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 environment articles Poisons Beware Insect spraying: rethink needed

Eco Environment News feeds

  • Climate summit in Brazil needs to find way to stop global heating accelerating amid stark divisions

    “It broke my heart.” Surangel Whipps, president of the tiny Pacific nation of Palau, was sitting in the front row of the UN’s general assembly in New York when Donald Trump made a long and rambling speech, his first to the UN since his re-election, on 23 September.

    Whipps was prepared for fury and bombast from the US president, but what followed was shocking. Trump’s rant on the climate crisis – a “green scam”, “the greatest con job ever perpetrated”, “predictions made by stupid people” – was an unprecedented attack on science and global action from a major world leader.

    Continue reading...

  • Exclusive: report by Stand.earth says subsidiary of power plant received truckloads of whole logs at biomass pellet sites

    Drax power plant has continued to burn 250-year-old trees sourced from some of Canada’s oldest forests despite growing scrutiny of its sustainability claims, forestry experts say.

    A new report suggests it is “highly likely” that Britain’s biggest power plant sourced some wood from ecologically valuable forests as recently as this summer. Drax, Britain’s single biggest source of carbon emissions, has received billions of pounds in subsidies from burning biomass derived largely from wood.

    Continue reading...

  • Pie Factory Music in Ramsgate, Kent, runs creative projects and provides a range of support services, but the building that houses the centre is due to be sold off in February

    The last remaining youth centre in one of the most deprived coastal areas of England is facing closure after a year-long campaign to try to save it was rejected by the council. The looming closure comes despite an independent report that estimated the centre is saving the council more than £500,000 a year in costs that include services in mental health, youth justice and social care.

    Pie Factory Music in Ramsgate, Kent, is a social space for eight- to 25-year-olds that also offers services including counselling, employment advice, life skills sessions, assistance for young refugees, as well as creative and music projects.

    Continue reading...

  • Exclusive: Leading ecologists say warnings over threat to wildlife have been ignored in drive to build 1.5m new homes

    The scale of lobbying of ministers by developers on Labour’s landmark planning changes, which seek to rip up environmental rules to boost growth, can be exposed as campaigners make last-ditch attempts to secure protections for nature.

    The government published its planning and infrastructure bill in March. Before and after the bill’s publication the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and housing minister Matthew Pennycook have met dozens of developers in numerous meetings. The body representing professional ecologists, meanwhile, has not met one minister despite requests to do so.

    Continue reading...

  • MP asks for explanation from Southern Water amid concerns the spill could have dire impact on rare sea life

    Southern Water is investigating after millions of contaminated plastic beads washed up on Camber Sands beach, risking an “environmental catastrophe”.

    The biobeads could have a dire impact on marine life, the local MP has said, with fears rare sea life, including seabirds, porpoises and seals, could ingest them and die.

    Continue reading...

  • Exclusive: Research shows oil, gas and coal firms’ unprecedented access to Cop26-29, blocking urgent climate action

    More than 5,000 fossil fuel lobbyists were given access to the UN climate summits over the past four years, a period marked by a rise in catastrophic extreme weather, inadequate climate action and record oil and gas expansion, new research reveals.

    Lobbyists representing the interests of the oil, gas and coal industries – which are mostly responsible for climate breakdown – have been allowed to participate in the annual climate negotiations where states are meant to come in good faith and commit to ambitious policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Continue reading...

  • From back gardens to hi-tech hydroponics, the future of food doesn’t have to be rural

    In 1982, artist Agnes Denes planted 2.2 acres of wheat on waste ground in New York’s Battery Park, near the recently completed World Trade Center. The towers soared over a golden field, as if dropped into Andrew Wyeth’s bucolic painting Christina’s World. Denes’s Wheatfield: A Confrontationwas a challenge to what she called a “powerful paradox”: the absurdity of hunger in a wealthy world.

    The global population in 1982 was 4.6 billion. By 2050, it will be more than double that, and the prospect of feeding everyone looks uncertain. Food insecurity already affects 2.3 billion people. Covid-19 and extreme weather have revealed the fragility of the food system. Denes was called a prophet for drawing attention to ecological breakdown decades before widespread public awareness. But perhaps she was prophetic, too, in foreseeing how we would feed ourselves. By 2050, more than two-thirds of us will live in cities. Could urban farming feed 10 billion?

    Continue reading...

  • Coastal residents face thousands of dollars in damage from the invasive species – which one expert warns could be becoming immune to Australia’s main biological control

    Every morning, Peter Bradley and his wife, Vicki, walk around their house to assess the latest damage from rabbits trying to burrow underneath the foundations.

    “Everyone’s on edge about it,” the Bass Coast resident says.

    Continue reading...

  • Brazil’s president welcomes world leaders while navigating divided government, promising action on deforestation and emissions

    Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has welcomed world leaders to Belém for the first climate summit in the Amazon, where conservationists hope he can be a champion for the rainforest and its people.

    But with a divided administration, a hostile Congress and 20th-century developmentalist instincts, this global figurehead of the centre left has a balancing act to perform in advocating protection of nature and a reduction of emissions.

    Continue reading...

  • As amphibian enthusiasts get ready to hop into FrogID Week, hope persists that one of Australia’s most bizarre creatures may survive

    It’s a story almost too preposterous to believe, starring a group of young uni students, an infamous state premier, a legendary Australian poet and an extinct frog which gave birth by vomiting its young – all at the dawn of the Australian conservation movement.

    Yet the tale of the southern gastric-brooding frog, which once inhabited the rainforest streams of the Conondale and Blackall ranges in south-east Queensland, continues to perplex and inspire a new generation of citizen scientists as they hop into FrogID Week.

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds