This post is a review of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, a tube containing sugar, yeast, and boric acid that you fill with warm water and position around the perimeter of your property. The cap has a series of small holes (approximately 5/32″) that are supposed to allow the release of carbon dioxide (a mosquito attractant) and also accommodate the passage of mosquitoes. Per the company, the tubes allow you to “take back your outdoor space”.
Here is how a mosquito is supposed to be killed by a Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech:
- mosquito is attracted to the tube by CO2
- mosquito lands on the tube
- mosquito crawls around until it finds a hole in the cap
- mosquito squeezes though a hole
- mosquito walks down side of tube toward liquid
- mosquito ingests some of the liquid (which contains boric acid)
- mosquito walks back up walls of tube
- mosquito finds hole
- mosquito squeezes through hole
- mosquito flies away
- mosquito dies from boric acid ingested in step 6
Do they work?
No. I tested four tubes in my yard in Pennsylvania and there was no noticeable drop in the numbers of mosquitoes biting me. I never observed a mosquito near any of the tubes. I looked inside all of the tubes and never found a mosquito.
In addition to the above observations I used a home security camera to spy on one tube continuously for over a week, to see whether mosquitoes might be showing up when I’m not watching (e.g., at night). Here are the details of what I did (photographs of setup are below). The camera didn’t record the presence of a single mosquito. I concluded that the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech is not capable of killing mosquitoes outdoors because mosquitoes are not even attracted to it. I.e., it fails at step 1, above.
Why doesn’t the Pro Tech attract mosquitoes?
Based on what the inventors have said publicly, the carbon dioxide produced by the yeast is supposed to fool mosquitoes into believing there’s an animal inside the tube. I think this scenario is implausible. Although it is certainly true that mosquitoes use carbon dioxide to find hosts, I doubt the yeast is making enough carbon dioxide to attract mosquitos. And certainly not for an entire month. I think it is unlikely that Spartan Mosquito even believes this actually happens. I.e., the company has decided to claim the tubes attract mosquitoes because saying that is likely to convince some consumers it actually happens.
How did the Pro Tech get an EPA registration?
The EPA is famously strict about approving pesticide registrations, so it is unclear how this product managed to slip through. One explanation might be that Spartan Mosquito supplied data from experiments using caged mosquitoes. In this scenario, a known number of mosquitoes would be released inside a cage that contained a Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, and their survival over time would be compared to that inside a control cage. There are some obvious problems with testing attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSBs) in cages. The most glaring is that there are no alternative sugar or water sources for mosquitoes and thus the test doesn’t measure, at all, how attractive the device might be in the real world (consumers’ yards).
Another major problem is that Spartan Mosquito seems to set up experiments in a way that biases the outcomes. This can be illustrated by evaluating an experiment involving the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator they posted about on Facebook:
On the bottom left of the video there’s a view of the “Product” treatment — this tube is presumably filled with sugar, yeast, water, and salt (the listed active ingredient). The tube on the right shows the “Control” treatment, presumably filled with only sugar, yeast, and water (but no salt). However, the Eradicator in the “Control” cage doesn’t have a cap. The absence of a cap means that mosquitoes in search of water and sugar can easily get both simply by crawling into the tube. I.e., the experiment was designed in a way that ensures mosquitoes in the “Control” tank lived longer than those in the “Product” tank.
But because we have no idea how Spartan Mosquito set up the “control” tubes, the bias could be even more dramatic. If, for example, the control tubes had only water or were empty, they would not be producing any carbon dioxide at all. In contrast, the experimental tubes would be generating enough of the gas to potentially asphyxiate the mosquitoes inside the aquariums. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air so you’d expect higher mortality in cages with the “product” treatment; but the deaths would have nothing to do with the active ingredient (salt).
The video also reveals another strategy of Spartan Mosquito, that of implying that all 378 mosquitoes that died in the “Product” cage died because they entered the tube, ingested some fluid, then died. You can see part of this pile of dead mosquitoes at the bottom of the screen grab below (left).
There’s zero evidence in the video that any of those mosquitoes ingested the fluid inside the tube. All that’s presented in the video is a compilation of 3 or 4 clips showing individual mosquitoes entering or exiting the tubes. The screen grab below shows one of these instances along with the suggestive phrase, “Mosquitoes enter Spartan Mosquito Eradicators to feed on the solution inside.”
