Insect spraying: rethink needed

The campaign to eliminate mosquitoes through routine insect spraying is not working! And it's dangerous. We at Eco Hvar are asking for change.

INSECT SPRAYING ON HVAR

From Jelsa Council: "The insect spraying programme, as a means of protecting the population against infectious diseases is carried out in order to eliminate mosquito larvae, thus removing the possibility for mosquitoes to develop and multiply, in this way reducing damage to the environment and people" (e-mail, 11.08.2017.)*

WHY WE ARE WORRIED

Infectious diseases like Dengue and West Nile Fever are extremely rare in Croatia1,2,3,4. Despite this, insect spraying in the form of 'fogging' against adult mosquitoes is carried out on Hvar three times during the high summer tourist season, and there are separate actions against mosquito larvae and flies at various times throughout the year.

The insect control actions have been carried out for years without adhering fully to the regulations laid down by the County Public Health Institute: 

i) for the fogging, dangerous chemical pesticides are spread all over the environment;

ii) the very serious possible adverse effects of the pesticides have not been advertised; 

iii) little or no use has been made of environmentally-friendly alternatives to poisons;

iv) there is no public education about pest control;

v) warnings about the 'fogging' actions are totally inadequate;

vi) the routes taken by the 'fogging' vehicle are not made public;

vii) the fogging spraying has been done without regard to the vineyards, olive groves, orchards and vegetable plots alongside the roads, so that substances which are not authorized to be used on plants enter the food chain nonetheless (see 'Pesticides, Laws and Permits' for more details about authorizations);

viii) the larvicide and fly control measures are not publicized at all;

ix) at local level, it seems that the poison spraying programme is not under strict supervision and control, as it should be according to the regulations;

x) it seems that no-one at local or national level is monitoring the effectiveness and possible ill-effects relating to the spraying programme: despite regular insect suppression measures, every year there are increasing numbers of mosquitoes, as they become resistant to the poisons used 5,6,7; at the same time, there has been a visible significant decline in numbers of birds. bats, and beneficial insects. Monitoring of invasive mosquito species was started in Croatia in 2016, but since then it has been limited in scale, and there has been no monitoring of any kind on Hvar, to our knowledge.

2011: Warning to beekeepers, Croatian Beekepers' Association, but such warnings have been patchy over the years

DETAILS OF THE POISONS

POISONS USED: In 2012, two pyrethroid insecticides were used on Hvar for the 'fogging', a combination of Permethrin and Cypermethrin; in 2014, the spray used across the Jelsa Council area was Permex 22E (active ingredients Permethrin and Tetramethrin, in combination with a synergist, Piperonyl Butoxide); in 2015 Microfly (Cypermethrin),and Twenty-one (Azamethiphos) were used against flies; in 2017, fogging in the Hvar Town, Stari Grad and Jelsa rtegions was carried out using Permex 22E, while Cipex (Cypermethrin). Microfly (Cypermethrin) and Muhomor (Azamethiphos) were used against flies around the rubbish bins and rubbish dumps. Azamethiphos is an organophosphate, the others are pyrethroids. The combined effects of such chemical pesticides on environmental and human health are not known

Pyrethroids8 are dangerous poisons 9,10,11. Each of the poisons is dangerous in its own right, not only for insects but for other living creatures. In 2017, overnight 'fogging' took place in June, July and August. The street spraying is indiscriminate, spreading poison over houses, terraces, gardens, fields, and any hapless humans or animals who happen to get in the way. 

ABOUT THE INSECTICIDES USED IN THE JELSA COUNCIL AREA, 2017

Cipex - active ingredient Cypermethrin12 (pyrethroid). Cypermethrin is very toxic to cats13, bees, aquatic insects and fish, and to a lesser degree to birds. In humans, Cypermethrin poisoning can give rise to numbness, burning, loss of bladder control, vomiting, loss of co-ordination, coma, seizures, and (rarely) death 14,15,16. It is classified in the United States as a possible cause of cancer17.

