Asian Hornets

[fian]

The VMRs control the use of products as medicines administered to animals. The product therefore has to satisfy the definition of veterinary medicinal product and the animal has to satisfy the definition of animal. If either condition isn't met then the VMRs don't apply.

The definition of medicinal product does not rely on the classification or authorisation of a product as a veterinary medicine. Rather it relies on how the product is used.

There are no restrictions on the sale of AVM-GSL products so it is lawful to be in possession of AVM-GSL products precisely because they are authorised for sale. They can only be used medicinally in the manner of their authorisation. If they are not used medicinally then I can't see any statute preventing non medicinal use in this one specific instance. In this instance the product falls out of the regulations and becomes unregulated as far the VMRs are concerned in which case the biocides directive kicks in. So for non medicinal use to be lawful or unlawful there has to be an applicable law which I don't believe there is one because the biocide directive only controls sale not use. Hence why I carefully chose the wording 'not unlawful'.

Again all the usual disclaimers apply. It's a very complex area of specialist law and my advice is not to do anything without getting that specialist legal advice. The body to get that advice would be the NBU or BKAs.

Also the same caveat applies that this is in preparation for a change of condition in the UK so as to have all the i's dotted and t's crossed before it becomes a problem.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/biocides/in-situ-generation.htmUnder the careful reading of this page, fipronil custard must be considered a biocide and therefore authorization is required for its manufacture otherwise a crime is being incurred and this goes beyond the use that could be given.
I wonder if a licensed biocide can be used by a non-professional agent for an "invasive exotic animal" infestation?

 

[Wilco]

There is also a legal requirement that cannot be ignored.
Who is the owner of the nest of velutinas that you intend to decimate?
Basically because the legislation establishes that there must be a signed informed consent.
https://www.bsavalibrary.com/content/formulary/frontmatter/exotic-pets/theprescribingcascade

Legislation does not say anything about informed consent. That comes from the RCVS CoPC. The relevant concept in the VMR is 'under care'.

 

[fian]

Legislation does not say anything about informed consent. That comes from the RCVS CoPC. The relevant concept in the VMR is 'under care'.

So under whose care?

 

[Gilberdyke John]

Not really. There's still the issue of an authorised veterinary medicinal product being used off licence, which is illegal unless done under veterinary prescription.

If there's a non veterinary version of fipronil then it might come under different legislation and there be wiggle room but that's outside my area of expertise.

Jesus wept. We're faced with an invasive species and you're determined to have the last word. I think it's fair to say most beekeepers faced with attack by Asian Hornets WILL use whatever weapons are effective and to hand. As with such situations only the foolish will publicise action and without a means to track the launch point of the treated hornet finding the user will be all but impossible

 

[Karol]

Biocides directives contains a clause stating that it does not apply to products on the market under the VMR.

Correct

Fipronil is on the market under the VMR.

Correct

Under the VMR it is authorised as an AVM GSL for a specific purpose.

Medicinal purpose - correct.

To deviate from this use is to use it illegally.

This is where we differ because it depends on its use. If the use is medicinal, then I agree. If it is non medicinal it falls outside of the scope of the VMRs. Would the VMD have power for example to prosecute a private individual for using a AVM-GSL as a lubricant for hinges?

The only way around this is prescribing under the cascade. Yes, it gets murky around ownership/wildlife/invasive species but there are some other relevant pieces of legislation which may give a way through.

The only definitive way round is to canvass MPs to legislate specifically in respect of the WCA for the eradication of velutina. I don't believe the VMRs are the right legislative vehicle for control of velutina.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Jesus wept. We're faced with an invasive species and you're determined to have the last word. I think it's fair to say most beekeepers faced with attack by Asian Hornets WILL use whatever weapons are effective and to hand. As with such situations only the foolish will publicise action and without a means to track the launch point of the treated hornet finding the user will be all but impossible

So surely it is better to discuss it now to identify any obstacles we may meet when the time comes that we need to use the stuff - not wait until the last moment when it's too late?

 

[Karol]

https://www.hse.gov.uk/biocides/in-situ-generation.htmUnder the careful reading of this page, fipronil custard must be considered a biocide and therefore authorization is required for its manufacture otherwise a crime is being incurred and this goes beyond the use that could be given.
I wonder if a licensed biocide can be used by a non-professional agent for an "invasive exotic animal" infestation?

