Long-awaited review of devastating SGAR poisons fails to address crucial issues according to conservationists

A long-awaited review of rat poisons has been labelled a “joke” by conservationists who claim it does nothing to address the secondary poisoning of native wildlife. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority released proposed changes to Australia’s anticoagulant rodenticide use, calling for a temporary ban to update packaging as well as restricting its use in some instances. The review includes second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, which new research revealed has a lethal impact on native animals. The draft recommendations come after five years of consideration and call for manufacturers to advise users to dispose of dead rats as well as disclosing their risk to native animals. The draft also calls to limit the size of bait packets bought over the shelf. Owl Friendly Margaret River co-ordinator Boyd Wykes said APVMA was doing everything it could without doing anything — calling the proposal “laughable”. Dr Wykes said the decision to push the responsibility to consumers did nothing to address the risk SGAR poisons posed. “These poisons persist and they go up the food chain — they may kill in one dose, but the animals still take a week to die,” he said. “In that time the animal is seeking water, so these SGARs are getting out into the environment no matter where you put the bait. “The only way to address this is to not have these second-generation anticoagulants out there being used.” Fellow owl advocate Mike Lohr — whose PhD researched the impact of SGARs on southern boobook owls — said he did not believe the proposed changes would have an impact on native animals being exposed. “They’re at risk from eating animals that have been poisoned already, so rats and mice and various other things leaving the boxes,” he said. “All of the quoll species, plus Tasmanian devils were found to have been exposed, with most of them having at least some individuals with lethal levels of exposure, which is really concerning for a threatened species that’s already under a lot of pressure,” he said. Birdlife Australia’s Dr Holly Parsons said the APVMA’s decision does not go far enough. “It’s unclear how the proposed (temporary) suspension will play out in practical terms, but what is clear is that as long as these items are on the shelves, wildlife will continue to die unnecessarily,” she said. “Despite overwhelming evidence provided in support of the complete removal of SGARs from public sale, we’re yet to see proposed restrictions that come close to achieving this. “Consumers should be able to walk into stores under the assumption that the products available to them aren’t going to inadvertently kill native animals. “In their decision, the APVMA puts the responsibility onto the consumer with an expectation that labels are fully read and followed — and we know that won’t be the case. “We’re not surprised that the APVMA have found the risk to be unacceptable, but we are surprised and disappointed that they haven’t yet taken the next obvious steps that will actually protect wildlife.” With the review now published, the public has the opportunity to comment on the APVMA proposal, though Dr Boyd and Dr Lohr said they were not optimistic about the outcome. Public consultation on the proposal is open until March 16, 2026.