Category Archives: Health

Some insects I found inside dried Turkish figs from Trader Joe’s

During an online wasp identification course I participated in several weeks ago, there was a fun discussion about whether commercially-produced figs contained fig wasps (Agaonidae, in the Chalcidoidea). Opinions varied, plus some asserted, as do many internet pages, that even if wasps were once inside the figs that ficain (an enzyme) would completely dissolve their bodies. So I purchased a bag of figs and had a look. I found a wasp in the very first fig, in approximately two seconds. And I found much more than that. Photographic details below.

Photograph of a fig being examined under a dissecting microscope

The wasp was small, like most wasps, so here’s a photograph with an arrow pointing out the position. It was wedged in between some of the involucral bracts just inside the ostiole (opening) of the syconium (the “fruit” that is actually an inverted infructescence). I’m not sure whether the wasp was going in or going out.

Photograph of an opened fig with an arrow showing the location of a dead wasp

Here’s a close-up of the wasp, or at least what’s left of it. The shape and positions of the legs seem to be a good match for Blastophaga psenes, the sole pollinator (I think) of Ficus carica. In particular, the middle femorae are much smaller than the front and hind femorae. And the head is wedge-shaped, another attribute of the family.

The species exists in Turkey and in many other places where figs are grown. E.g., it’s in California because it was deliberately introduced there in 1899. This means, of course, that figs grown in California may have wasps in them, too. I’m just the messenger.

Photograph of a dead fig wasp inside a fig

Below is the dorsal side showing (I think) the quadrate scutellum, another family characteristic. The antennae appear to be folded medially into a streamlined position that I assume is useful for navigating the bract maze. I have more pics on iNaturalist.

Photograph showing the dorsal side of a fig wasp

In a different fig, I found two more wasps of a second species. I don’t have a high confidence in my identification but I think they might be Habrobracon hebetor (Braconidae). This species is a regular inside stored figs because it parasitizes caterpillars that eat dried fruit. This wasp, I’m guessing, oviposited into caterpillar-infested figs after they arrived in California (where Trader Joe’s presumably has a warehouse). I don’t know whether the species occurs in Turkey. I have more pics on iNaturalist.

Photograph of tiny dead wasp next to orange frass

Below is a caterpillar in the same fig as the wasp above. Caterpillars were present in several other figs, too, and they were often accompanied by fungal growth. I don’t have an identification guess but if you recognize it please visit my iNaturalist observation.

Photograph of a dead, shriveled caterpillar

I’m not sure whether it’s a different species, but the cocoons below seem to be lepidopterans, too. Here is the iNaturalist link.

Photograph of two caterpillars inside silk cocoons

Here’s the final type of lepidopteran I found, a pupa. Again, I’m not sure what family it might be in. Here’s the iNaturalist listing. The photograph also shows a good quantity of frass, something I found in many of the figs even when I couldn’t locate a caterpillar. The dark color on the left is from fungal growth.

Photograph of a moth pupa next to fig achenes and black frass

The final insect that turned up is a beetle, which I think might be Carpophilus hemipterus, a species native to Asia but now pretty much everywhere. It’s definitely in California. Here’s my iNaturalist observation if you’d like to weigh in on the identification.

Photograph of black and yellow beetle inside a fig

I’d like to point out that insects are extremely common in stored food so the above doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me. And the figs were clearly labelled “organic”, a term that to me greatly boosts the likelihood that there are organisms inside. Unless you have an allergy to chitin or some other insect component (it happens), inadvertent consumption of arthropods isn’t going to harm you.

What did surprise me was how common fungal growth was in this bag of figs. Below is a photograph of what the fungus usually looked like. Not sure what it is (Aspergillus niger?). Some of them were mildly lit up by 356nm UV light, by the way. I think that’s a bad sign.

