect for the lives of all creatures, wild and domesticated? We continue, as a culture, to justify exploiting and even killing animals for recreation, holding them in captivity for our entertainment, and slaughtering them by the billions for our consumption.

What of the forests that are bulldozed to create more land to feed livestock and for real estate development and golf courses? The climate crisis, now intensified by forest fires even in the Arctic and Siberia, is bringing the Hopi prophecy -- “When the trees are gone, the sky will fall” -- to fruition. Reverential respect for all life is enlightened self-interest. Such respect should include those mothers who have the right not to bring more life into the world for ethical reasons even if, as with euthanasia, the moral principle of not taking a life is violated.

Most ethicists have not done much better than moral fundamentalists over the centuries; they have limited the scope of addressing our inhumanity by precluding other species from equal consideration and legal standing.

The greater our empathy for other living beings, human and nonhuman, plant and animal, the greater our understanding and appreciation. There is also the possibility of discovery and revelation, as exemplified by 1983 Nobel Prize-winning plant scientist Dr. Barbara McClintock, who famously shared: “Every time I walk on grass, I feel sorry because I know the grass is screaming at me.”

In sum, we need, as a culture, to feel more beyond ourselves and our personal beliefs and convictions for the good of all life on our fragile and overpopulated planet.

DEAR DR. FOX: My dog Sami, an 11-year-old rescue (sort of resembles an Australian cattle dog), was chewing on her front leg and there seemed to be a tumor of sorts.

Our vet biopsied the growth, and fortunately it was benign. However, the dog seemed to be miserable, and other sores developed on her legs. A food allergy was suggested as a cause. I read online about chicken being a culprit, and after reading the ingredients on many dog food products, I learned that most contain chicken or chicken parts. The vet said this is probably because chicken is a very inexpensive way for manufacturers to add protein to their products.

I switched to a kibble that is chicken-free, and I make Sami’s other food using your recipe. Now, after about a year, Sami’s “tumor” has disappeared and her legs are lesion-free. I realize this may not be the cause of many dogs’ itching and self-mutilation problems, but this seemed to me, for Sami, to be better than the myriad drugs that were prescribed. And it cost me nothing to change to chicken-free food.

Thank you for your help and concern for our animals. -- M.H., Poughkeepsie, New York

DEAR M.H.: I very much appreciate you sharing your dog’s saga with a skin condition that was eventually resolved by removing chicken from the diet. Dogs’ skin is one of the first indicators of dietary ingredient intolerance or food allergy, which should always be considered, rather than simply treating the symptoms with steroids and immunosuppressant drugs that at best give temporary relief but can have long-term harmful consequences.

VA HESITATES TO PAIR DOGS WITH VETERANS

Only 19 military veterans have been paired with shelter dogs through a Department of Veterans Affairs program intended to help veterans who have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Scientific evidence that dogs can improve human mental health is thin, according to the VA’s chief veterinarian, Dr. Michael Fallon, and department officials are concerned about unintended consequences. (New York Times, 7/17)

Knowing the documented benefits of dogs for people suffering from PTSD, I am surprised at this report. Studies continue to confirm the stress-reducing benefits of animal companionship and even short-term contact, as per the following story.

HANDS-ON CONTACT WITH DOGS, CATS REDUCES STRESS HORMONE LEVELS

Direct contact with a cat or dog for just 10 minutes significantly reduced levels of the stress hormone cortisol in university students’ saliva samples, according to a study conducted at Washington State University and published in AERA Open (a publication from the American Educational Research Association).

Cortisol levels were lower in students who interacted with animals than in students who waited in line while watching others engage with animals, looked at still images of the same animals, or waited quietly without external stimuli. (KREM-TV, Spokane, Washington, 7/16)

If the Veterans Administration cannot do better for our soldiers in need of help, this is a call to animal shelters and dog adoption organizations to fill the gap. No need for some special breed of dog or special training. Many rescued dogs make excellent companions, and placement volunteers can determine the right dog for the right person and determine how much initial help is needed to ensure the dogs are well cared for.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: According to BBC News, using satellite data, an area of Amazon rainforest roughly the size of a football field is now being cleared every single minute.

