Resource Page https://aagpilot.com/resources-for-the-nfaep-campaign/
This campaign is about:
- recognising fire ant eradication is impossible,
- ending prophylactic distribution of toxic chemcials by utilising direct nest treatment,
- providing alternatives to chemical treatment for managing fire ants,
- subsidies for private property holders to utilise approved alternatives,
- utilising alternatives to chemical treatment to manage fire ants in sensitive ego-systems and public use areas like play grounds and parks,
- respecting private property rights and personal individual choice,
- utilising community to initiate policy change to meet these objectives.
The official facebook group is https://www.facebook.com/groups/965557318340548/
Ten Most Influential Documents Relating to the Campaign
Number One
National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication, Program Strategic Review August 2021 Report for the Steering Committee by Helen Scott-Orr, Monica Gruber and Will Zacharin (the Review Panel)
Treatment
Going forward, area-wide RIFA-suppression should involve a three-round treatment program, with an IGR applied in spring, either an IGR or a toxicant applied in summer and another IGR applied in autumn. The Program considers that two years of this regime could achieve eradication provided that an entire area is treated. However, based on the Program’s experience to date, the larger the area, the more potential for some areas with
RIFA nests to be missed, so extra years of treatment are likely to be required.
Conclusion Summary
The review concluded that the RIFA eradication program in southeast Queensland has faced significant challenges due to inadequate funding and delays before the Ten-Year Plan began, setting back eradication efforts. While current efforts have slowed RIFA spread, complete eradication within the Plan’s scope and budget is not feasible without major changes at national, state, and local levels. The program has prevented wider infestation across Australia, delivering significant economic, environmental, and social benefits. However, a national, collaborative approach is now essential, involving governments, industries, and communities to contain, suppress, and eradicate RIFA effectively. Stronger suppression efforts in urban areas, coordinated treatments, and preventive measures are critical. Without urgent funding and a sustained national commitment, further RIFA spread is inevitable, making eradication impossible and long-term control far more costly.
Number Two
2021 strategic review recommendations – National Fire Ant Eradication Program response update.
In total, 27 recommendations were made to the NFAEP to enhance its effectiveness. The NFAEP has:
- Adopted 17 recommendations in full,
- Partially adopted five,
- Noted two,
- Considered one not applicable, and
- Did not adopt two recommendations.
The National Fire Ant Eradication Program (NFAEP) adopted Option A (Table 1), the most aggressive eradication strategy, which prioritizes extensive treatment and containment efforts to prevent further spread.
A baiting strategy beyond known infestations was adopted, forming a containment band from Moreton Bay to the Lockyer Valley and down to Tweed, with treatment progressing inward every two years. The workforce has nearly doubled, and aerial and ground baiting operations have been significantly expanded.
The NFAEP determined that a whole-of-community approach is crucial to the program’s success, with $40 million allocated for public engagement and industry collaboration. .
By implementing these measures, the program’s aim is to achieve full eradication within the set timeframe.
Number Three
2023-2027 Response Plan, National Fire Ant Eradication Program, Response to Strategic Review 2021.
Number Four
Red Imported Fire Ants and Queensland electorates, Minh Ngoc Le, Rod Campbell, August 2024, The Australian Institute.
Conclusion
‘To deal with Australia’s fire ant problem, a nationally cost-shared eradication program has been developed (the National Fire Ant Eradication Program).19 The Queensland Government has contributed $15.236 million per year for four years (2023-2027), which is about 10% of the program’s total $592.8 million in funding.
However, a 2021 report for the NFAEP Steering Committee21 estimates that eradicating fire ants will cost $200-$300 million every year for ten years. This would mean that Queensland needs to increase its annual contribution to $20.56-$30.75 million.
While fire ants pose a risk to all of Australia, Queensland faces the most immediate and significant danger. With increased investment in eradication, and active advocacy for additional funding from the Commonwealth and other state governments, there is still a chance to stop the spread of RIFA’.
Number Five
Samford Contamination Correspondence
(a) Water Test Results
(b) DESI confirmation Letter
Number Six
Dr Joshua King’s Open Letter of Concern and supporting research.
Supporting Research
(a) Pesticide‐free management of invasive ants impacting ground‐nesting wildlife populations, Dr Joshua King.
(b) Middleton et al 2023- Evaluating control methods for red imported fire ant and their effects on
(c) Experimental evidence that dispersal drives ant community – King and Tschinkel 2016
(d) Functional Ecology – 2016 – Tschinkel and King 2017
(e) United States Patent number 10,716,302, entitled Environmentally Safe Insect Control System.
(f) Ecological Applications – 2024 – Howerton
(g) Austral Ecology – 2026 – Andrew – Broadcast Baitin_260115_093621
Number Seven
Pesticide Action Australia (PAA) Statement of Concern: PFAS in pesticides used throughout Australia. https://pesticideaction.org.au/our-statements/
Supporting Documents
(a) PFAS National Environmental Management Plan 3.0 https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/publications/pfas-nemp-3
(b) PFAS Australian Map https://pfas.australianmap.net/2024-may-pfas-chemicals-in-pesticides/
Number Eight
The National Fire Ant Eradication Program (NFAEP) employs chemical treatments to manage and eradicate Red Imported Fire Ants (RIFA). These chemical applications must adhere strictly to the guidelines set forth by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), including compliance with specific permits, safety data sheets, and product labels.
Legal scrutiny has raised concerns that the National Fire Ant Eradication Program (NFAEP) may not be fully complying with its chemical use permits and safety data sheet requirements. Property owners have reported instances where treatments may have breached key permit conditions, including:
- DO NOT apply directly onto water
- DO NOT apply if rain is expected within 6 hours
- DO NOT apply within 8 metres of waterways
- DO NOT apply if heavy rains or storms (8mm+) are forecast within 3 days
- DO NOT contaminate wetlands or watercourses with this product
- DO NOT apply to areas where crops, weeds, or pasture are in flower at the time of application, or are expected to be in flower within the next 7 days (pasture) or 28 days (crops)
- DO NOT contaminate streams, rivers, or waterways
- DO NOT apply if the area to be treated is wet with dew, irrigation, or rainfall
DISTANCE ANT BAIT (APVMA No. 55784)
TERMIDOR HE RESIDUAL TERMITICIDE (APVMA No. 80820)
ENGAGE ANT BAIT (Unregistered)
TERMIDOR RESIDUAL TERMITICIDE AND INSECTICIDE (APVMA No. 54624)
ADVION FIRE ANT BAIT
Lack of Transparency in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program and APVMA’s Regulatory Oversight
The National Fire Ant Eradication Program (NFAEP) utilizes fipronil as part of its treatment strategy for Red Imported Fire Ants (RIFA) under various permits issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), including Permit PER14770. While this permit authorizes the use of fipronil, it fails to acknowledge the severe risks this chemical poses to non-target species, despite well-documented evidence of its environmental impact.
The APVMA itself states that the continued issuance of fipronil-related permits is subject to the outcomes of an ongoing review of fipronil—a review that began in 2002 and remains unfinished more than two decades later. Meanwhile, fipronil continues to be used under the Biosecurity Act 2014, particularly in locust control, with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) documentation acknowledging:
- “Fipronil is moderately toxic to mammals and in its technical form is slightly more toxic than the organophosphorous pesticide fenitrothion.”
- “Fipronil is more persistent than organophosphorous pesticides.”
- “Fipronil is highly toxic to bees, termites, and aquatic invertebrates such as yabbies.”
If the risks of fipronil are so well established, why do APVMA permits fail to disclose its dangers to non-target wildlife? Why is the APVMA allowing the continued use of a pesticide under an incomplete review that has dragged on for more than 20 years?
Contradictions in NFAEP’s PFAS Denial
Adding to the concerns over transparency, the NFAEP has publicly denied that its baits contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), stating:
“Beware of false information about fire ant treatment. Claims that our fire ant treatment products are formulated with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances are false. We do not use PFAS-coated pesticides and never have.”
Yet, the very chemicals used in NFAEP baiting—Fipronil, Hydramethylnon, and Indoxacarb—are listed as fluorinated pesticides containing PFAS on the Australian PFAS Chemicals Map. These chemicals are also registered with the APVMA under different branding.
This raises serious questions:
- Why does the APVMA allow these pesticides to be registered under different branding without clear identification of PFAS content?
- Why is the NFAEP denying the presence of PFAS when its own listed active ingredients are recognized as fluorinated pesticides?
- Why has the APVMA not enforced stricter disclosure of chemical compositions in environmental programs?
The APVMA and NFAEP have an obligation to provide full transparency, yet both appear to be misleading the public on the risks of their chemical use. This lack of accountability demands immediate scrutiny. How long will the APVMA continue to permit the use of harmful chemicals without full disclosure? And why is the NFAEP allowed to operate under these conditions without oversight?
It is time for answers, accountability, and action.
Number Nine
Applicable State and Federal Legislative Acts
(a) Biosecurity Act 2014 (QLD)
(b) Environmental Act 1994 (QLD)
(c) Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD)
Number Ten
Standard Operating Procedure of the NFAEP
Supplemental Research on the effects of chemicals and eradication feasibility.
(a) Effect of Broadcast Baiting on Abundance Patterns of Red Imported Fire Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Key Local Ant Genera at Long-Term Monitoring Sites in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Economic Entomology. McNaught, M. K., Wylie, F. R., Harris, E. J., Alston, C. L., Burwell, C. J., & Jennings, C. (2014).., 107(4), 1307–1315. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC14008
(b) An Overview Of The Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis Invicta Buren) Eradication Plan For Australia, C. Vanderwoude, M. Elson-Harris, J. R. Hargreaves, E. J. Harris & K. P. Plowman https://littlefireants.com/wp-content/uploads/vanderwoude-2004_An-overview-of-the-RIFA_compressed.pdf
(b) 2019 Webb UV stability of selected ant baits used in ant eradication programs australia
(c) Developmental toxicity of pyriproxyfen
(d) Environ Toxic – 2024 – Silva – Female Mice Exposed Reproductive Problems
(e) Impact of Red Imported Fire Ant Nest-Building on Soil Properties and Bacterial Communities in Different Habitats
(f) Impact on Ant Communities by Chemical Pesticides Applied in
Controlling the Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren)
in the Field
(g) intermediate syndrome following organophosphate Insecticide Poisoning
(h) Effect of Broadcast Baiting on Abundance Patterns of Red Imported
Fire Ants
(i) Repeated Exposure of pyriproxyfen to pregnant female mice causes
(j) The Teratogenic Effects Of The Insecticide Pyriproxyfen On The Developing Chick Embryos
(k) Toxic effects of pyriproxyfen in adult male mice
Bonus Relevant Information
Senate Estimates Coming Soon.
Useful YouTube Links
Jim Willmott Talks about moving from eradication program to a sustainable, eco-friendly, supression and Community Led management approach though Syndicates and collaboration.
Flying Fox – Doc Dayman Steptoe