Permex 22E- the two active pyrethroid ingredients of Permethrin and Tetramethrin. Permethrin 18,19comes in many different formulations, some more poisonous than others. It is highly toxic to bees, sea organisms, fish20 and other animals21. It is also poisonous to cats22. The possible ill-effects on humans are considered less dramatic than those of Cypermethrin, but it can cause neurological damage23,24, as well as problems in the immune and endocrine systems. It can have a particularly bad effect on children, and the American Environmental Protection Agency classified it as a potential carcinogen in 2006.25 Given their known ill-effects on aquatic life-forms, pyrethroids must not be used near water sources. Also Permethrin is not allowed on places where animals forage for food.

The EPA registration document for Tetramethrin (2010)26 classified it as a potential human carcinogen, and identified it as extremely toxic to bees and aquatic organisms, including fish and aquatic invertebrates. It can cause dizziness, breathing difficulties, coughing, eye irritation, gastrointestinal upset, blisters and skin rashes. The EPA document stated that: "Tetramethrin is used by individual home-owners or industrial / commercial property owners, in individual, isolated areas, and in small amounts as opposed to wide scale uses (i.e., for agriculture or mosquito abatement by public authorities)." 27 For this reason, they did not test the effect of Tetramethrin on drinking water. Tetramethrin is not supposed to be used on or near foodstuffs27.

The synergist Piperonyl Butoxide in Permex 22E carries harmful effects of its own, as it is highly toxic to aquatic life, with long-lasting effects (ECHA infocard)

Microfly - active ingredient Cypermethrin (see above, under Cipex).

Muhomor - active ingredient Azamethiphos28, an organophosphate poison which is not on the list of insecticides approved in the European Union.29,30. The instructions state that it should only be applied to target surfaces, and not sprayed in the air. Muhomor AZ was the product used for spraying around dustbins and rubbish dumps on Hvar in 2017. It is a water-soluble insecticide designed to eliminate flies in stalls for cattle, calves, horses, pigs, and chickens31. It is mostly used in enclosed spaces. As at September 2021, it was not on the list of products authorized by the European Chemicals Agency.

INSECTICIDES USED IN THE HVAR TOWN AREA, 2017

According to the published Programme of Measures for Compulsory Pest Control 2017, published by the Town Wardens' Office, five pyrethroids were listed for use in the summertime 'fogging' actions: Cypermethrin, Deltamethrin32, D-Phenothrin33, Permethrin and Resmethrin34 (p.9, table 2 in the Programme). Phenothrin is especially toxic to cats35, bees36 and aquatic organisms37. Resmethrin is particularly poisonous to fish, also to birds, and is potentially harmful for humans38. It has been banned from sale in the United States since 201539.

BEES: All the poisons named here are toxic to bees. As long ago as 1998, Permethrin, d-Phenothrin and Resmethrin were included in a list of insecticides known to be particularly harmful to bees, with effects lasting even some time after application40.

RE THE WARNINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. We are talking here about very dangerous substances, yet warnings are minimal: Jelsa Council places a letter from the firm which carries out the poison spraying on the Council's public notice boards. Stari Grad announces it on its website. There is no warning through the media, nothing via the Tourist Offices. Beekeepers are not given special warning, even though they stand to suffer loss. The warnings are not given in any language other than Croatian, even though the spraying takes place during the high season when Hvar is teeming with foreign tourists.

Local citizens and visitors have the right to be fully informed about the spraying programme. There should be public announcements, detailing the substances to be used and their possible adverse effects; the complete map of the route the 'fogger' will take; the method of administering the spray; and the precise timing of the action.

Local authorities which order the 'fogging' actions are duty-bound to inform local inhabitants and guests through all available channels, and in all relevant languages.

Public warning - but did anyone notice?

CONCLUSIONS

The insect suppression programme as carried out on Hvar over the past few years is potentially damaging for human health, also for animals, birds, non-target insects and the environment. The programme is not achieving its aims. The way in which it is being carried out is irresponsible. not transparent, and on many counts unacceptable.

WE RECOMMEND:

Given that the risks of infectious diseases from mosquitoes are small, while the risks of spraying poisons over public areas are much greater, the current programme of summer spraying should be stopped as a matter of urgency, and alternative methods of controlling unwanted insects should be explored, as allowed for in the Regulations governing compulsory insect control.

