Shoppers 'genuinely shocked' by side effect of Coles, Bunnings, Woolworths, Mitre 10 product
For years, Coles, Woolworths, Bunnings, Mitre 10, and other major retailers have been knowingly and legally selling a poison to consumers with a deadly side effect. It's quietly killing off Australia's native animals.
Now Yahoo News can reveal more than 280 vets, doctors, farmers, scientists, and conservationists have signed an open letter calling on the nation's chemical regulator to ban merchants from selling this 'highly-toxic' form of rat bait to consumers.
Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) are openly sold on the same shelves as less harmful first-generation poisons, traps and natural baits. Although there are warnings on packets, unless shoppers delve into the fine print, they're unlikely to be able to tell the difference, and experts believe only professionals should be able to use these products because they're so dangerous.
The letter has been sent from BirdLife Australia to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) as it is conducting a review of SGARs. It notes the United States, Canada, and the European Union have all introduced 'significant restrictions' to reduce the risk of 'unintended harm' caused by these products.
'Australia is lagging behind, allowing the continued use of SGARs in a way that is putting our wildlife and pets at risk,' it warns, dubbing it a 'crisis' that needs 'immediate intervention'.
BirdLife Australia's Dr Holly Parsons told Yahoo News SGARs have a commercial purpose, however most consumers are 'genuinely shocked' that these baits are sold in supermarkets and hardware stores for home use when they can harm owls, native mammals, and even pets.
'There's a perception that because you can buy it on the shelf it's safe to use, and if you use it in accordance with the directions there's not going to be a problem. But that's not the case,' she said.
Related: 😳 Bunnings workers struggle to spot deadly product on shelf
SGARs were developed in the 1980s to combat growing resistance by rats to first-generation rodenticides. But these new poisons don't break down quickly in the environment, meaning each time a non-target animal eats a rat or mouse, they will accumulate more poison in their body.
Sometimes the poisons will directly kill animals by making them slowly bleed out. But often they make non-target species so sick they get hit by cars or become unable to hunt.
It's long been known that predatory birds like owls and tawny frogmouths frequently succumb to SGARs. Sadly, it's unpaid wildlife carers and volunteer vets who are left to mop up the problem when Aussies find sick and dying birds in their yards.
In February, new research revealed native mammals like Tasmanian devils and quolls that are already threatened with extinction could be tipped over the edge by these chemicals.
The signatories to the letter warn the problem is so serious that SGARs will soon be nominated as a Key Threatening Process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act – Commonwealth legislation designed to safeguard endangered species. This would place SGARs alongside other major threats to the survival, abundance, or evolutionary development of native species, with other examples including feral animals, land clearing and chytrid fungus, which has directly caused the extinction of seven frog species in Australia.
'This issue is critical, and the urgency cannot be overstated. The ongoing use of SGARs presents a severe and immediate threat to Australia's wildlife and pets,' the letter says.
Parsons told Yahoo the problem is continuing to 'grow deeper' the more we research it and that APVMA needed to act.
'More and more, we're understanding these products are getting out further than we ever expected them to. Many people probably don't realise that their backyard is part of the local environment, and so the impact of what they do inside their home is going to have ramifications for the wildlife around them,' she said.
📸 Beach find highlights dark side of Queensland's $88 million tourism pledge
Dangerous discovery made 30cm under Western Australian garden
🌏 Alarming map highlights growing threats to $3.8 billion industry
In 2023, pressure on Bunnings to stop selling animal glue traps proved effective, with the retailer confirming they would phase them out. These products had been linked to wildlife harm, and in this case Bunnings acted without being forced to by new regulations.
Some campaigners had also hoped the retailer would withdraw SGARs from consumer sale without the need for the government to intervene.
Yahoo visited Bunnings and Coles stores and saw SGARs on shelves beside less harmful products. And while this may be confusing for some consumers, the retailers are complying with all current legal guidelines with their displays.
Active ingredients in SGARs-based products include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, difenacoum, and flocoumafen. An update on their use by the APVMA is expected this year.
Birdlife Australia's 281 signatories include biodiversity expert Professor Martine Maron, environmental scientist Professor Raylene Cooke, former Queensland chief scientist Professor Hugh Possingham, and molecular scientist Associate Professor Bill Bateman. They are calling for the following seven changes:
SGARs to be withdrawn from public sale and their use restricted to licensed professionals.
A ban on their use outside of buildings.
Promotion of alternatives like electronic traps and non-anticoagulant options.
Develop new management strategies that prioritise non-chemical alternatives.
Mandate the monitoring of SGAR impacts on wildlife.
Establish buffer zones around ecologically sensitive areas.
Develop a threat abatement plan to address rodenticide contamination in the environment.
Coles was contacted for comment, but it did not immediately respond.
Metcash's Independent Hardware Group (IHG), which supplies Mitre 10 stores with products including SGARs, told Yahoo News it "will comply" with any directives legislated by the APVMA.
"In the interim, we are working with suppliers to produce educational materials for members and consumers around the use of alternative products," it said in a statement. "While we cannot compel independent Mitre 10 stores to display signage, it will be strongly encouraged. We are also in the process of extending our range of natural, pallet-based throw packs that are non-toxic to birds and other wildlife."
Bunnings said it had worked with the APVMA and suppliers to update packaging to "clearly display" on the front when SGARs are present, and introduced QR codes in rodent control aisles so customers can learn more about products.
"The rodenticide products we sell are in line with guidance from the Federal regulator, the APVMA, and we will continue to follow its advice in this area. This includes any requirements confirmed by the APVMA when the Anticoagulant Rodenticides Chemical Review is finalised," a spokesperson said.
Bunnings added that it was providing "choice" for consumers, and that included both rodenticides and non-poisonous alternatives to help customers achieve the "best solution to their specific rodent problem".
Woolworths said the products are "important" for people who have issues with rats or mice, particularly in rural areas. It also sells them in metropolitan and suburban stores.
"We also sell a number of alternative options including ultrasonic repellents, traps and rodenticides without second-generation anticoagulants," it said. "As always, we encourage our customers to follow the instructions outlined on these products, which include clear labels and warnings about safe use, storage and disposal."
You can read the full BirdLife Australia letter here.
Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
Obamacare decision makes way for debate on what's preventive
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services. The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state. Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented. The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas. In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote. Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax. If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies. But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine. 'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.' The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
499 pages of opinions
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services. The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state. Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented. The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas. In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote. Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax. If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies. But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine. 'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.' The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
‘Deplorable': Democrats slam SCOTUS ruling in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services. The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state. Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented. The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas. In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote. Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax. If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies. But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine. 'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.' The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
