By Don Want PhD substack.com/@environmentalhealtheffects
In the south-eastern corner of Queensland, over the last 20 years, a multi-government department effort, backed by biosecurity regulations, has been underway to eradicate an increasing fire ant infestation. After spending millions of dollars on this campaign, the infested land area continues to expand, yet there is no admission that the program has been unsuccessful. The government intends to allocate more public funds to continue the
program. The primary approach involves blanket treatment with pesticides and the use of biosecurity regulations to permit pesticide applicators (by ground or air) to enter any property. Anyone actively objecting is arrested. The public regularly reports wildlife and off-target effects, especially in waterways and catchments, from the broad-scale application of pesticides. However, the authorities consistently claim that their pesticides are safe and
effective, without providing any substantiation. There sometimes appears to be a lack of desire to work together with the concerned public, instead focusing on accusing them of obstruction and spreading misinformation if they do not comply and remain silent.
Amplifying the above situation and radicalising the concerned public is a lack of balanced media coverage. The ABC has been quite extreme on this issue, consistently labelling people speaking out as conspiracy theorists and their observations and comments as misinformation.
Let us consider an example. Recently, there was media coverage on a concerned member of the public, Trevor Hold. It was titled Southern Cross University under fire for giving research funding to conspiracy theorist (Sato 2025).
It is usual for research funding to be allocated to worthy research projects. In this case, Southern Cross University (SCU) deemed it worthwhile to research the possibility of using hot water as an alternative to the pesticides currently used by government departments. This would address the considerable public concern about this aspect. Yet even by the title, the reporter has derogatorily labelled the individual who has gone out of his way to develop such a system and offer it for testing.
It seems the ABC has labelled Mr Hold as a conspiracy theorist because he has wrongly claimed fire ant bait causes ADHD, autism and low fertility in humans. On this point, Mr Hold alleges that the ABC has quoted him out of context, as he was discussing various pesticide exposures being linked to such. Numerous studies have established such links with various pesticides and chemical exposures (Want 2025). Upon examining this point with Mr Hold, he said he had requested the recording of the interview to illustrate that he had been taken out of context. However, the ABC refused to provide the recording (ABC 2025).
ABC’s following allegation was that he
…is an administrator for Stop The Toxic Fire Ant Program, an activist group that incorrectly claims fire ant bait kills birds, bees, cows and dogs.
In trying to understand how the ABC could rubbish such claims, their reference is to another ABC article on the general subject 4 Sep 2024 by the same reporter. That article condemns the concerned public in general. Perhaps the actual substantiation is utilising statements by the Queensland Agriculture Minister Mark Furner in that article, who said
The science is clear — fire ant treatment is safe and effective…This group is spreading misinformation that fire ant bait is a poison. It is not.
How a product that kills fire ants, yet is not considered a poison, defies logic. Additionally, such unsubstantiated statements are inconsistent with numerous studies that indicate the toxicity of the pesticides used. I have requested the minister to supply the references to such
“clear” science. There has not been a response as of the time of writing.
The most fundamental first step in science is one of observation. If so many of the public have reported off-target effects, then why hasn’t this been taken seriously and properly studied? Why is it instantly labelled as misinformation? The community group’s name should explain the concern, as the word “toxic” is present; it is not as if this organisation is simply
against the fight against fire ants. From the authority comments, one would get the impression that is what they think in a them-and-us polarised view.
The article then proceeds to state the national fire ant authority says Mr Hold and other members of the group have harassed their workers and obstructed them from entering properties to treat fire ants.
The question then arises as to why many members of the public are objecting to the fire ant authority. That should be an aspect worth being investigated and reporting on. Upon examining Mr Hold’s case, his story is revealed through a small documentary by an independent investigative filmmaker (Leigh 2025). The film illustrates that Mr Hold had initially been cooperating with the authority that distributed bait on his organic farm. After witnessing the detrimental effects on his cattle (2 calves had to be put down) and wildlife, he reported these problems to the authorities, essentially suggesting that they would need to change their approach. At another time, later, when they came to distribute the baits again, they brought the police. When they started placing the baits in his herb garden, Mr Hold strongly objected, and he was arrested. To add insult to injury, there had never been any fire
ants found on his or neighbouring properties.