A tactic: poison companies use cartoon images to mask the serious risks from mass insecticide spraying

© Vivian Grisogono MA(Oxon) 2017, amended September 2021.

* Original: "program dezinsekcije kao mjere zaštite pučanstva od zaraznih bolesti provodi se kako bi se suzbila ličinka komaraca te uklonili uvjeti za razvoj i razmnožavanje, a time smanjila šteta za okoliš i zdravlje ljudi."

FOOTNOTE: For more details about the pesticides used on Hvar, their possible adverse effects, and up-to-date information on their EU approval status, see our articles 'Pesticides and their Adverse Effects' and 'Pesticide Products in Croatia'. For an explanation of the approvals processes in the EU and Croatia, see 'Pesticides, Laws and Permits'

POISON SPRAYING ON HVAR: REFERENCES

1. Gjenero-Margan, I., Aleraj, B., Krajcar, D., Lesnikar, V., Klobučar, A., Pem-Novosel, I., Kurečić-Filipović, S., Komparak, S., Martić, R., Đuričić, S., Betica-Radić, L., Okmadžić, J., Vilibić-Čavlek, T., Babić-Erceg, A., Turković, B., Avšić-Županc, T., Radić, I., Ljubić, M., Šarac, K., Benić, N., Mlinarić-Galinović, G. 2011. Autochthonous dengue fever in Croatia, August–September 2010. Eurosurveillance, 16 (9).

2. Pem-Novosel, I., Vilibic-Cavlek, T., Gjenero-Margan, I., Kaic, B., Babic-Erceg, A., Merdic, E., Medic, A., Ljubic, M., Pahor, D., Erceg, M. 2015. Dengue virus infection in Croatia: seroprevalence and entomological study. New Microbiologica, 38, 97-100.

3. Barbić L, Listeš E, Katić S, Stevanović V, Madić J, Starešina V, Labrović A, Di Gennaro A, Savini G. 2012. Spreading of West Nile virus infection in Croatia. Veterinary Microbiology. 159(3-4):504-8.

4. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. (Provides regular updates on the spread of communicable diseases in Europe)

5. Weill, M., Lutfalla, G., Mogensen, K., Chandre, F., Berthomieu, A., Berticat, C., Pasteur, N., Philips, A., Fort, P., Raymond, M. 2003. Comparative genomics: Insecticide resistance in mosquito vectors. Nature 423: 136-137 (8 May 2003)

6. Owusu, H. F. Jančáryová, D., Malone, D., Müller, P.. 2015. Comparability between insecticide resistance bioassays for mosquito vectors: time to review current methodology? Parasites and Vectors 8: 357

7. Aguirre-Obando, O. A., Pietrobon, A. J.. DallaBona, A. C., Navarro-Silva, M. A. 2015. Contrasting patterns of insecticide resistance and knockdown resistance (kdr) in Aedes aegypti populations from Jacarezinho (Brazil) after a Dengue Outbreak. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 60:1 94-100 (January–March 2016)

8. EPA Information Sheet. 2016. Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids. (information on the use of pyrethrins and pyrethroids as insecticides, the current reevaluation of this group of pesticides in registration review, and previous assessments, decisions, and risk mitigation efforts.)

9. Beyond Pesticides. 2001. chemicalWATCH factsheet: Synthetic Pyrethroids.

10. Walters, J.K., Boswell, L.E., Green, M.K., Heumann, M.A., Karam, L.E., Morrissey, B.F., Waltz, J.E. 2009. Pyrethrin and Pyrethroid Illnesses in the Pacific Northwest: A Five-Year Review. Public Health Reports 124 (1): 149-159

11. Ingram E.M., Augustin, J., Ellis, M.D., Siegfried, B.D. 2015. Evaluating sub-lethal effects of orchard-applied pyrethroids using video-tracking software to quantify honey bee behaviors. Chemosphere 135: 272-277

12. TOXNET Toxicology Data Network (U.S.National Library of Medicine). Cypermethrin.

13. PARASITIPEDIA.net. updated 2017. CYPERMETHRIN, safety summary for veterinary use.

14. Cornell University, (Extoxnet). 1993. Pesticide Information profile: Cypermethrin.

15. PubChem Open Chemistry Database. 2005. Cypermethrin.

16. Aggarwal, P., Jamshed, N., Ekka, M., Imran A. 2015. Suicidal poisoning with cypermethrin: A clinical dilemma in the emergency department. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock. 8:2 123-125.

