If availability of Second Generation Anticoagulant  Rodenticides were to be tightly regulated, the threat from rodenticides would be reduced to the point where those of us committed to ongoing arduous campaigns such as Owl Friendly Margaret River could turn our attention to other matters including regaining a balanced life.  Here is an update on the current state of play.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), in response  to questions on notice on a June Budget Estimates Hearing from Rachel Siewert, long-time, dedicated WA Greens Senator, said that decisions from their 2020 review will not be announced until the end of this year.

 

photo S. Castan

Endangered Australian top predator is frequently exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides.
Science of the Total Environment (2021),  J.M. Pay, T.E. Katzner, C.E. Hawkins, et al.

Our Rodenticide Action Group and many individuals in the Margaret River community made submissions in mid-2020 to an Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority review of the registered particulars and conditions of use for anticoagulant rodenticide products, on the basis of “concerns for worker exposure, public health and environmental safety.”

The APVMA released a ‘Summary of submissions to the public consultation on use patterns for anticoagulant rodenticide products’ in September 2020 which concluded that:

“A majority of submissions advocated for stricter regulation, including restricted access to certain formulations and updated label instructions. These submissions presented a variety of recommendations, including:

  • restricting access to specific product forms (ie liquid, gel, wax block, powder, pellet) based on risk
  • restricting use of products to secured, single use bait stations
  • updated labelling including consistent, easy to follow instructions for use and requirements to dispose of used baits and carcasses.”

However, Diane Evers, then Member of the Legislative Council for the South West Region, received the following advice from Maggie Hardy, the APVMA’s Chief Regulatory Scientist, indicating that only the third action would be implemented, with no intent to restrict access to second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in any way:

“In general, submissions supported the continued use of anticoagulant rodenticides with recommended changes to harmonise label instructions.” “Unless there is new scientific information brought to the APVMA’s attention, it is likely the appropriate action with respect to label changes will be progressed by mid-2021.”

The responses by the APVMA to Senator Siewert’s questions indicate that final recommendations have yet to be made. We can only hope that the APVMA will be influenced by increasing data on wildlife impacts and heightened community concern since the formal review process. There have been more Australian as well as overseas scientific papers coming out providing evidence of impacts including on the endangered Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle. The issue was highlighted by a request for approval for blanket application of a second generation anticoagulant to address the NSW mouse plague, which was opposed by farmers and rejected by the ASPMA. Perhaps even the segment on the ABC’s 4 June Gardening Australia featuring Owl Friendly Margaret River might have some influence.

Here is the transcript of the Budget Estimates Hearing, Answers to Questions on Notice, 7 June 2021 (Question SQ21-000562) directed to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority by Senator Siewert.

Q1. What further work has the Authority undertaken since the release of the Summary of submissions to the public consultation on use patterns for anticoagulant rodenticide products? A: The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is considering the information provided in the submissions to the public consultation.

Q2. Has the Authority finished its further consideration of the issues raised by the public consultation process? If not, why not? A: No. See response to question 1.

Q3. Has the Authority considered the latest research article on the impact of anticoagulant rodenticide exposure on eagles? A: Yes.

Q4. Does the Authority agree that anticoagulation rodenticides pose a risk to native wildlife? A: The APVMA has consulted on the use patterns of anticoagulant rodenticides on the basis of concerns that include environmental safety.

Q5. Does the Authority agree that second generation anticoagulant rodenticide products pose an even greater risk to native wildlife? A: See response to question 4.

Q6. Given that the majority of submissions advocated for stricter regulation, including restricted access to certain formulations and updated label instructions, what action is the Authority taking in response to this? A: The APVMA is currently assessing if additional regulatory action is appropriate.

Q7. Is the Authority considering:

  1. restricting access to specific product forms (ie liquid, gel, wax block, powder, pellet) based on risk
  2. restricting use of products to secured, single use bait stations
  3. updated labelling including consistent, easy to follow instructions for use and requirements to dispose of used baits and carcasses.
  4. If not, why not?

A: See response to question 6.

Q8. Please outline the timeline for any proposed changes.

A: The APVMA expects to make a decision on whether or not further regulatory action is required by the end of 2021.