Photograph of fungal growth next to achenes inside a fig

But a little research turned up what might be the obvious explanation: wasps that manage to crawl into figs via ostiole can be covered with fungal spores in the same way that they are often covered with pollen (that’s the whole point of fig wasps). Indeed, some fig farmers regularly spray anti-fungals onto figs before the females emerge to prevent them from picking up spores and transmitting them to the next fig. Without such treatment (i.e., at organic farms), it’s not rare to find smuts (Aspergillus spp.), endosepsis (Fusarium spp.), and Alternaria rot. Aside from potentially changing the taste of dried figs, I guess there’s a chance you could get a dose of aflatoxins. There’s research on the issue, even articles on the risk from dried Turkish figs.

When fresh figs start to arrive from California I might sacrifice some for a similar investigation. I’d love to find a fig wasp in better condition so I can photograph it. They are bizarre. But per several sources, many (most?) of the figs in California are produced by plants that don’t need fertilization, so finding one might be a challenge. Still, because fig wasps are naturalized in California, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d still show up inside those varieties. As a demonstration that wasps are alive and well in California, you can order wasp-laden figs online at FigBid.com (e.g., this listing). Note that you don’t order such figs for eating. They are for placing near your crop of figs so that they can get pollinated. Some of the most delicious varieties of figs need such pollination. And some of the varieties that don’t need figs still develop much tastier fruit when they are pollinated by wasps.

Here’s what the California Fig Advisory Board has to say,

“https://californiafigs.com/faq/#:~:text=I%E2%80%99ve%20heard%20that%20there%20are%20wasps%20in%20figs.%20Is%20this%20true%3F

Next on my to-do list is to find the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei).

Resources

Spartan Mosquito’s efficacy data revealed

Below are some PDFs that Spartan Mosquito of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, shared with state pesticide officials and the Environmental Protection Agency to get registrations for its two products, the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator and the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech (EPA #93813-1). I am sharing the files here so that regulatory officials who have not seen the data can better evaluate whether the company’s claims are supported. Additionally, I am hoping that mosquito biologists might read the documents and leave comments on whether the experimental protocols are scientifically sound. To facilitate these goals I’ve listed some draft notes under each file.

The efficacy claims made by Spartan Mosquito

The Spartan Mosquito Eradicator (ingredients: sugar, yeast, and sodium chloride) is advertised to eliminate up to 95% of mosquitoes for up to 90 days. The Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech (ingredients: sugar, yeast, boric acid), registered by the EPA in 2020, is advertised to “kill mosquitoes” for up to 30 days. The company also claims that both of the devices are so attractive to mosquitoes that they will “gather” around the tubes, crawl through small holes (11/64″, 4.4 mm) in the caps, then ingest the fluid inside.

Spartan Mosquito Eradicator efficacy graph
Graph on box of Spartan Mosquito Eradicators showing percentage of mosquito population eliminated over time. It is unclear whether actual data are represented.

Spartan Mosquito Eradicator field efficacy data

The PDF below contains mosquito count data (number landing on forearm in 1-min interval) at two locations (New Augusta and Hattiesburg) in Mississippi during 2016. These data were sent to states that required efficacy data prior to the registration of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator.

Notes about the above file:

  1. “Control” sites did not have tubes filled with water, sugar, and yeast and thus were not true controls.
  2. In at least one of the two studies the “test” area was situated at a residence while the “control” area was set up in a wooded area. That could bias the results. Here are details:
  3. All data collection, analysis, and writing was done by Jeremy Hirsch, a co-founder of Spartan Mosquito, so potential conflict of interest (COI).
  4. The regulatory consultant, Micah T. Reynolds (Technology Sciences Group, Inc.), states in the document, “This study was not conducted in full compliance with Good Laboratory Practices as outlined in 40 CFR 160.”

Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech data

The subheadings below all relate to the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, the version that contains sugar, yeast, boric acid. The PDFs contain efficacy data from mosquitoes inside cages, efficacy data from field trials, and a document (a “bridging rationale”) that argues Anopheles mosquitoes will be killed by the tubes as well.

Laboratory efficacy

This PDF describes mortality experiments using mosquitoes inside cages.

Notes about the above file:

  1. According to the procedure described, the tubes with boric acid seem to lack the yeast that is present in the version on the market.
  2. It is unclear whether the “control” tubes (sugar water only) had caps (like the “test” tubes did). If they did not they cannot be viewed as controls.
  3. There was no replication.
  4. Michael S. Bonner is the father of Chris Bonner, the Vice-President of Spartan Mosquito (potential COI).
  5. Bonner Analytical Testing Company is where Chris Bonner works (potential COI).
  6. There is no mention of who collected the data and whether they were qualified or employed by Spartan Mosquito (potential COI).
  7. The regulatory consultant, Micah T. Reynolds (Technology Sciences Group, Inc.), states in the document, “This study was not conducted in full compliance with Good Laboratory Practices as outlined in 40 CFR 160.”

The PDF below contains additional mortality experiments using mosquitoes inside aquariums and BugDorms.

Notes about the above file:

  1. There’s no mention of yeast being used in either test or control tubes so the conclusions would not apply to the commercial version that includes sugar, boric acid, and yeast.
  2. Control tubes lack caps so they cannot be viewed as acceptable controls.
  3. Michael S. Bonner is the father of Spartan Mosquito’s Vice President (potential COI).
  4. Chris Bonner works at Bonner Analytical Testing Company (potential COI).
  5. There is no mention of who collected the data and whether they were qualified or employed by Spartan Mosquito (potential COI).
  6. The regulatory consultant, Micah T. Reynolds (Technology Sciences Group, Inc.), states in the document, “This study was not conducted in full compliance with Good Laboratory Practices as outlined in 40 CFR 160.”

Field efficacy

This file includes mosquito count data collected at four test locations (and controls) in Mississippi using CDC Light Traps baited with Spartan Mosquito tubes filled with sugar, yeast, and water (for CO2 production, apparently). The PDF also contains information on the company’s standard operating procedures for field trials.

Notes about the above file:

  1. It is unclear whether control control tubes were used at control sites and also what ingredients they contained.
  2. In the Standard Operating Procedures, mosquito counts were determined using a CDC Light Trap equipped with a Spartan Mosquito tube as source of carbon dioxide. This is unusual. Most mosquito biologists would use dry ice or compressed CO2. Per the Office of the Indiana State Chemist, Jeremy Hirsch said that the Spartan Mosquito tubes do not generate enough CO2 to attract mosquitoes.
  3. The selection of sites to use for “test” and “control” treatments does not appear to be random. In general, it appears that control sites were situated in wooded areas and the test sites in residential areas. These decisions might influence whether sites were sprayed during town and county mosquito-abatement activities. Sites might also differ in mosquito density and species composition. The location details are presented below:
    • In project BA041317, test site 1 is at edge of plowed field and near paved road, test site 2 (28 Country Rd) is at a home, and the control is in woods near a pond.
    • In project BA071917, the test site was at 33 Franklin Place, a home in suburban development (across the street from Maxwell Bonner, relative of Michael and Chris Bonner and also employed by Bonner Analytical Testing Company). The control site was situated at the edge of a cemetery near a wooded area, far from the road. I.e., non-random site choice.
    • In project BA072017, test site was 2711 Oak Grove Road, a residence next to Bonner Analytical Testing Company, on a busy road. It was/is owned by the Bonners. The control site was the same as in above (cemetery near woods). I.e., non-random site choice.
    • In project BT0813018-03, test site given as 207 LaSalle Court but no such address exists. The true location is likely 307 LaSalle Court, a home owned by a J. Tatum, a relative of Josephine Tatum Hood-Hirsch (Spartan Mosquito’s treasurer and wife of Jeremy Hirsch). The control site was situated in “vacant wooded parcel“. I.e., non-random site choice.
  4. Studies were conducted by Jeremy Hirsch (then the President of Spartan Mosquito), Chris Bonner (Vice President), or Michael S. Bonner. I believe they collected data alone. Potential COIs.
  5. The regulatory consultant, Micah T. Reynolds (Technology Sciences Group, Inc.), states in the document, “This study was not conducted in full compliance with Good Laboratory Practices as outlined in 40 CFR 160.”

Notes about the above file:

  1. If Standard Operating Procedures were followed to obtain counts, company used Spartan Mosquito tubes to generate carbon dioxide for the CDC Light Traps. There is no evidence that Spartan Mosquito’s tubes generate sufficient CO2 to attract mosquitoes.
  2. Jeremy Hirsch and Chris Bonner are co-founders (potential COI), and Michael S. Bonner is the father of Chris Bonner (potential COI).
  3. There is no mention of who collected the data and whether they were qualified or employed by Spartan Mosquito.
  4. The regulatory consultant, Micah T. Reynolds (Technology Sciences Group, Inc.), states in the document, “This study was not conducted in full compliance with Good Laboratory Practices as outlined in 40 CFR 160.”

Literature on attractive toxic sugar baits

The PDF below is a summary of select scientific articles that Spartan Mosquito believes are supportive of the ability of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech to kill mosquitoes. In particular, the document argues that Anopheles species would be susceptible to attractive toxic sugar baits that contain boric acid.

Notes about the above file:

  1. The literature appended in the original document can be downloaded in this PDF (56MB).
  2. In the “Product Background” (page 5), it is stated that the inert ingredients (plural) attract the mosquitoes. There is literature cited that supports sugar being an attractant, but not yeast (the other inactive ingredient). Yeast is not mentioned anywhere in the document, including in all the appended scientific articles.
  3. The “Product Background” states that cap has openings that allow mosquitoes to enter but there is no cited literature on how many mosquitoes will enter holes that size when they are in search of sugar and/or yeast. Document does not mention the grid size of the Westham ATSB registered by the EPA (Micah T. Reynolds was involved in that product’s registration, too).
  4. “Carbon dioxide” appears 27 times and “CO2” appears 35 times in the appended articles but is not mentioned in the text of “bridging rational” authored by the regulatory consultant. It is unclear why the articles on carbon dioxide are appended. Perhaps to imply that the tubes emit sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide to entice mosquitoes inside?
  5. There is no literature cited that relates to whether mosquitoes enter small holes that are emitting carbon dioxide. There are several articles on holes in mosquito netting that could have been cited but they do not deal with holes this small.
  6. There is no literature presented that discuss whether Anopheles mosquitoes respond to sugar, yeast, and carbon dioxide differently than Aedes and Culex.
  7. There is no literature presented that discusses whether Anopheles will enter small holes.

Third party efficacy data

In addition to the in-house data, Spartan Mosquito also payed scientists to evaluate the tubes in their respective research laboratories at universities. It’s my understanding that these data showed the tubes were not effective, but I haven’t been able to see the data and I don’t know which versions (the Eradicator or the Pro Tech) were tested. I suspect the data have not been seen by state and federal pesticide regulators. I’ve been told that the scientists were required to sign non-disclosure agreements so the data will likely only be released if a criminal investigation somehow removes the NDAs.

There are, however, two peer-reviewed journal articles that directly relate to Spartan Mosquito’s tubes. The first (Aryaprema et al. 2020) was a direct test of Spartan Mosquito Eradicators worked (they did not) and the second (Yee et al. 2020) evaluated whether ingestion of salt water kills adult mosquitoes (it does not).

The only third-party test of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech was one that I conducted. There have been no peer-reviewed studies, however.

Who regulates the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator?

Because the scientific publications above reveal that the efficacy claims for the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator are false and misleading, the device does not qualify for exemption under FIFRA 25(b), the category that includes pesticides with “low risk” active ingredients such as table salt. Therefore, the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator cannot legally be sold unless it gets a registration from the EPA. Some states have already denied registrations for this very reason, but the majority seem to be allowing the illegal sales to continue. As just one example, Florida still allows sales even though state law prohibits any false or misleading claims to be made on pesticide packaging, plus prohibits sale of pesticides that have been shown under laboratory conditions to be ineffective. The latter legislation is particularly relevant given that the laboratory publishing the journal article above (Aryaprema et al. 2020) is based in Florida.

The EPA, similarly, seems to be allowing sales of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator to continue even though the device does not have an EPA registration number. I’m not aware of other pesticides that have enjoyed immunity from both state and federal regulatory authority. It will be interesting to see how long this immunity lasts.

For more information, please see my other posts about Spartan Mosquito.