What’s important to notice here is that the company did not include a compilation of hundreds of clips showing mosquitoes going into the tube. If Spartan Mosquito had these clips I’m positive they would have used them. Plus the video doesn’t show a single mosquito exiting with a distended abdomen, which would be evidence that a mosquito had ingested fluid. My conclusion is that all the mosquitoes piled up on the bottom of the “Product” cage died from some other cause. The most likely explanations are that they died of dehydration or CO2 poisoning. Regardless, it certainly had nothing to do with mosquitoes going inside and drinking saltwater, because scientists have showed that the saltwater in Spartan Mosquito Eradicators is not lethal to mosquitoes.
The experiment I’ve critiqued above concerns a “minimum risk” pesticide, of course, and I acknowledge that Spartan Mosquito may not have needed to be particularly careful in how it set up and analyzed experiments (many states don’t even require proof that such devices work). However, it seems possible that the company adopted some of the same strategies when designing experiments for the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech. And it seems possible the company might represent the outcomes to the EPA in the same way, persuading regulators that the deaths in the “Product” treatment were from mosquitoes going inside the tubes and then drinking the toxic fluid, when in reality there’s no real evidence of that happening.
The backstory
Given all of the above, I was not surprised to eventually discover that the EPA registration decision was not just based on efficacy data. Instead, Spartan Mosquito apparently convinced the EPA that the device should be fast-tracked. I first learned of this from a radio segment featuring Jeremy Hirsch (the inventor, founder, and current chairman of the board). During the interview the host said, “Hirsch is attempting to get an early green-light because mosquitoes are so dangerous”.
How, exactly, does one persuade the EPA that a pesticide should be rushed through the registration process? It turns out that Spartan Mosquito hired a lobbying firm (Gunster Strategies Worldwide) to get this done. Below is a document (now deleted) that I found posted on Gunster Strategies’ website. The scheme is spelled out in astonishing detail:
In regard to the op-eds mentioned in the document, it appears that an influential health official in Togo (Dr. Dr. Atcha-Oubou Tinah) was one of the writers, though it came in the form of a press release. I’m not convinced, however, that he actually wrote it.
I’m still trying to figure out who the firm payed to write letters to EPA officials. I would also like to know which administrators at the EPA were targeted.
Although not mentioned in the strategy document, Spartan Mosquito and one of its founders (Jeremy Hirsch) gave approximately $10,000 to the Cindy Hyde-Smith, the senator who chairs the committee with EPA oversight. I don’t think they donated to any other senator. It would be interesting to know whether Senator Hyde-Smith was one of the persons who called or wrote EPA officials about the Pro Tech.
I’m not sure how it fits into categories listed above, but it’s possible that two companies (see below) were created for the sole purpose of influencing the Pro Tech’s registration process at the EPA. Both companies claimed to be non-profits, but they were both singularly interested in promoting Spartan Mosquito. So my guess is they were involved in the scheme.
1. Innovative Mosquito Control, Inc
Innovative Mosquito Control (INMOCO) purports to be a public benefit corporation devoted to fighting malaria in Africa. As part of this effort it claims to have partnered with Spartan Mosquito to promote/supply the company’s tubes to the region. Its CEO and President is Omar Arouna (2nd from left in photograph below), a lobbyist based in D.C. who typically charges $1,500/hr for consulting and social media campaigns. There’s no further information on who works at the company or whether it even has employees. Contributing to the lack of information is that fact that the business was set up in Delaware, a state popular among companies that want to keep the true owner secret. And the company’s website was housed on a server in the U.S. Virgin Islands, also famous for companies that want to obscure their operations. It all seems needlessly secretive for a company that is ostensibly fighting malaria. But here’s the interesting part: Mr. Arouna has worked with Gunster Strategies on several occasions. And as a minor fact, both INMOCO and Gunster Strategies use Wix for websites. So I’m guessing that INMOCO was dreamed up by Gunster, which also hired the frontman. (UPDATE: Gunster has officially hired Arouna.)
What’s also interesting is that soon after the Pro Tech got its registration from the EPA, INMOCO’s website was taken down and its Facebook page has had no further posts. And Mr Arouna’s LinkedIn profile is devoid of any mention of this endeavor. It’s as if the whole operation was created just to give the illusion that Spartan Mosquito was going to rid the world of malaria, a fact that could be used to manipulate reviewers at the EPA.
2. West Nile Education, Eradication & Prevention
WEEP & Recover, a Mississippi non-profit, was also set up two days before the EPA’s consideration of the Pro Tech. It’s run by James Hendry, probably most famous for his other non-profit, Mississippi for Family Values. The WEEP & Recover website and Facebook page are full of slick graphics and videos, most of which feature Spartan Mosquito and, notably, never mention any other mosquito-control company.
Functionally, WEEP & Recover is an advertising arm of Spartan Mosquito. The videos, graphics, and website design are all provided by the branding firm, Unify by Bread. Unify by Bread also produced a heartwarming video about hardware store staff that used Spartan Mosquito products as backdrops. My guess is that all of this was funded by Spartan Mosquito, perhaps channeled through Gunster Strategies. Regardless, somebody gave the nonprofit checks of $5,000 in 2020 and 2021, then stopped. That fits with the brief role the non-profit played for Spartan Mosquito.
In summary, it seems very likely that the EPA was played. And they likely know it.
Suggestions for state pesticide regulators
The EPA says it will not reevaluate the Pro Tech’s registration until 2035, but state lead agencies (SLAs) retain the legal right to require a pesticide company to make label changes to comply with individual state laws, as long as those recommendations are already covered under FIFRA. Below are my suggestions:
- Require Spartan Mosquito to add wording to packaging and website to clarify that the Pro Tech will not completely eliminate mosquitoes. The change is needed because its previous product, the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator, is advertised to kill up to 95% of mosquitoes (a false claim), and consumers who have used Spartan Mosquito Eradicators for years might thus assume that the Pro Tech has the same level of efficacy, if not higher. The EPA has already directed the company to make this change. Spartan Mosquito has so far refused to comply.
- Require company to remove the phrase, “slow release device“, from its website and Facebook page. The “slow release” suggests that the boric acid gradually activates over a month, which is a false statement as far as I know (i.e., boric acid just doesn’t do this). Also, the phrase is not mentioned in the EPA registration and is therefore an off-label claim.
- Require company to remove the phrase, “attractive toxic sugar bait” from its website and Facebook page. To qualify as an “attractive toxic sugar bait”, the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech would need to attract mosquitoes when natural sources of sugar (flowers, rotting fruit) are present in a yard. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech attracts mosquitoes when it is deployed outside. I.e., even though the tubes do contain sugar and a toxin, it does not appear to be an attractive toxic sugar bait. Also, the phrase is not mentioned in the EPA registration and is therefore an off-label claim.
- Require Spartan Mosquito to change the product name. EPA guidelines prohibit the use of any brand name that implies heightened efficacy. The phrase “Pro Tech” is shorthand for “professional technology” and thus does not comply with FIFRA.
- Prohibit company from using the device’s alternate brand name, “Spartan Mosquito Eradicator Pro Tech”. The reasoning behind this suggestion is that the EPA specifically prohibits the use of the word “Eradicator” in brand names. The name does not comply with FIFRA.
- Require Spartan Mosquito to omit the phrase, “mosquitoes will gather around the tubes”, that is currently printed on the package label. To my knowledge there are no data supporting this claim. I.e., Spartan Mosquito has not demonstrated that mosquitoes are drawn to its tubes when they are deployed outside.
- Require company to clarify what the sugar and yeast are for. If the sugar and yeast are active in some way (e.g., to attract mosquitoes to the tube via the CO2 produced) they should be listed as active ingredients. Also, the yeast will produce ethanol vapors and carbon dioxide, both of which can be lethal to mosquitoes, another reason why the ingredients should be in the active-ingredient category. NB: the company has indicated on forms sent to several states that the yeast and sugar in the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator function as attractants.
- Require company to remove the testimonials on its website. Currently the company features nine testimonials from people discussing their experiences with the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator, a different pesticide product. I.e., given the date when these testimonials were posted on the company’s Facebook page (I spent hours tracking them down), the people would not yet have had the opportunity to test the Pro Tech for the season. This is deceptive.
States should ask Spartan Mosquito for all the data
It’s my understanding that any state can require a company to provide additional experimental data, even for pesticides that have EPA registrations. As the sole example of how this happens, California requested Spartan Mosquito’s data on the Pro Tech and then rejected the registration, making it the only state to prohibit sales of the tube. I encourage all states to ask for these data. They should ask for data from outdoor efficacy trials, proof that the tubes attract mosquitoes outdoors, and proof that tubes produce levels of carbon dioxide capable of attracting mosquitoes for a full 30 days. And for all data that you receive, pay careful attention to whether the experiments are designed with proper controls, have replication, and are done by third-party researchers who are actually qualified to run experiments. I.e., if data are coming from poorly-designed, in-house tests, be skeptical.
I also encourage SLAs to contact Mr. Ajay Kumar at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. He has gone through all of Spartan Mosquito’s data on the Pro Tech and personally signed off on the rejection of the company’s application to sell it in the state. I suspect he’d share his findings with state pesticide regulators in other states. It would take all of 60 seconds to send him an email. You should also ask him to send you files for study IDs #327922-327936.
There is a step 12. Get tired of waiting for Pro Tech to work and use it to hit mosquitoes. Not very effective that way either, but will kill some.
Why would you make a week in mid-April West Nile Virus Awareness week? Seems like they picked this week to coincide with the time of year people began working out in their yards and Spartan’s map of when they recommend the devices be deployed. To me it would make more sense to have WNV awareness week in the late summer/early fall when virus levels are the highest in mosquitoes and most people are infected.
They may have copied the timing from California. They copied a lot of the text from other webpages, at least, so they were definitely in the copying mood when they wrote it. But a more likely explanation is that it was just part of Gunster Strategies’ scheme to portray Spartan Mosquito as a model corporate citizen.
The Spartan Mosquito system worked excellent for me. I had a ditch beside my camp on the Tombigbee River that had mosquitoes swarming by the thousands. After two weeks they were almost all gone. For the first time I was able to sit outside in my yard. That is proof enough for me.
You were using the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, not the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator?
I have tried to get an answer about the “Eradicator” but to no avail. They seem to work. I’ve lived in this home for seven years and last year mosquitoes were much lower than normal. But I’m irritated the company doesn’t give any solid evidence for their claims. Maybe its just placebo. If its scientifically proven to be a lie, they will be under a class action lawsuit. I think though, there is enough evidence they “should” work. In any case, i took their ingredient list and mix my own now. Its sugar, salt and yeast. Im fairly certain I could legally sell the mix on ebay. I appreciate your calling them out. You sir have certainly gotten their attention.
I’m afraid it’s a placebo effect or a reduction in mosquitoes caused by something else. The salt concentration in the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator won’t kill mosquitoes. That was my opinion (based on the existing literature) when I first wrote my review, and it’s been confirmed by a team of scientists who did specific experiments testing the salt concentrations in Eradicators. Total fraud, which is why they are being sued for $5 million. Here’s a page that lists the ingredients in case you want to compare notes on amounts. Please share with your friends, or use for eBay! Please share these links with your friends … more people should be outraged.
I have to say I’ve also had great success with these since I started using them a few years ago. To be fair though, after the first month when they are supposed to be replaced, I simply disposed of the solution and replaced it with my own, sourcing the same ingredients from the grocery store. Yeast, brown sugar, pinch of salt.
Frankly, the idea that a mosquito crawls in there and dunks, then crawls back out is silly. I think the company simply has no idea and tried working backwards to explain how it works after stumbling upon this concoction, likely by accident or dumb luck.
If they DO work, and I think they may, it’s because mosquitoes can’t make decisions, and will seek out the carbon monoxide being emitted from the tube until they are exhausted or dehydrated, and then simply die. No real magic, just a brainless insect chasing a tire.
This is the 3rd year we’ve used spartan eradicators. Our neighbors turned them on to us. We both live out in the country and each deploy 4 around our homes. I have no idea what makes them effective but we all agree they we have seen a significant reduction in mesquitos the last two summers. To the point where you almost never encounter one when outside.
The salt within these tubes does not kill adult mosquitoes so there has to be another explanation for why you and your neighbor have had fewer mosquitoes during the last two summers. I know you believe the tubes are the responsible, but I challenge you to spy on them this summer and note whether mosquitoes are even attracted. I.e., the company claims that “mosquitoes will gather” around the tubes so if that’s true then you should be able to see them. Get the binoculars out or set one up near a security camera you monitor on your phone. The company doesn’t have a single photograph on its website showing mosquitoes gathered around the tubes when the tubes are outside. The company is conning you.
To this point, what’s “conning” me mostly is the complete lack of mosquitoes around the house. ;-)
Seriously though, maybe mosquitoes largely having disappeared in conjunction with the two years we’ve used the product may be complete coincidence. I really have no idea. This summer should be a great test as it is warm and wet here, puddles everywhere.
