The Animal Doctor

On Aug. 22, British newspaper The Daily Mirror headlined: “Puppy and kitten farming to be BANNED in victory for Lucy’s Law.”

Anyone buying or adopting a pet less than 6 months old will have to deal directly with a licensed breeder or rescue center under the proposed ban. Environment secretary Michael Gove announced the new regulation. Breeders will only be allowed to sell puppies they have personally bred, and any online sellers will be obligated to publish their license numbers, along with the pet’s country of origin and country of residence.

This new ban comes on the back of the Lucy’s Law campaign led by a coalition of animal rights charities. The campaign was started after a severely malnourished spaniel was rescued from a breeding site. Now it’s time for America to start to become great and get the same done. The puppy mill breeding industries flourish in the U.S., and thousands of animals suffer.

DEAR DR. FOX: I appreciate what you have been writing to discourage and condemn animal shelters that sterilize and abandon cats to fend for themselves. You may like this synopsis that I wrote for the TheNewsEnterprise.com in Elizabethtown, Kentucky:

Cats who are abandoned outdoors face daily battles against parasites, deadly contagious diseases, extreme temperatures, speeding cars, predators on two legs and four, and more -- battles they inevitably will lose. The average lifespan of an outdoor cat is just 2 to 5 years, compared to 12 to 15 years for a cat who lives indoors. These cats aren’t being “saved.” Their deaths are merely being moved from the comfort and peacefulness of an animal shelter to the misery and violence of the streets.

Moreover, trap-neuter-release doesn’t even work: It actually encourages more people to abandon their cats because they think the cats will be cared for, and the food set out for “managed” colonies attracts more cats -- as well as rats, and rabies vectors such as foxes and raccoons. The truly humane and effective way to address the homeless cat crisis is by requiring that all cats be spayed /neutered, licensed, microchipped and kept indoors, not by turfing cats out to die slowly on the streets. -- Teresa Chagrin, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, Virginia

DEAR T.S.: Thanks for your concise synopsis of this cruel activity perpetrated by many animal shelters and endorsed by some humane organizations. The more voices against this practice, the better. Most essential is for people with cats to have them neutered and let them enjoy life as totally indoor companion animals.

(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 DrFoxVet.net.)

DEAR DR. FOX: This summer, we had a bad time with fleas on our two cats. I know I should not be letting them outdoors, as you say, and we will be doing our best to get rid of the fleas and keep the cats indoors from now on.

My neighbor has a dog who wore a flea collar and got sick (vomiting), so she took it off. What do you advise to keep fleas and ticks off our pets? -- L.P., St. Louis, Missouri

DEAR L.P.: Check my website (drfoxvet.net) for my article on preventing fleas and other biting insects without resorting to potentially harmful insecticides, and the new article “Companion Animal Risks of Flea and Tick Insecticides.”

Most of the current products on the market being sold to kill fleas, ticks and other insects on dogs and cats should be avoided -- for long-term and preventive use -- for animal and public health and environmental reasons. I’ve done an assessment of their documented insecticidal action and incidence of harmful side-effects. Their short-term use in emergency situations of confirmed insect presence may be justified, with caution, when all other control measures have failed.

The public has been brainwashed, in my opinion, into accepting various oral, locally applied and collar-impregnated insecticides as safe and effective ways to control fleas and ticks. But cats in particular, and small dogs, old dogs and those with various health issues, are at risk from developing acute and chronic adverse reactions to these products.

Over 44,000 reports of adverse reactions to topical anti-flea and tick products were compiled by the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency in 2008. The division of regulatory and approval authority between the Food and Drug Administration and the EPA facilitates the divisiveness and irresponsibility evident in the continued marketing of many of these products -- even after the sellers and manufacturers have been informed of thousands of adverse reactions and many fatalies in dogs and cats.

The fundamental question of the health consequences of long-term/lifetime use of these insecticides on companion animals has not been addressed by the manufacturers, but may be a significant factor in the rising incidence of cancer and other chronic, degenerative and systemic diseases in dogs and cats. It should be noted that fleas and ticks carrying disease could infect dogs and cats on whom they feed before they are killed by these chemicals, and that flea bites trigger allergic reactions in many animals.

I would like details from readers whose animals have had adverse reactions to these products.

DEAR DR. FOX: The recent announcement of a $5 million lawsuit against Ainsworth’s Rachael Ray pet food got my attention. When we first adopted our rescued Jack Russell, he was on a grain-free salmon diet, which I initially continued. However, on a trip out of the country, we found ourselves without enough food to last, so a friend gave us a bag of Rachael Ray Nutrish.

I mixed his salmon food for a few days until our guy was totally on Nutrish. I immediately noticed his previously soft, loose, light-colored poop was harder and a darker normal color. (I had discussed his poop with the vet previously, and she had already suggested a change in diet.) I was very delighted at this change. He did well on this food, and his coat, eyes and skin are very healthy. Ainsworth has a very good history of finding a healthy, natural balance in dog food, so I had no problem switching.

But the announcement of traces amount of glyphosate has me concerned. I know it’s difficult for humans to avoid this toxin as it’s in so much food, but our diet still consists of non-GMO and organic foods. I am searching for a totally organic brand I can use. In the meantime, I switched to Rachael Ray’s Salmon and Sweet Potato Grain-free in the hopes there is less or no glyphosate. I cannot find any outside lab reports on the grain-free food.