It only becomes an offence if the 'fipronil custard' is sold. The biocide directive only controls the sale of biocides. It does not control the sale of AVM-GSLs. It does not prevent an AVM-GSL being used as a biocide by the end user who has purchased the AVM-GSL. Fipronil custard is not an AVM-GSL because the fipronil product has been changed so is no longer a veterinary medicinal product but it is a biocide.

 

[JamezF]

Jesus wept. We're faced with an invasive species and you're determined to have the last word. I think it's fair to say most beekeepers faced with attack by Asian Hornets WILL use whatever weapons are effective and to hand. As with such situations only the foolish will publicise action and without a means to track the launch point of the treated hornet finding the user will be all but impossible

Sometimes these rules appear ridiculous (I'd say the use of OA for varroa control would be such a case). Sometimes they're really important. The problem is that it's not always possible for the layman to decide which is which. Taking another product that is close to the beekeeper's heart, the use of Bacillus thuringiensis is supposed to be controlled, but it's easily available online and people who don't understand the issues are able to use it incorrectly. As a result there are species that are becoming resistant.

Fipronil could turn out to be an excellent control for AH. However, at an incorrect low dose it might be possible for AH to become resistant, and then we're in an even worse place. An excessive dose on the other hand might hang around in the environment sufficiently long to become harmful to other animals (I think it's fairly indiscriminate where insects are concerned and is also toxic to some fish, amongst others). Those animals might be quite important to us as pollinators or for other reasons. Or it might get into the food chain and generate yet another set of problems.

James

 

[Newbeeneil]

Just a note, the 0.25%w/v fibronil specified by madzzmazda is the spray, not the stuff you put on the neck of cats/dogs. That is 10% so you would well overdose the custard and probably kill the dabbed hornet!

 

[North End Bees]

@Karol In which European countries is Fibrinol used under license against V.v and what has been the outcome regarding both the eradication of the target and damage to the local pollinator populations?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Just a note, the 0.25%w/v fibronil specified by madzzmazda is the spray, not the stuff you put on the neck of cats/dogs. That is 10% so you would well overdose the custard and probably kill the dabbed hornet!

I think I’ll go back to the post describing the recipe and add this.
Thanks Neil.

 

[fian]

It only becomes an offence if the 'fipronil custard' is sold. The biocide directive only controls the sale of biocides. It does not control the sale of AVM-GSLs. It does not prevent an AVM-GSL being used as a biocide by the end user who has purchased the AVM-GSL. Fipronil custard is not an AVM-GSL because the fipronil product has been changed so is no longer a veterinary medicinal product but it is a biocide.

And for this reason, when one combines the authorized fipronil with the egg yolk, one turns the custard into a biocide without authorized manufacturing, incurring a crime, which can be aggravated by using it without being prescribed for public and non-professional use. Can you answer me in the event that during the handling of the vv worker you suffer a sting and suffer a process of anaphylaxis, who would be responsible?
I agree with you that the nbu and defra should urge parliamentarians to approve specific legislation to combat velutina. And let this be the one that clarifies all the doubts and procedures so that all the actors involved are legally supported and covered.

 

[fian]

@Karol In which European countries is Fibrinol used under license against V.v and what has been the outcome regarding both the eradication of the target and damage to the local pollinator populations?

The only thing there is a report on the internet is its use by the authorities in Argentina,Chile and New Zealand to combat the incidence of Germanic vespula (which have it classified as an invasive exotic species) and in each country at least the use of a specific bait that contains fipronil and that is allowed for the destruction of nests has been made official/authorized. when southern trapping has failed.
That does not prevent the following year from not having a new generation of vespules touching the....

 

[Karol]

And for this reason, when one combines the authorized fipronil with the egg yolk, one turns the custard into a biocide without authorized manufacturing, incurring a crime, which can be aggravated by using it without being prescribed for public and non-professional use. Can you answer me in the event that during the handling of the vv worker you suffer a sting and suffer a process of anaphylaxis, who would be responsible?
I agree with you that the nbu and defra should urge parliamentarians to approve specific legislation to combat velutina. And let this be the one that clarifies all the doubts and procedures so that all the actors involved are legally supported and covered.

From the biocidal products regulations:

Prohibitions​

8.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), no person shall place on the market a biocidal product unless that biocidal product—

(a)has been authorised or registered in accordance with these Regulations; and

(b)is placed on the market in accordance with any condition or restriction which is specified in that authorisation or registration.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), no person shall use a biocidal product which has been placed on the market unless that biocidal product—

(a)has been authorised or registered in accordance with these Regulations; and

(b)is properly used.

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2)(a) shall not apply to a biocidal product which is placed on the market for use in an experiment or test for the purposes of—

(a)scientific research and development; or

(b)process orientated research and development,

pursuant to regulation 16.

(4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a biocidal product which does not contain any active substance other than an active substance included only in Annex IB.

(5) No person shall use a biocidal product containing an active substance which is included in Annex IB unless that biocidal product is used in a manner which involves the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate to limit the use of biocidal products to the minimum necessary for the effective control of target organisms.

(6) In this regulation, “properly used” means used both—

(a)in accordance with the conditions of use specified in the label of the biocidal product in question; and

(b)in a manner which involves the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate to limit the use of biocidal products to the minimum necessary for the effective control of target organisms.


There is nothing in the above that prohibits using an AVM-GSL as a biocide as it falls outside of the scope of the BPRs because it hasn't been placed on the market as a biocide.

This is complex law so requires specialist legal advice. But in the face of the potential overwhelming harm caused by velutina, I believe there are grounds to exhaust every avenue of enquiry so that beekeepers can confidently take action IF and WHEN required should conditions change in the UK.

Usual disclaimers apply. I am not advocating its use in the UK at present because the conditions as I understand them do not currently justify use. Monitor and report to the secreteriat/NBU as currently legally required to do.

I have exhausted what I can meaningfully contribute to this thread. I wish all of you well and may the shores of the UK continue to be unwelcoming to velutina.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Do we have time to deal with AH?
The hornet was in France for years before they realised it was there.

 

[John stockburn]

Do we have time to deal with AH?
The hornet was in France for years before they realised it was there.

If the Asian hornet could read it would have been bored to death with this repetitive c**p ,

 

[fian]

From the biocidal products regulations:

Prohibitions​

8.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), no person shall place on the market a biocidal product unless that biocidal product—

(a)has been authorised or registered in accordance with these Regulations; and

(b)is placed on the market in accordance with any condition or restriction which is specified in that authorisation or registration.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), no person shall use a biocidal product which has been placed on the market unless that biocidal product—

(a)has been authorised or registered in accordance with these Regulations; and

(b)is properly used.

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2)(a) shall not apply to a biocidal product which is placed on the market for use in an experiment or test for the purposes of—

(a)scientific research and development; or

(b)process orientated research and development,

pursuant to regulation 16.

(4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a biocidal product which does not contain any active substance other than an active substance included only in Annex IB.

(5) No person shall use a biocidal product containing an active substance which is included in Annex IB unless that biocidal product is used in a manner which involves the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate to limit the use of biocidal products to the minimum necessary for the effective control of target organisms.

(6) In this regulation, “properly used” means used both—

(a)in accordance with the conditions of use specified in the label of the biocidal product in question; and

(b)in a manner which involves the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate to limit the use of biocidal products to the minimum necessary for the effective control of target organisms.


There is nothing in the above that prohibits using an AVM-GSL as a biocide as it falls outside of the scope of the BPRs because it hasn't been placed on the market as a biocide.

This is complex law so requires specialist legal advice. But in the face of the potential overwhelming harm caused by velutina, I believe there are grounds to exhaust every avenue of enquiry so that beekeepers can confidently take action IF and WHEN required should conditions change in the UK.

Usual disclaimers apply. I am not advocating its use in the UK at present because the conditions as I understand them do not currently justify use. Monitor and report to the secreteriat/NBU as currently legally required to do.

I have exhausted what I can meaningfully contribute to this thread. I wish all of you well and may the shores of the UK continue to be unwelcoming to velutina.

Lines 22 and 23 of the list of biocides. Fipronil with 2 uses, one as an insecticide and the other as a wood preservative.
This means that any non-veterinary use of fipronil will be considered a biocide and therefore BPR is applicable.
You can bend the law but without specific legislation there is no possibility of using fipronil custard as an authorized biocide. If the possibility existed, why don't the NBU or DEFRA apply it?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

If the Asian hornet could read it would have been bored to death with this repetitive c**p ,

well you can always not read it. If it offends so much

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

If the possibility existed, why don't the NBU or DEFRA apply it?

because it is not needed at this precise moment.

 

[North End Bees]

because it is not needed at this precise moment.

At what point do you think it will be needed?
Bearing in mind that France/Portugal have been battling Vv for years now and it still doesn't seem to be the best (or least bad) solution.