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs. 2016. Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential. Annual Cancer Report.

18. World Health Organization. 2006. "International Program on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 92: Permethrin."

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. "TRI Explorer: Providing Access to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory Data."

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2009. Permethrin Facts.

21. Hoffmann, M., Meléndez, J.L., Ruhman, M.A., 2008. Risks of Permethrin Use to the Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), and the Federally Endangered California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), and San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 20460

22. International Cat Care. Permethrin Poisoning in Cats.

23. U.S. Centers for Disease Control (ATSDR). 2003. "Toxicological Profile for Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids."

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. "Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Permethrin."

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Permethrin & Resmethrin (Pyrethroids), Toxicity and Exposure Assessment for Children's Health. TEACH Chemical summary.

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008, revised 2010. Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Tetramethrin.

27. Thoreby, E. (author), Williams, M.M. (editor), Lah, K. (updater) 2011. Tetramethrin. Toxipedia.

28. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Azamethiphos. Scottish Pollutant Release Directory.

29. University of Hertfordshire. Azamethiphos. Veterinary Substances Database.

30. Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe. 2006. What substances are banned and authorized in the EU market?

31. Muhomor. 2017.  Muhomot je insekticid topiv u vodi. Djelatna tvar: Azametifos u koncentraciji 10%. Genera, Jedna komapnija za Jedno zdravlje.

32. PubChem, Open Chemistry Database. 2017. Deltamethrin.

33. PubChem, Open chemistry Database. 2017. D-Phenothrin.

34. US EPA Archive Document. 2007. Permethrin and Resmethrin (Pyrethroids). TEACH Chemical Summary.

35. Parasitipedia. 2017. Phenothrin: safety summary for veterinary use.

36. US EPA. 2008. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for d-Phenothrin.

37. WHO/FAO 1994. d-Phenothrin. WHO/FAO Data Sheet on Pesticides no.85.

38. PubChem Open Chemistry Database. 2017. Resmethrin.

39. US EPA. 2011. Permethrin, Resmethrin, d-Phenothrin (Sumithrin®): Synthetic Pyrethroids for Mosquito Control.

40. Alabama A&M and Auburn Universities. 1998. Protecting honey bees from pesticides.

You are here: Home Books Poisons Beware Insect spraying: rethink needed

Eco Environment News feeds

  • While wildlife populations crash globally, research finds designated areas enable recovery of threatened species

    Wildlife and humans are thriving within sites recognised by Unesco, research has found, allowing for the recovery of threatened species and habitats around the world.

    While wildlife populations have crashed globally by nearly three-quarters since 1970, those within Unesco-protected areas have remained largely stable.

    Continue reading...

  • One way to pay for wildlife conservation is to allow the rich to bag a few animals for high prices. But critics see this approach as an exercise in neocolonialism

    You can kill almost anything if you’re willing to pay. Big or small. Land, water or air. Ten a penny or one of the last of its kind. There’s nearly always a way, though it might not make you popular. The Niassa special reserve, a vast reservation larger than Switzerland, stretches for 190 miles along the northern rim of Mozambique, taking in 4.2m hectares of woodland and rivers. The reserve, one of the world’s largest protected areas, is home to elephants, leopards, hyenas, zebras and about 1,000 wild lions.

    That word, however: protected. It applies to some, but not all, of its animal inhabitants. Each year, a specific number are set aside for sacrifice, for the greater good. Not long ago,I joined an expedition in Niassa, with one of Africa’s top game-hunting companies.

    Continue reading...

  • About 500 farmers challenge Green Gen Cymru in high court over alleged disregard for landowners and biosecurity

    A group of 500 Welsh farmers have brought a landmark legal claim to the high court over the alleged conduct of a green energy developer planning to build electricity pylon routes across their land.

    The court will hear allegations that Green Gen Cymru “unlawfully sought entry to private land, intimidated landowners, and showed disregard for biosecurity and basic rights”, as well as examine laws that force landowners to sell property to utility companies, in a hearing on Tuesday and Wednesday.