The rate of losses has accelerated as Brazil’s new right-wing president favors development -- for beef and soybean production -- over conservation. The Amazon, the largest rainforest in the world, is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming.

Shaley Lensegrav, writing for Tri-State Livestock News, March 28/19, reports:

“A recent meeting between President Donald Trump and Brazilian President Jair Messias Bolsonaro set specifications into motion that could lead to the return of Brazilian beef to United States markets if the processing facilities pass inspection. The introduction of Brazilian beef could negatively affect herd health and the beef markets in the U.S., say some.”

For more details, visit: theecologist.org/2019/jul/02/jbs-brazilian-butchers-take-over-world.

It should be noted that the U.S. government has blocked efforts to indicate the country of origin of the beef in its markets. The United States imports beef from Australia, Canada and much of Latin America. If that same beef passes a USDA inspection, it receives a label saying “Product of the USA.” (Western Organization of Resource Councils: worc.org/were-importing-beef-and-labeling-it-product-of-the-usa/)

Most U.S. beef producers are opposing protection of wolves under the Endangered Species Act, and are largely responsible for the virtual demise of the mountain lion and the wolf across their natural ranges, which has led to a decline in biodiversity and ecosystem health. In the Amazon, indigenous tribes are experiencing a similar fate as native American Indians a century ago from such commercial expropriation.

Much of the “beef” in pet foods is recycled cattle remains condemned for human consumption and classified as “4-D” meat: parts from cattle who are diseased, debilitated, dying or dead on arrival at the processing plant. Some could soon be coming from Brazil.

Aside from consumer health concerns with the association of high beef consumption with cancers of the breast, prostate and colon, animal welfare and environmental concerns call for informed consumers who wish to eat beef to purchase local, grass-fed and organically certified beef.

Globally, beef production has an incredibly negative impact on the environment and use of water and land for feed, especially when compared with poultry production. So, from now on, the animals in our home will not have any pet foods containing “beef,” “beef meal,” “beef tallow” or unspecified “meat meal,” “meat by-products,” “bone meal” or “animal fat.”

DEAR DR. FOX: Did you receive the wolf adoption gift I paid for with a donation to the World Wildlife Fund in your name? I know how much you have done to spread the good word about these wonderful animals. -- S.C., Bar Harbor, Maine

DEAR S.C.: Your gift has arrived from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Thanks so much for your generous contribution to help protect and conserve wildlife, wolves in particular, via this “WWF symbolic adoption.”

The box included a furry toy wolf labeled “handmade in Indonesia,” made of washable polyester fibers and stuffed with plastic pellets. It was beautifully made, with bright eyes, and stands some 8 inches at the shoulder. It actually startled our resident rescued cat and dog!

But it would seem that the WWF is more concerned with fundraising than distributing gifts made from sustainable materials. Why not stuff with organic or recycled cotton or hemp and fabricate with natural materials, rather than non-recyclable petrochemicals? How can we protect nature when we continue to manufacture and distribute materials that nature cannot recycle?

Clearly, the marketing division of the WWF needs to be more attentive to the kinds of materials they are mailing to raise funds. They are not alone in this regard, since other nonprofit animal and environmental protection organizations offer various goods -- mostly manufactured in China, and many of which, being derived from petrochemicals, cannot be recycled and are toxic to the environment and terrestrial and aquatic life.

I would urge the WWF and other organizations purporting to help wildlife and nature to consider employing indigenous peoples, such as those my wife, Deanna Krantz, could quickly assemble in India with the assist of the veterinarian whose work we support in a UNESCO-designated Global Biosphere Reserve. She established a large shelter and free veterinary services for the villagers and tribal peoples, who could create animal artifacts from forest products including natural fibers, native beeswax and vegetable dyes. Such materials would be exported only with provisions of disease and contamination inspection and prohibition on live seeds.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)