I’m getting ready to deploy a second set at a cabin in the woods. Mosquitoes have been awful there so far this year. So we see how it goes 130 miles from home.
As long as I put the eradicators out and we keep experiencing zero mosquito issues, I’ll continue to purchase them. Honestly cannot justify not purchasing them with our experience. If at some point down the wrong our experience changes, I’ll certainly report back.
Good luck! And if you are bored, please monitor the devices for the cloud of mosquitoes that Spartan Mosquito asserts will gather near the cap. By the way, are you buying Eradicators? There are two models on the market, and company is only making the Pro Tech. Here’s a summary of the differences.
Good info! I never paid attention to there being two models. In past years we’ve had the eradicator model in the yard but this year it is indeed the pro tech. I picked up a box of two eradicators this morning for our cabin with a manufacture date of 2018. We’ll see how that goes.
I suspect this is the last year that Eradicators will be generally available.
Just purchased and installed…Can this product be returned for refund?
Yes, the Pro Tech has a 30-day guarantee. The Eradicator has no guarantee.
I put them up at our camper that is in the woods and they worked great whatever that is in there that you say doesn’t work but yet it does.
Try putting out some empty tubes.
Well, they worked great for us once again last year, so I picked up 4 more at Home Depot and installed them this morning. We are already starting to get a few mosquitos this year. Im a little later getting them out this year.
Pro Techs, I assume?
I just placed two Pro Tech tubes away from our patio area. A few years back, I bought either the Eradicator or Pro Tech, but I cannot recall which one. I don’t remember a substantial improvement, but I’m desperate to find something. I have two small children and want them to enjoy being in the outdoors.
I’m not certain I’ll have a truly valid depiction of their efficacy, as I’m trying multiple interventions this summer. I’ve been intentional about setting about mosquito dunks/bits in four five-gallon buckets with water and leaves. I recently placed a bat box, however, we currently do not have a residing population yet. We have a Purple Martin house as well, but it still needs to be cleaned out. In addition, I’m cleaning out our gutters and collecting leaves from garden beds. There’s so much moisture under the leaves, so I imagine these have been exceptional breeding grounds for mosquitoes. I’ve also tried to put out more native plants, as I’ve heard this helps with native insect populations that will consume mosquitoes. Is there anything else you’d recommend?
The buckets with Mosquito Dunks will be the most effective, and I like your idea about the native plants encouraging a diversity of predators. I don’t think bats and purple martins would eat all that many mosquitoes, or at least that’s what I’ve read. As for additional measures you might buy or make some autocidal gravid ovitraps, devices that kill pregnant females (which the buckets of doom do not). But the biggest thing is to get your neighbors vigilant about stagnant water. Because in the end, it doesn’t matter how careful you are if your neighbors have hundreds of places that collect water.
Pingback: This Biologist Panned a “Mosquito Eradicator” Product. Its Maker Bit Back. ... from Mother Jones Brooke Borel - Tom Bettenhausen's
Pingback: This Biologist Panned a “Mosquito Eradicator” Product. Its Maker Bit Back. – Mother Jones
congratulations on winning your case!!
i just wanted to thank you for your yearslong commitment to doing the right thing. after i saw your tweet about your countersuit, i continued on to read the Undark piece about you. the final line just about broke my heart (“I’m mad that they sued me,” Purrington said. “But I’m just kind of disappointed at the rest of the world for not caring as much as I do.”).
your sentiment really resonated with me. i’m so angry, all the time, about how much injustice and cruelty there is in the world. but underneath that anger is hurt and confusion. i don’t understand how so many people simply do not care. or, even worse, actively hate those of us who do care. sometimes i feel so outnumbered and impotent that i don’t know how to go on.
so it really meant a lot to me to hear about your success. thank you for the reminder that we’re not alone or powerless- that with dogged persistence and collective action, we CAN improve things!
i’m glad you were legally vindicated!! i hope that there are systemic impacts. at the very least, i hope that all the politicians, businesspeople, and regulators think twice next time
Thank you so much for the encouraging note. I truly believe in making small contributions.
(whoopsie, i got so emotional that i forgot to mention that the link under point #4 of ‘Suggestions for state pesticide regulators’ appears to be broken!
the hyperlink on the text “expressly prohibit the use of any brand name that implies heightened efficacy.” points to ” product%20brand%20names%20involving%20heightened%20efficacy/ ” rather than a URL. you seem like such a thorough person that i figured you would want to know!)
Fixed, with thanks!