    Continue reading...

  • Exclusive: Report finds Natural England has created no new SSSIs, which protect areas from development, since 2023

    The government’s wildlife watchdog for England is failing to save nature because it has stopped giving protection to rare wildlife and habitats, according to a new report.

    No new sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) have been designated by Natural England since 2023. SSSIs are nationally or internationally important places for rare wildlife and habitats. Without the designation, endangered species can be at risk of being lost to development.

    Continue reading...

  • ‘Stone age’ system of booking cross-border rail tickets holding back climate action by consumers, says thinktank

    Europe’s “stone age” system of booking train tickets makes it needlessly difficult for travellers to avoid polluting flights, a report has found.

    Booking equivalent train tickets is “difficult or impossible” on almost half of the EU’s busiest international air routes, analysis from the Transport & Environment (T&E) thinktank shows.

    Continue reading...

  • UK’s Rare Breeds Survival Trust says calf numbers of white park cattle last year were less than two-thirds of 2022 level

    An ancient breed of cattle whose ancestors are thought to have accompanied the Celts as they were pushed to Britain’s fringes by the Romans has been designated as urgently at risk by a UK conservation charity.

    Publishing its 2026 watchlist on Tuesday, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust moved white park cattle to its “priority” category as new calf numbers sank last year to less than two-thirds of their 2022 level.

    Continue reading...

  • The country is seeing an increase in human-wildlife conflict as the number of megafauna, including rhinos and tigers, grows. But there are efforts to tackle the problem around Chitwan national park through education and training

    The tourists lining the steep embankment buzzed with excitement, phones out, snapping away in the twilight as a wild Indian rhinoceros grazed below the Nepali village of Sauraha. Climbing to the main street, the rhino ambled down the middle of the road.

    Local people warned tourists to give it plenty of space. All manner of wheeled vehicles slowed, then passed. The rhino turned its horn at a cyclist passing too close, triggering gasps from the assembled crowd.

    A manager uses torchlight to guide a wild Indian rhinoceros through the grounds of his hotel in Sauraha

    Continue reading...

  • Kerbside wheelie bins have been used in Australia since the 1980s but the recycling rate is stuck at 44%. Will another recycling bin make a difference?

    There’s no garbage truck in Kamikatsu.

    Instead, the Japanese town’s 1,400 residents take their waste to the local recycling centre, or “Gomi station”, and sort it themselves into more than 40 different categories.

    Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter

    Continue reading...

  • As the rising number of vessels in the icy waters increases the risk of environmental disaster, scientists are scrambling to find potential solutions

    Last winter, inside the subarctic Churchill Marine Observatory in Canada, scientists embarked on an experiment they hoped would result in a gamechanging remedy for polluted Arctic waters. They released130 litres of diesel into an ice-covered pool filled with raw seawater pumped in from Hudson Bayand naturally occurring oil-eating microbes. The technique had been used successfully during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the scientists wanted to see if they could break down oil in colder waters.

    The microbes were sluggish in response and the population showed little change after the first three weeks, says Eric Collins, a microbiologist at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who led the project. But that did not last. “When we went back eight weeks later, we saw that there was a big change,” Collins says. “One particular bacterium grew to a very high abundance in the tanks and it was clear that it was feeding on the oil.” But two months is too long to wait should an oil spill occur. Time is of the essence.

    Continue reading...

  • Sarah Finch’s fight against drilling led to a landmark ruling on fossil fuel emissions – and a leading environmental prize

    It started with a notice in the local newspaper and ended with winning one of the world’s most prestigious environmental prizes. In 2010, Sarah Finch was flicking through the local planning notices when one caught her eye: a proposal to drill for oil at Horse Hill in Surrey, just outside Crawley, over the border in West Sussex, 6 miles (10km) from her home.

    Surrey is not the kind of place one expects to find the oil industry. It’s a county of little villages, farms, woods and commuter railway stations. Its semi-rural landscape stretches off towards the horizon in a typically English green patchwork. It is difficult to envision it littered with nodding donkey pumpjacks and gas flares.

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds