This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

ChemicalsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project ofWikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofchemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit theproject page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Veterinary medicineLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofVeterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. EnvironmentMid‑importance Thisenvironment-related article is part of theWikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of theenvironment. The aim is to writeneutral andwell-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properlycategorized. ReadWikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at theproject talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

The current wiki article states "In animals and humans, fipronil poisoning is characterized by vomiting, agitation, and seizures, and can usually be managed through supportive care and early treatment of seizures.[4] [5] This risk may be associated with the withdrawal of the MaxForce tick management product.[6]"

The last sentence about withdrawal of the tick management product points to an article that makes no such claim. The article merely states that the product was withdrawn because squirrels were opening the boxes in which the product was stored, potentially exposing "non-target wildlife and children." The article makes no claim about specific symptoms or seizures.—Precedingunsigned comment added bySwerling (talk •contribs)03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to the claim that "beneficial" insects like bees are unaffected by Fipronil, there is new evidence that bees are also affected; they are disoriented by the insecticide and are therefore less capable of finding food. This partly explains why bee populations around the world are in decline. Seehttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/bees-equiped-with-microchips-help-explain-hive-declines.php?campaign=th_rss—Precedingunsigned comment added byFabiennegoosens (talk •contribs)14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the claim. The original claim (now in back issues due to people with greenie agendas) was to the effect that Fipronil tainted carnivorous bait (for Yellow Jackets) did not affect bees, as bees are not carnivorous. It didNOT claim that Fipronil was non-toxic to bees.Cloudswrest (talk)00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In humans, fipronil poisoning is characterized by vomiting, agitation, and seizures, and can usually be managed through supportive care and early treatment of seizures.[2] This risk may be associated with the withdrawal of the MaxForce tick management product."

I can't see how the risk of generalised symptoms of fipronil poisoning should be associated with withdrawal of a proprietary product, and have removed the second sentence. Please let me know if/where my logic is wrong. In any even the paragraph seems to need rewriting.Davy p00:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxforce tick management system (TMS) was removed from general use in 2005 because there were reports of grey squirrels chewing into some Maxforce TMS boxes in areas of the Northeastern United States which compromised the integrity of the child resistant box. Due to this problem, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has removed the plastic TMS boxes from distribution and has asked that those already in use be covered with a protective metal shroud capable of preventing squirrel damage.Bugguyak15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I still don't quite see how this aspect follows from a description of the symptoms of poisoning. Shouldn't the two points (symptoms of poisoning + problems with squirrels) go in separate paragraphs or sections? The symptoms of fipronil poisoning won't be changed (even if the incidence might possibly be reducced) by the withdrawal of plastic TMS boxes.Davy p20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at top of article:"blocking the passage of chloride ions through the GABA receptor and glutamate receptor (GluCl), components of the central nervous system. This causes hyperexcitation of contaminated insects' nerves and muscles. Insect specificity of fipronil may come from a better efficacy on GABA receptor but also on the fact that GluCl does not exist in mammals.[1]"

and later, different author wrote:It acts by binding to an allosteric site of GABAA receptors and GluCl receptor (of the insect), a form of non-competitive inhibition.

too many cooks on Wikipedia, as usual—Precedingunsigned comment added by74.170.68.234 (talk)14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, mammals have glutamate receptors. See this if you want proof:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14561864 .72.192.216.234 (talk)17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true the we have glutamate receptors but the article mentions GluCl, a chloride ion specific glutamate receptor only found in invertebrates (i.e. insects, not mammals)http://www.jbc.org/content/281/21/14875.full.pdf+html—Precedingunsigned comment added byMikheaven (talk •contribs)07:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert this one timedata dump by a user. It contains lots of info, but with no citations to the references to verify. Also, it makes the page look like a total mess. -Shootbamboo (talk)14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged article this as contradicting itself due to two paragraphs:

"Unlike broadcast applications, this application does not expose beneficial insects such as honeybees to the pesticide."

"Fipronil is toxic to bees and should not be applied to vegetation when bees are foraging."

-70.233.148.177 (talk)03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced research paper lists carnivorous baits

A bait choice experiment was conducted before poisoned baits were placed. Salmon favored canned catfood (Whiskas, Kal Kan Foods, Vernon, CA) and raw minced beef were tested in the field. Most of previous studies have successfully used fish baits (e.g., Spurr 1991a, 1991b, 1993;Beggs et al. 1998) but observations at our study site suggested that raw minced beef would be more palatable to wasps than fish bait. At the two sites were poisoned baits were later placed six stations containing cat food and six stations with raw minced beef were placed 30 m apart and left out for an hour.

I have yet to see bees going after cat food. Target specific baits are the best way to avoid harming non-target insects. This is completely different from crop dusting (carpet bombing?) fields.213.239.234.58 (talk)14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bees have been tested in regards to Fipronil:http://www.springerlink.com/content/7fwkxvjcrhe40h7f/fulltext.pdfThe concentrations in this paper were sublethal (about 2 microgram/Litre) which implies that there is a lethal dose been reported out there. Even at this "low" concentration the bees showed a disturbance in foraging which I take it would not be good for the colony.

i.e.: :"Unlike broadcast applications, this application does not expose beneficial insects such as honeybees to the pesticide." is obviously and has been scientifically been proven wrong for both lethal and sublethal doses.—Precedingunsigned comment added byMikheaven (talk •contribs)07:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Fipronil is toxic to bees. It's an insecticide. The argument is that targeted baiting with bait stations does not expose bees to the insecticide. This is different from crop dusting. People claiming a "contradiction" and/or false statements are being disengenuous.Cloudswrest (talk)18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the Effects section needs citations.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTdimhcs (talk •contribs)21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the unsourced claims; more than enough time has been allowed for sources to be found.Just Chilling (talk)01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left atTalk:Fipronil/CommentsTalk:Fipronil/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Followingseveral discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC).Substituted at 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, may The section about The 2017 Fipronil egg contamination be splitted, so as to fit with interwikis likefr:scandale des œufs contaminés au fipronil? Sincerely,ChoumX (talk)10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. This has now been done.Just Chilling (talk)16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!ChoumX (talk)05:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

BASF aquired the patent for the active ingredient fipronil from Bayer in 2003. The patent for this active ingredient expired some years ago. Therefore, the active ingredient can be produced generically worldwide.Besides Fipronil-based products, several companies manufacture and sell the active ingredient fipronil, including BASF. More information on the expiration of patents in European countries can be found on the website of the European Patent Office at:https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP88305306&lng=en&tab=legal and a global overview athttps://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&NR=0295117B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20000405&DB=&locale=en_EP# --Nah67056 (talk)14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Patrick Schmidt-Kühnle, Corporate Communications BASF[reply]

Other namesFipronil

Why is Fipronil an "other" name?Jidanni (talk)00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links onFipronil. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20070714175808/http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm tohttp://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20170811130403/http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/danes-imported-20-tons-eggs-tainted-scandal-49152254 tohttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/danes-imported-20-tons-eggs-tainted-scandal-49152254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@Waddie96: Can you give a more specific quote for the change to "GABA_A receptor" inthis edit? I am unable to find where the source (Raymond-Delpech) says that.Invasive Spices (talk)17:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In literature, the GABA_A receptor is used to dictate that receptor's structure. And perWP:Consistency I implement this on all pages I copy-edit across the Wiki. I don't necessarily use a source to back that up. Since there are plentiful reliable other resources to rebuke its use in that way. TakeGABAA receptor as one, or this article published in "Structure of a human synaptic GABAA receptor" inNature^[1] or even "GABAA receptors" inNature^[2]. Any further queries please respond on this page –waddie96 ★ (talk)18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class chemicals articles
• Low-importance chemicals articles
• Start-Class Veterinary medicine articles
• Low-importance Veterinary medicine articles
• WikiProject Veterinary medicine articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles