:Talk:Fipronil

The current wiki article states "In animals and humans, fipronil poisoning is characterized by vomiting, agitation, and seizures, and can usually be managed through supportive care and early treatment of seizures.[4] [5] This risk may be associated with the withdrawal of the MaxForce tick management product.[6]"

The last sentence about withdrawal of the tick management product points to an article that makes no such claim. The article merely states that the product was withdrawn because squirrels were opening the boxes in which the product was stored, potentially exposing "non-target wildlife and children." The article makes no claim about specific symptoms or seizures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerling (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to the claim that "beneficial" insects like bees are unaffected by Fipronil, there is new evidence that bees are also affected; they are disoriented by the insecticide and are therefore less capable of finding food. This partly explains why bee populations around the world are in decline. See http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/bees-equiped-with-microchips-help-explain-hive-declines.php?campaign=th_rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiennegoosens (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

:You are misrepresenting the claim. The original claim (now in back issues due to people with greenie agendas) was to the effect that Fipronil tainted carnivorous bait (for Yellow Jackets) did not affect bees, as bees are not carnivorous. It did NOT claim that Fipronil was non-toxic to bees.Cloudswrest (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"In humans, fipronil poisoning is characterized by vomiting, agitation, and seizures, and can usually be managed through supportive care and early treatment of seizures.[2] This risk may be associated with the withdrawal of the MaxForce tick management product."

I can't see how the risk of generalised symptoms of fipronil poisoning should be associated with withdrawal of a proprietary product, and have removed the second sentence. Please let me know if/where my logic is wrong. In any even the paragraph seems to need rewriting. Davy p 00:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:The Maxforce tick management system (TMS) was removed from general use in 2005 because there were reports of grey squirrels chewing into some Maxforce TMS boxes in areas of the Northeastern United States which compromised the integrity of the child resistant box. Due to this problem, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has removed the plastic TMS boxes from distribution and has asked that those already in use be covered with a protective metal shroud capable of preventing squirrel damage. Bugguyak 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Thanks. But I still don't quite see how this aspect follows from a description of the symptoms of poisoning. Shouldn't the two points (symptoms of poisoning + problems with squirrels) go in separate paragraphs or sections? The symptoms of fipronil poisoning won't be changed (even if the incidence might possibly be reducced) by the withdrawal of plastic TMS boxes. Davy p 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

at top of article:

"blocking the passage of chloride ions through the GABA receptor and glutamate receptor (GluCl), components of the central nervous system. This causes hyperexcitation of contaminated insects' nerves and muscles. Insect specificity of fipronil may come from a better efficacy on GABA receptor but also on the fact that GluCl does not exist in mammals.[1]"

and later, different author wrote:

It acts by binding to an allosteric site of GABAA receptors and GluCl receptor (of the insect), a form of non-competitive inhibition.

too many cooks on Wikipedia, as usual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.68.234 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, mammals have glutamate receptors. See this if you want proof: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14561864 . 72.192.216.234 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true the we have glutamate receptors but the article mentions GluCl, a chloride ion specific glutamate receptor only found in invertebrates (i.e. insects, not mammals)

http://www.jbc.org/content/281/21/14875.full.pdf+html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikheaven (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert this one time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fipronil&action=historysubmit&diff=319353084&oldid=315432073 data dump] by a user. It contains lots of info, but with no citations to the references to verify. Also, it makes the page look like a total mess. -Shootbamboo (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I flagged article this as contradicting itself due to two paragraphs:

:"Unlike broadcast applications, this application does not expose beneficial insects such as honeybees to the pesticide."

:"Fipronil is toxic to bees and should not be applied to vegetation when bees are foraging."

-70.233.148.177 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The referenced research paper lists carnivorous baits

A bait choice experiment was conducted before poisoned baits were placed. Salmon favored canned catfood (Whiskas, Kal Kan Foods, Vernon, CA) and raw minced beef were tested in the field. Most of previous studies have successfully used fish baits (e.g., Spurr 1991a, 1991b, 1993;Beggs et al. 1998) but observations at our study site suggested that raw minced beef would be more palatable to wasps than fish bait. At the two sites were poisoned baits were later placed six stations containing cat food and six stations with raw minced beef were placed 30 m apart and left out for an hour.

I have yet to see bees going after cat food. Target specific baits are the best way to avoid harming non-target insects. This is completely different from crop dusting (carpet bombing?) fields.213.239.234.58 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bees have been tested in regards to Fipronil:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/7fwkxvjcrhe40h7f/fulltext.pdf

The concentrations in this paper were sublethal (about 2 microgram/Litre) which implies that there is a lethal dose been reported out there. Even at this "low" concentration the bees showed a disturbance in foraging which I take it would not be good for the colony.

i.e.: :"Unlike broadcast applications, this application does not expose beneficial insects such as honeybees to the pesticide." is obviously and has been scientifically been proven wrong for both lethal and sublethal doses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikheaven (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course Fipronil is toxic to bees. It's an insecticide. The argument is that targeted baiting with bait stations does not expose bees to the insecticide. This is different from crop dusting. People claiming a "contradiction" and/or false statements are being disengenuous.Cloudswrest (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Effects section needs citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdimhcs (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:I agree and have removed the unsourced claims; more than enough time has been allowed for sources to be found. Just Chilling (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Substituted comment|length=260|lastedit=20080421220752|comment=Undid edit by 76.25.72.130 due to lack of quotable reference and slander against Wikipedia. Comment claimed article content was in error though article's content can easily be validated via cross-reference against multiple reputable sites covering the subject.}}

Substituted at 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, may The section about The 2017 Fipronil egg contamination be splitted, so as to fit with interwikis like :fr:scandale des œufs contaminés au fipronil? Sincerely, ChoumX (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC).

:Agreed. This has now been done. Just Chilling (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you! ChoumX (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

BASF aquired the patent for the active ingredient fipronil from Bayer in 2003. The patent for this active ingredient expired some years ago. Therefore, the active ingredient can be produced generically worldwide.

Besides Fipronil-based products, several companies manufacture and sell the active ingredient fipronil, including BASF.

More information on the expiration of patents in European countries can be found on the website of the European Patent Office at: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP88305306&lng=en&tab=legal

and a global overview at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&NR=0295117B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20000405&DB=&locale=en_EP# --Nah67056 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Patrick Schmidt-Kühnle, Corporate Communications BASF

Other names

Fipronil

Why is {{PAGENAME}} an "other" name? Jidanni (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fipronil. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=803215898 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714175808/http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm to http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170811130403/http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/danes-imported-20-tons-eggs-tainted-scandal-49152254 to http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/danes-imported-20-tons-eggs-tainted-scandal-49152254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello {{ping|Waddie96}} Can you give a more specific quote for the change to "GABA{{sub|A}} receptor" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fipronil&diff=1054003425&oldid=1043937294 this edit]? I am unable to find where the source (Raymond-Delpech) says that. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

:In literature, the GABA{{sub|A}} receptor is used to dictate that receptor's structure. And per WP:Consistency I implement this on all pages I copy-edit across the Wiki. I don't necessarily use a source to back that up. Since there are plentiful reliable other resources to rebuke its use in that way. Take GABAA receptor as one, or this article published in "Structure of a human synaptic GABAA receptor" in Nature{{Cite journal|last=Zhu|first=Shaotong|last2=Noviello|first2=Colleen M.|last3=Teng|first3=Jinfeng|last4=Walsh|first4=Richard M.|last5=Kim|first5=Jeong Joo|last6=Hibbs|first6=Ryan E.|date=2018-07|title=Structure of a human synaptic GABAA receptor|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0255-3|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=559|issue=7712|pages=67–72|doi=10.1038/s41586-018-0255-3|issn=1476-4687}} or even "GABAA receptors" in Nature {{Cite journal|last=Goetz|first=T.|last2=Arslan|first2=A.|last3=Wisden|first3=W.|last4=Wulff|first4=P.|date=2007|title=GABAA receptors|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2648504/|journal=Progress in brain research|volume=160|pages=21–41|doi=10.1016/S0079-6123(06)60003-4|issn=0079-6123|pmc=2648504|pmid=17499107}}. Any further queries please respond on this page – waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}