Ms Manning, the A/Executive Program Director, National Fire Ant Eradication Program:
…said there was no evidence that the insect growth regulators used in ant bait —pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene — were harming Australian birds, humans or other mammals.
With so many people raising non-target effects, it is unfortunate that the authorities appear not to be listening/investigating properly. If one doesn’t look, then there’s no problem!
The article then states in reference to Mr Hold’s initiative for a hot water treatment alternative:
…the National Fire Ant Eradication Program and the Invasive Species Council have described this method as less effective, less reliable, and less affordable than the current treatments.
“We have extensively explored what is being tested by the university, and we have found the eradication effectiveness to be very low,” Ms Manning said.
But these comments are inconsistent with studies that have found it effective and reliable (King, 2025; King 2024, Li, 2024; Tschinkel, 2007). Surprisingly, such statements have been made despite this article’s highlighting of the independent verification of its effectiveness and
reliability by the SCU. No references were provided for the authority statements, and I have requested study references from Ms Manning; however, no response has been received before writing this article. No study appears to have been conducted on costing comparisons; however, the point here is that there is an alternative, non-toxic treatment that
people can use, as well as for the fire ant authority near waterways and main catchment areas. The authority’s response lacks interest in general, as it becomes simply a criticism without references or explanation. They seem to overlook the fact that this can be offered as an alternative.
Invasive Species Council advocacy manager Reece Pianta said he was concerned the university was partnering with Mr Hold instead of a reputable institution.
The attitude expressed in the above comments is unfortunate. Does the authority wish to work with the public or forge ahead and put down any public concerns/objections? Here we have a person who wishes to assist in the eradication of fire ants and has taken the initiative to put a machine together that can do it, and even organised for its effectiveness to be
verified, yet is greeted with contempt by the government authority.
Upon examining this situation for the first time, it is striking how a failing programme of fire ant reduction, with millions of dollars of public money being spent, government authorities aren’t embracing public input, help, and fostering community engagement. It is rather a polarised issue with clear public concerns being pushed aside, as seen by this and other articles. The ABC, being a publicly funded entity, is disappointing in its biased and immature reporting approaches.
References
ABC, Letter to T Hold from A. Edwards, 28 Aug 25, Decision ABC FOI 202526-014
King S, Hot water nest injection successfully kills fire ant nests in SE Qld, Southern Cross University, 6 Aug 2025 https://www.scu.edu.au/news/2025/fire-ant-soup-faso-pilot/ accessed 30 Aug 25
King J, Pesticide-free management of invasive ants impacting ground-nesting wildlife populations, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2024, 48, 2, e1516
Leigh D, Who is Trevor Hold, why is he being defamed by the ABC? Global Truth Network, as shown on podcast Faith, Culture, Politics in Australia, M Neugebauer: see 17.07– 50.44 https://youtu.be/K-cRB1aeDvY accessed 30 Aug 25
Li Q, Wang Y, Qi G, Fan M, Ye T, Wang G, Shi D, He Y, Wang D. Hot water mound drench treatment can be used for physical control of red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2024 Jun 1;117(3):714-21.
Sato K, Southern Cross University under fire for giving research funding to conspiracy theorist, ABC Brisbane Radio, 17 Jul 25 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-17/southern-cross-uni-funds-conspiracy-theorist-trevor-hold/105534622?utm_source=chatgpt.com accessed 30 Aug 25
Tschinkel WR, King JR. Targeted removal of ant colonies in ecological experiments, using hot water. Journal of Insect Science. 2007 Jan 1;7(1):41.
Want D, Environmental Effects on Health: ignorance and undone science, (book) Sep 2025 substack.com/@environmentalhealtheffects
Leave a Reply