Rodent control product manufacturers speak up

James Rodriguez, ACE

The following seven rodent control product manufacturers speak up about California’s Senate Assembly Bill 1788, dubbed the California Ecosystems Protection Act. State legislators in California recently shelved AB 1788, which would have banned the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) in the state, as well as the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides on state-controlled property. See what these experts have to say.

“The banning of second-generation rodenticides for use by professionals in California truly would have been a step back in time for us. It would be like a doctor not being able to prescribe antibiotics for their patients.”
— James Rodriguez, ACE, Technical Director, J.T. Eaton

Chris Ernst

“The California second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) ban would have significantly impacted the pest control industry in California. In short, PMPs’ jobs would have gotten tougher. Not only would an effective tool be removed from PMPs’ repertoire, but rodent pressure almost certainly would increase. At the same time, customers’ expectations would remain the same — and probably increase, as rodent pressure and public health concerns are raised. However, we also anticipate that there would be an increase in the use of mechanical traps and glue-based monitors, both devices that can be utilized in bait stations.”
— Chris Ernst, Brand Strategy Director, Catchmaster

Charles Passantino

“A complete ban of second-generation anticoagulants, in an environment wherein the data related to the impact on wildlife is because of their use by non-professionals, is inconclusive at best. This action, as it was written, would have been extreme, and would have removed a key tool in managing the state’s growing rodent problem. It is our hope that any future legislation will include input from PMPs, and put the focus on mitigating the public health and safety risks associated with rodent overpopulation.”
— Charles Passantino, Structural Pest Control Business Director, Liphatech

Sandy Mackay

“The proposed restrictions to SGARs in California was clearly a concern, and it is not obvious what alternatives would have been available to prevent the spread of rodents in the area. The use of warfarin or other first-generation products is unlikely to present a solution in the long term, and though they are typically less persistent in the environment, the risk of primary, non-target toxicity still exists. Other available products that are not simple or possible to treat with an antidote pose a serious risk to human and animal health in the event of accidental, or even deliberate ingestion. An integrated pest management (IPM) path considering all technologies, including SGARs, would be a robust approach to take. That, along with training and stewardship programs — similar to the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use’s (CRRU’s) Think Wildlife initiative in the U.K. — would allow continued use of the products while reducing the environmental and wildlife impact.”
— Sandy Mackay, Technical Director, PelGar International

Dr. Loretta Mayer

“It seems reasonable and prudent for Assemblyman [Richard] Bloom, the lead author of the legislation, to park the bill temporarily to allow time for greater coordination among state agencies to assure a smooth launch of this far-reaching legislation after enactment. This also will give us time to work with the industry and the public to educate them as to the advantages of incorporating ContraPest into their IPM strategies. That said, many poison-free communities throughout California, such as Los Angeles, continue to move forward with implementation of ContraPest, ahead of the ultimate adoption of AB 1788. California is not waiting for a legislative event to move forward.
— Dr. Loretta Mayer, CEO, SenesTech

Pat Willenbrock

“This bill’s biggest impact would have been on public health, particularly with the increased rat infestations reported in urban areas of California. Rats can spread diseases, and the recent rat population explosion in Los Angeles has led to an outbreak of typhus. Syngenta opposed AB 1788 because, as written, it would have significantly restricted an important method of managing rodent infestations and protecting public health. The tasks of assessing safety and determining whether additional restrictions are needed falls on California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation, which is currently re-evaluating these important tools.”
— Pat Willenbrock, Head of Marketing, Syngenta Professional Pest Management

Steve Levy

“Bell believes pest management professionals (PMPs) need a variety of tools to combat rodents, including a full portfolio of rodenticides. While the path California appeared to be moving down seemed misguided, Bell will continue to do all we can to help prevent a ban from happening. Regardless of the eventual outcome, PMPs can be assured that Bell will continue to provide the widest selection of rodenticides possible.”
— Steve Levy, President & CEO, Bell Labs

Read more regulatory reporting: