Tag Archives: Attractive Toxic Sugar Bait

Snippet of a letter from Spartan Mosquito's Chris Spence to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt

Spartan Mosquito’s letter to the EPA asking for a testing waiver

Leave a reply

In a prior post I detailed Spartan Mosquito’s secret efforts to secure an EPA registration for the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, a plastic tube filled with sugar, yeast, boric acid, and water that the company claims, “kills mosquitoes.” Below is an early part of that successful campaign, a letter sent by Spartan Mosquito’s Chris Spence (CFO/CEO) to EPA’s then-administrator, Scott Pruitt, in April of 2018. In it, the company asks to bypass the normal pesticide-approval process. In particular, it didn’t want to have to prove that the pesticide killed mosquitoes. I obtained the letter through a FOIA request.

Letter from Chris Spence of Spartan Mosquito to Scott Pruitt of the EPA asking for a waiver from pesticide testing requirements. Page 1 of 2.
Letter from Chris Spence of Spartan Mosquito to Scott Pruitt of the EPA asking for a waiver from pesticide testing requirements. Page 2 of 2.

Notes and additional files

Given the style of writing and word choice, I’m 99% sure the letter was written by Spartan Mosquito’s Jeremy Hirsch, one of the company’s cofounders and current chairman of the board.

I have asked the EPA for Mr. Trump’s letter (“Exhibit A”) but they have refused to give it to me.

Here is “Exhibit B” referenced in the letter. It’s a graphic that shows the boric acid concentration of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech relative to other objects such as Silly Putty.

Here is “Exhibit C” referenced in the letter. It’s a collection of facts pulled from papers on toxicity of boric acid to mosquitoes. NB: the toxicity of boric acid to insects is well known, but Spartan Mosquito likes to focus on the ingredient to distract from the real issue of whether mosquitoes would go inside the tubes and drink the fluid that has the boric acid. Research (by me) shows that mosquitoes do not.

Mr. Spence sent a similar letter to Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who sits on several important committees that regularly touch on the EPA. The ask in that letter, dated April 24, 2018, was for Hyde-Smith to get Pruitt to agree to a meeting. Spartan Mosquito employees gave at least $8,100 to her 24 hours later, on April 25, 2018.

Mr. Spence left Spartan Mosquito in November of 2023 and deleted all references to his affiliation with the company from his LinkedIn profile after three years as CEO. I don’t think people normally erase their CEO positions. Journalists should definitely give him a ring.

If you’d like to see the data that Spartan Mosquito eventually submitted to the EPA on July 29, 2019, see this page. In particular, look at the file named “Spartan Mosquito Eradicator Pro Tech EPA Reg. No. 93813-R Field Efficacy Evaluation Against Mosquitoes” (PDF). In this document, Spartan Mosquito summarizes four “experiments” conducted at various locations in Mississippi by Jeremy Hirsch, Chris Bonner, or Michael Bonner.

To the best of my knowledge, California is the only state to request the efficacy data for the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech from the company. After reviewing the files the state banned all sales of the pesticide product.

Spartan Mosquito says it is has had meetings with multiple countries interested in hosting production facilities for the tubes. It is testing the tubes in Togo and plans to sell in areas with high rates of malaria.

Further evidence of the special consideration the EPA granted Spartan Mosquito is the letter below, sent by Jeremy Hirsch (Spartan Mosquito’s founder and chairman) to Andrew Wheeler (EPA Administrator) on 11 November 2020, almost eight months after the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech obtained a registration:

The letter references a meeting Mr. Hirsch had with with EPA staff, likely including Susan Bodine (then Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance) and Alexandra Dunn (then Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention). The obsequious tone of the letter suggests that Spartan Mosquito had been in trouble for some reason. Because the EPA still allows sales of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech I assume the meeting diffused whatever concerns the EPA had uncovered. I obtained the letter via a FOIA request. The EPA will not give me any information on what the problem was.

That said, I do know that the pesticide-approval staff at the EPA met in September of 2020 to discuss the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech after I shared my concerns about the quality and trustworthiness of the data. Erik Kraft (Branch Chief, Regulatory Management and Science Branch) sent an email to me after the meeting: “I’ve discussed your email about the performance of the product with my senior staff and we’ve determined to not take any further action…” It could be the case that the letter from Mr. Hirsch, above, is related somehow to the concerns that I shared. All of my concerns are listed in my review and in my analysis of the Spartan Mosquito’s efficacy tests. In summary, I am sure that Spartan Mosquito misled the EPA. And I’m pretty sure that the EPA now knows it was misled.

The other explanation for the meeting might have been that the EPA became concerned about the claims the company was making about efficacy on its website and Facebook page. Although “kills mosquitoes” was permitted, the EPA eventually asked, in February of 2021, for the addition of qualifying language to the label: “Product has not demonstrated complete kill of mosquito populations.” I don’t know what prompted that letter, but the meeting in November of the previous year could have been related. Spartan Mosquito has not made the requested change.

Why is the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech still on the market?

The EPA can issue a “stop sale” order on a registered pesticide if it learns that the pesticide violates any provision of FIFRA (i.e., is “misbranded”). Here’s EPA’s language: “As defined in FIFRA Section 2(q)(1)(A) a pesticide is misbranded if its labeling bears any statement, design or graphic representation which is false or misleading.” Accordingly, the EPA could simply say, “the label falsely claims that mosquitoes gather around the tubes.” Similarly, the company’s patent highlights the role of CO2 in attracting mosquitoes, so listing the yeast and sugar as “inactive” ingredients is deceptive. Finally, the EPA could object to the “kills mosquitoes” claim because the tubes clearly do not kill mosquitoes (because they don’t attract them in the first place). In regard to the latter, the EPA might act on the misleading data the company submitted. I’m assuming somebody powerful is holding the EPA back from issuing a stop-sale order, or that the EPA is embarrassed to admit it erred in granting a registration (probably more likely). Only media exposure will change this strategy.

For more information, please see my 14 other posts on Spartan Mosquito.

Boxes of Spartan Mosquito Eradicators and Spartan Mosquito Pro Techs.

Spartan Mosquito settles class-action fraud suit for $3.6 million

15 Replies

This week, details of the settlement in the class-action lawsuit against Spartan Mosquito (Hattiesburg, Mississippi) were revealed. The lawsuit accused Spartan Mosquito of falsely advertising that the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator (yeast, sugar, table salt) and the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech (yeast, sugar, boric acid) attract and kill mosquitoes, and that the company did so with the full knowledge that such claims were false.

Components of the settlement

  1. Spartan Mosquito will pay approximately $3,600,000.
  2. People who purchased either of the products between December 21, 2016 and August 2, 2023 can submit claims for compensation.
  3. Spartan Mosquito will no longer make or sell the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator.
  4. Spartan Mosquito will conduct efficacy tests on the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech for 18 months, and if testing reveals lack of efficacy the company will change the formulation or cease sales.

Here is the full text of the two non-monetary provisions (bolding mine):

  1. “12.1. As of the Final Effective Date, Defendant will no longer manufacture or sell the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator. However, the Parties acknowledge that some third-party wholesalers, distributors, or retailers outside of Defendant’s control who previously purchased the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator for resale may continue to list the product for sale, and such sales will not be attributed to Defendant for the purposes of this Section 12.1. This Court shall have continuing jurisdiction if a dispute arises between Class Counsel and Defendant concerning Section 12.1.”
  2. “12.2. During the 18-month period following the Final Effective Date, to the extent not already performed, Defendant will conduct research regarding the efficacy of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech. Following the 18-month period, to the extent such testing shows a lack of efficacy for the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, Defendant will either update the formulation or cease sales of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech. This Court shall have continuing jurisdiction if a dispute arises between Class Counsel and Defendant concerning Section 12.2.”

The first part is uninteresting because the company stopped producing and selling the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator in 2020. It made this decision presumably because approximately 18 states had banned sales and more are likely to do that in the future. More importantly, the company decided to advertise that the new version (Pro Tech) needed to replaced every 30 days (instead of every 90 days) and that twice the number of tubes were needed per acre. I.e., the new tube would generate much more profit.

The second part is concerning. Although it says that if the company can’t show efficacy of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech by early 2025 then it must stop sales, the wording suggests that the company will be allowed to conduct its own efficacy testing. The wording also appears to allow Spartan Mosquito to assert that it already has such data. Such wording virtually guarantees that the company will be allowed to continue making and selling its tubes even though they do not attract or kill mosquitoes. I.e., examination of the company’s testing data (which I obtained via public records requests) shows that Spartan Mosquito does not have any field testing that shows (1) mosquitoes are attracted to the Pro Tech, that (2) mosquitoes drink the fluid inside the tubes, or that (3) the numbers of mosquitoes are reduced in a given area. The testing documents (which include details on experimental design) also show that Spartan Mosquito doesn’t currently employ personnel who have the requisite qualifications to run field trials or even basic laboratory experiments. Indeed, all of their tests are so poorly done that they were labelled, “not conducted in full compliance with Good Laboratory Practices” (an EPA term).

The second part also says that if efficacy cannot be shown, that Spartan Mosquito must “update the formulation.” Under this scenario, the company would need to submit an entirely new registration application to the EPA, complete with new efficacy tests. I think the EPA would be extremely unlikely to ever grant another registration to this company. I suspect the company knows this, which will motivate them to claim, despite evidence to the contrary, that the current formulation has efficacy.

Both parts contain an interesting phrase, however: “This Court shall have continuing jurisdiction if a dispute arises between Class Counsel and Defendant.” Optimistically, I take that to mean that if Spartan Mosquito sells the Pro Tech without ever sharing convincing evidence of efficacy, the presiding judge, the Honorable Katherine Levine, may intervene in whatever way she sees fit. Attorneys on both sides signed off on that binding language so it will be very interesting to see how this goes down. I will make sure she’s kept up to date.

Why did Spartan Mosquito settle?

Aside from avoiding paying the full $5 million asked for in the original charge, Spartan Mosquito was likely concerned, or should have been, that the evidence that would be revealed during a trial would be used by attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has apparently been collecting information on the company. In particular, the EPA can ask for prison terms for any individuals who knowingly mislead the government about pesticide efficacy. The co-founders, Jeremy Hirsch and Chris Bonner, could have been advised by their attorneys that they had some exposure in that regard. For example, if both of them have known for years that the tubes don’t produce enough carbon dioxide to attract mosquitoes, then asserting to federal regulators that the tubes attract mosquitoes would be a knowingly false claim. And that appears to be what they did.

More information

Please see my previous posts about Spartan Mosquito, or email me.