Am I over-reacting about this situation? A recent checkup shows our guy has swollen lymph nodes, and he is currently on a round of antibiotics due to a tooth extraction. His blood work shows no high levels of white blood cells. We’ll be looking further into this if it persists after this round of antibiotics. But it scares me that glyphosate can cause lymphoma in humans if consistently exposed, and although it’s a small amount in his food, that food is 99 percent of his diet. -- D.G., Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

DEAR D.G.: The problem is not simply the possibility that glyphosate may cause cancer, but also that it is a chelating agent that interferes with plants’ uptake of some minerals, thus lowering their nutritional value. Also, as one of many herbicides that can get into our food and drinking water, there is the high probability of causing dysbiosis and irritable/inflammatory bowel problems when health-promoting intestinal bacteria are destroyed by such chemicals.

Don’t forget that there are GMO potatoes, beets and rice to be concerned about, so buying organically certified foods is a prudent decision. I am concerned also about the “grain-free” fad and the inclusion of possibly GMO potatoes and sweet potatoes, which would not be good for diabetic and pre-diabetic animals.

For your dog, I would suggest you try some of The Honest Kitchen’s GMO-free freeze-dried dog foods, and also Organix and Dr. Broderick’s Cornucopia canned dog food, which my dog relishes. Go online for more details, and consider trying my home-prepared dog food recipe with all human-grade ingredients and no by-products.

UPDATE ON DILATED HEART DISEASE IN DOGS

Susan Thixton (truthaboutpetfood.com) writes:

“The dog foods linked to nutritionally based DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy) were labeled as ‘Complete and Balanced’ pet foods. But those Complete and Balanced foods failed thousands of dogs. Who should be held responsible for the nutritional failure of these Complete and Balanced dog foods?

“Right now (August 2018), multiple Complete and Balanced dog food brands are linked to diet-related taurine-deficient DCM in possibly thousands of dogs. There are more than 8,000 pet-owner members of the two Taurine Deficiency Dilated Cardiomyopathy groups on Facebook. Thousands of pet owners are questioning why the ‘Complete and Balanced’ claim on their pet food label failed their dog.”

(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 DrFoxVet.net.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Some of my friends and I have adopted dogs from shelters and dog rescue organizations, and it seems like they are making a lot of money bringing puppies and grown dogs up from Southern states.

There are enough local dogs and pups needing homes around where we live, so what’s going on? -- T.L., Fargo, North Dakota

DEAR T.L.: You are raising what some would call an impertinent question. In the eyes of critics, many shelters -- the most notable where I live being Minnesota’s Animal Humane Society -- and some in-state dog rescue organizations have essentially become brokers for dogs brought at little cost from shelters in Southern states.

The Southern shelters do all neutering and vaccinating, and contribute to transportation costs. Recipient “nonprofit” organizations charge $400 and more per dog put up for adoption. In many instances, which I have documented, they have released such dogs for adoption carrying heartworm, hookworm and giardia, putting other dogs (and people) at risk. These groups also often release neutered cats to fend for themselves in communities across the country.

It is virtually impossible for a concerned citizen to make any headway in questioning such activities. City councils and state public health authorities, along with the Better Business Bureau, need to take a closer look at the operations and income of local animal shelters and rescue organizations. Also deserving of scrutiny are those selling dogs and pups online, many of whom pass on traumatized adult breeding-stock dogs and too-old-for-sale pups from the commercial puppy mill industry. For dogs’ sakes, these groups cannot continue to be a law unto themselves.

DEAR DR. FOX: Our chocolate Labrador retriever wore a fence-line triggering shock collar for two to three years of her life, and developed laryngeal paralysis around age 10. -- S.J., Springfield, Missouri

DEAR S.J.: Your communication is appreciated. I will put the word out to alert dog owners and veterinarians to consider the possible connection, as detailed in an earlier column, of laryngeal paralysis with fence-line triggering shock collars. This may or may not be the case for your dog, but we should not throw caution to the wind.

NOVEL TREATMENTS FOR DOGS

-- A company in Connecticut is developing personalized veterinary cancer vaccines, based on deactivated cells and tissue from the animal’s own tumors, to stimulate the immune system to recognize specific tumor-associated antigens and kill cancerous cells.

Veterinarians who want to try the experimental vaccine for solid tumors can request a collection kit and send a sample of the excised tumor to the company, which will return the personalized vaccine in 72 hours for weekly administration over a three-week period. (American Veterinarian, July 2)

This news item brought to mind a circa-1960 report from the Soviet Union that made exactly the same claims, and may be well worth pursuing in these times of increasing cancer incidence in dogs.

-- Injections of stem cells from the dog’s own fatty tissue improved symptoms of osteoarthritis within one month in 78 percent of dogs participating in a clinical trial, researchers reported in Stem Cells Translational Medicine. And 88 percent showed improvement after six months. Researchers harvested the dogs’ adipose tissue using a minimally invasive, one-step procedure; injected it into the arthritic joint; and saw improvement with no major adverse effects. (HealthDay News, Aug. 2)

(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 DrFoxVet.net.)