The RSPCA has come out against Slentrol, Pfizer’s new dieting drug for dogs, in the Daily Mail this week.

The charity’s senior scientist, Dr Jane Cooper told the Mail that the drug could cause side-effects such as vomiting and diarrhoea, and that the tests needed to bring the drug to market had led to the suffering of many dogs, cats and other animals, some of which were subsequently put down.

Given that just about every drug has potential side-effects and all are required by law to undergo testing, it seems the only purpose of these highly emotive and calculated comments is to inflict the maximum damage to Pfizer.

In an ideal world, all dog owners would feed their pets correctly, and take them for a brisk walk every day. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that whatever the RSPCA has to say on the matter, there will remain a significant number of pet owners that only ever get off their backsides to go and get themselves a beer, and the dog a treat.

Is it right or responsible that the RSPCA should, through this kind of statement, deny these animals some relief from their owners? Is it responsible for the RSPCA to pan a drug the moment it comes to market, or would it have been a more pragmatic move for the charity to work behind the scenes to try and ensure that it is used appropriately?