Pest control guides

When the poison is part of the problem

Anticoagulant rodenticides are the best-known form of rat and mouse control, but some UK rodents carry genes that reduce their effect. This article summarises the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU) UK “Resistance Report 2025”, posted on its Think Wildlife website on 18 February 2026 and covering samples from August 2024 to July 2025, together with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) page on rodenticides. The report is UK-wide and describes findings in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. The HSE page covers Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which are regulated under different biocidal rules.

Who produces the data and why

CRRU coordinates the UK Rodenticide Stewardship Regime. The report says HSE and the Government Oversight Group require CRRU to provide information on anticoagulant resistance in Norway rats and house mice each year. The data come from DNA sequencing of tissue samples, mainly submitted by professional pest control technicians and by people controlling rodents on agricultural holdings. In 2024 to 2025, sequencing was done for the first time by Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA). The results are shared with the Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee, which publishes interactive online maps.

What the 2024 to 2025 samples showed

The report records 140 rodent samples: 127 Norway rat and 13 mouse samples. After quality checks, 122 rat samples were viable, and only four house mouse samples could be sequenced. Because of a separate SASA collection, the sample was heavily weighted towards Scotland, which earlier reports had under-sampled.

• The most frequent mutation was L128Q, found in 93 rats, including hybrid-resistant animals. Of rats carrying only that mutation, 75 were homozygous and 11 heterozygous, which the report describes as indicative of a long-established and embedded resistance focus.
• Seven rats carried L128Q together with Y139C, described as hybrid resistance, all from the south of Scotland and Northumberland.
• Other mutations were Y139C in 15 rats (including those seven), L120Q in three and Y139F in two. Two of the L120Q rats came from the known focus in Hampshire, and the Y139F rats from Kent.
• Sixteen rats carried the susceptible genome: 12 in Scotland, three in England and one in Northern Ireland.
• All four viable house mouse samples were resistant.

The longer record, and its limits

Across all sequencing since 2009, the report says 753 Norway rat and 144 house mouse samples were successfully sequenced, and 75.1% of the rats and 94.4% of the mice carried one or more mutations known to significantly affect anticoagulant efficacy. The report cautions that these figures may not reflect true frequency, because samples are often sent by people who are having difficulty controlling infestations with anticoagulants. It also states that sample numbers fell short of a target of 100 in the period and that the new data added little to understanding in England and Wales, where few samples were received. The percentages therefore describe the sample, not every rat or mouse in the UK.

Why the type of mutation matters

According to the report, L128Q confers a relatively low level of resistance, and the UK Rodenticide Resistance Action Group states that all five authorised second-generation anticoagulants may be expected to be effective against it. By contrast, the report describes Y139C as a more severe mutation against which bromadiolone and difenacoum are not recommended. For hybrid-resistant rats the authors say there is no definitive information from laboratory or field on how well anticoagulants work, and suggest it may be prudent to use only the most potent anticoagulants and non-anticoagulant substances against them.

The history also carries a Scottish dimension: the report records that the first anticoagulant resistance was found in a rat on a west of Scotland farm in 1958, and that a resistance focus was later shown across much of the Central Belt.

Why continued use against resistant rodents is discouraged

The report lists three adverse consequences of continuing to use anticoagulants against resistant populations. Treated infestations are removed more slowly, with consequent risks to human and animal health. Resistance spreads and increases in severity when susceptible rodents are removed but resistant ones remain. And resistant rodents survive for long periods after unsuccessful treatments carrying persistent anticoagulant residues, so predators and scavengers that eat them may be exposed.

What HSE says about limiting resistance

HSE lists good hygiene, physical barriers, traps and biocidal products as options, and says that anticoagulants present a higher risk to people and non-target animals than is normally acceptable for authorisation, so other methods should be considered before reaching for them. Its two main strategies against resistance are minimising the use of biocidal products where possible and keeping a variety of products with different modes of action available. It adds that products for the general public may be restricted by the amount of active substance, where they can be used and the maximum pack size. The wider rules on public and professional access are covered in Rodenticide Rules: Why Professional Rat Poison Access Differs From What You Can Buy.

What a householder can reasonably ask

The report says pest controllers can check how close a site is to a known resistance focus using the published maps, and that knowing the type of resistance shows which active substances are most effective. A householder cannot assess that, but can ask a contractor about the approach: which methods are proposed, whether proofing and non-chemical options come first, and how the contractor decides on the product. The steps in Integrated Pest Management: What the BPCA’s Recommended Approach Actually Involves cover the same ground.

The bottom line

The CRRU 2025 report documents resistance to anticoagulant rodenticides as a UK-wide feature of rat and mouse samples, prevalent in Scotland and parts of England, and HSE’s guidance stresses limiting anticoagulant use and keeping other methods available. The percentages in the report come from samples often sent in because control was difficult, and few samples came from England and Wales in the latest year, so they should not be read as national prevalence. Sensible control combines hygiene, proofing, traps and carefully chosen products applied by someone who knows the local resistance picture.

Sources

• Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use UK, “CRRU Resistance Report 2025” (Think Wildlife, posted 18 February 2026) (thinkwildlife.org)
• Health and Safety Executive, “Rodenticides” (hse.gov.uk)

A common call that is not really pest control

Pigeons and gulls that die on roofs and in gardens, or a blackbird found on a lawn, often lead to a call to a pest controller. The official guidance handles dead wild birds through disease reporting and waste rules. This article summarises GOV.UK pages on reporting dead wild birds (last updated 17 May 2024) and on removing and disposing of them (published 13 December 2022 and marked as applying to England), together with the Scottish Government page on dead or sick wild birds. The GOV.UK reporting service applies to England, Scotland and Wales; the removal guidance is for England, and Scotland and Wales have their own pages. Northern Ireland has separate guidance that is not covered here.

Do not touch a dead bird

GOV.UK says not to touch dead wild birds and to wash hands thoroughly with soap and water after touching any dead birds, droppings, feathers or material that has touched the dead bird. The Scottish Government gives the same core advice: do not touch or pick up dead or visibly sick birds, because wild birds can carry several diseases that are infectious to people.

What to report, and how

GOV.UK offers an online service and a telephone line, 03459 33 55 77, to report dead wild birds. The service asks where the birds were found, what type, how many and the reporter’s contact details, and it says reports help to show how diseases are spreading. Reported birds may be collected and tested for bird flu or another cause of death, but not all dead wild birds are collected.

The Scottish Government page says that in Scotland a report should be made where a single dead bird of prey, swan, goose, duck, gull or blackbird is found, or five or more dead wild birds of any other species. The telephone line is the route for anyone who does not want to give contact details, and callers must be 18 or over. The GOV.UK page notes that the type and number of birds to report was updated on 15 February 2023, so the current form is the place to check what applies.

Who removes the bird

According to the England guidance, a bird on public land is a matter for the local authority, and a bird on private land or a managed estate is a matter for the landowner or land manager. Local authorities, landowners and land managers must remove dead wild birds if they are a risk to human health. They should also consider removal if the birds are on residential premises, in an area used by children or pets, on a public right of way, in an area where wild birds regularly feed, breed or roost, or where animals are likely to scavenge them. They must cover the costs, and they can use specialist waste contractors. Birds suspected of carrying disease such as bird flu, or found where bird flu has been confirmed, must be disposed of as a category 1 animal by-product.

Disposing of a few dead garden birds

For small numbers of dead garden birds at a domestic home in England, the guidance allows disposal in household or municipal waste or by burial, and it invites reports to Garden Wildlife Health. For household waste, the steps are:

• Pick the bird up wearing disposable gloves or a plastic bag over the hand.
• Put it in a plastic bag and tie it, ensuring the bird does not touch the outside of the bag.
• Place that bag in a second, preferably leak-proof, bag with the gloves or bag used, and tie it.
• Put it in the outside household waste bin, then wash hands thoroughly.

For burial, the guidance says to dig a hole at least 60 centimetres deep, not bury the bird in a plastic bag, and keep clear of watercourses and places that could contaminate water supplies. The Scottish page gives similar bagging and burial advice for dead wild birds found on private property, but recommends leaving a dead bird where it lies if possible.

Large numbers of birds

The England guidance says large numbers of dead wild birds at a home should be reported because bird flu is more likely when many birds die in the same area. If they are not collected within four days and removal is wanted, a specialist waste contractor can be asked, and the local authority may be able to help.

Suspected poisoning or wildlife crime

The GOV.UK reporting page says that if the birds are suspected to have died from wildlife crime they must be reported to the police, and that suspected poisoning from pesticides or rodenticides should be reported to the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme on 0800 321 600. Rules on who may use rat poison are set out in Rodenticide Rules: Why Professional Rat Poison Access Differs From What You Can Buy. Roosting birds on buildings are dealt with in Pigeons on Buildings: Lawful Proofing and Specialist Cleaning Questions, and a related bird-flu matter for poultry keepers appears in Keeping Chickens and Controlling Rats: What Government Bird Flu Guidance and HSE Say in England.

The bottom line

Dead wild birds are not to be handled with bare hands. Reporting goes through the GOV.UK service or the 03459 33 55 77 helpline, and Scotland’s Government lists which birds to report. Responsibility for removal depends on the land: local authorities for public land and owners or managers for private land, with a household able to bin or bury a small number of dead garden birds in England by following the bagging and burial steps. Suspected poisoning goes to the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, and suspected wildlife crime goes to the police.

Sources

• GOV.UK, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Animal and Plant Health Agency, “Report dead wild birds”
• GOV.UK, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Animal and Plant Health Agency, “Removing and disposing of dead wild birds”
• Scottish Government, “Dead or sick wild birds or animals: what to do” (Avian influenza (bird flu): how to spot and report the disease) (gov.scot)

A swarm that looks like an infestation

Large numbers of winged ants on a patio, in a doorway or around a window can look like a sudden pest problem. This article summarises two UK sources: the Royal Society of Biology (RSB) page on its Flying Ant Survey, which ran from 2012 for three years, and the Natural History Museum (NHM) guide to flying ants. Both describe the United Kingdom as a whole, so the picture applies across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, although local weather decides timing. The sources describe the biology of the swarm; they are not treatment guidance, so advice on removing ant nests is covered in How to Stop Ants Getting Into Your Home: A Prevention Guide and Ants Indoors: Why Identification Matters Before Treatment.

What flying ants are

The NHM explains that flying ants are known as alates. In the UK, particularly in urban areas, the winged insects seen are almost always the sexually mature queens and males of the black garden ant, Lasius niger, with the larger ants being queens up to 15 millimetres long. The RSB reports that its survey, using thousands of ants sent in by participants, found that close to 90% of flying ants were of that one species. The NHM notes that red ants (Myrmica rubra) and other species also grow wings, and that in woodland wood ants may be seen.

There is no single “day”

Both organisations address the idea of a national flying ant day. The RSB found that there is not one day on which the ants all appear. Depending on weather, they can start flying at almost any point in the summer months, and the pattern differs between years. It reports that flying ants were spotted on as many as 96% of days between the start of June and the start of September, and that colonies show no significant geographical coordination: one garden may see winged ants on one day and neighbours weeks or even months later. The NHM adds that swarms can appear any time between June and the start of September, that peaks last only a few days, and that ants tend to fly earlier in urban areas than rural ones, probably because of the urban heat island effect. Sometimes the same colony may produce flying ants more than once in a season, according to the RSB.

The weather triggers

The RSB says weather is critical. By comparing sighting records with the nearest weather station data, it found that ants flew only when the temperature was above 13 degrees Celsius and wind speed was under 6.3 metres per second. Every summer day in the study with a mean temperature above 25 degrees Celsius had ants flying somewhere. Ants were also more likely to fly on days that were warmer and less windy than the day before. The NHM similarly says swarming is triggered by weather and adds that there is anecdotal evidence of flying ant days after summer rain, and that timing varies by species.

Why they swarm

An ant colony can expand only so far, the NHM explains, so a new queen must leave and found a colony of her own. She needs to mate with a male from another colony, and wings allow her to disperse. The NHM says that when males and virgin queens scatter, this maximises the chance of mating between different colonies and reduces inbreeding, and that emerging in huge numbers gives protection from predators and improves the chance of finding a mate. It says they are not interested in people or picnics. The RSB describes mating as taking place in flight, with the male dying shortly afterwards.

What happens after the flight

According to both sources, the fertilised queen lands, chews off her wings and looks for a place to start a new colony. The NHM says this is why large wingless ants may be seen walking about after a swarm, and why discarded wings may be scattered over pavements. It states that the queen digs an underground chamber, lays her first eggs and does not eat for weeks until her first daughter workers can forage. Males usually live only a day or two more. The NHM says a queen can live for up to 15 years and large nests can hold more than 20,000 workers.

Where the nests are

The NHM says black garden ants nest in dry soil and are often found in flower beds and lawns and under paving slabs or stones, with patios a favoured location. It notes that heaps of soil may appear above nests in the weeks before a swarm.

Are flying ants useful?

The NHM describes them as beneficial: their tunnelling improves soil, and swarms provide food for birds such as swifts and gulls. It also says the black garden ant and cornfield ant have a mutually beneficial relationship with the silver-studded blue butterfly on heathland. That context matters for anyone weighing whether a short-lived swarm needs any treatment at all.

Questions to ask if ants persist

• Are the ants winged reproductives or wingless workers seen every day?
• Are they coming from soil under a patio or paving, or from inside the structure?
• Is a professional inspection needed to identify the species before any treatment?

The bottom line

Flying ants in the UK are a seasonal, weather-driven event, not a single national day. The RSB survey found that winged ants can be seen on nearly every day between June and early September, and that temperature above 13 degrees Celsius and light winds are the conditions needed. Most are black garden ant queens and males on a mating flight, after which queens shed their wings to found new colonies. Identifying the species and where the ants are coming from is the sensible step before any treatment decision.

Sources

• Royal Society of Biology, “Flying Ant Day” (Flying Ant Survey) (rsb.org.uk)
• Natural History Museum, “Flying ant day: when winged ants take their nuptial flight” (nhm.ac.uk)

A council route beyond the landlord’s own repairs

A tenant with mice, rats or insects in a rented home normally starts by telling the landlord. If that fails, councils in England have a formal housing-conditions system. This article summarises the GOV.UK “Landlord and agent guide to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)”, published on 23 June 2026 and last updated on 16 September 2026 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The guide applies to England and explains how councils use Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have separate housing law, which is not covered. The question of who is responsible for a pest problem in the first place, and how to report it, is covered in Pests in a Rented Home: Reporting the Problem and Establishing Responsibility.

What the HHSRS is

The guide describes the HHSRS as a tool for identifying and assessing risks to the health and wellbeing of people in their own home, whether rented or owned. It is based on the idea that all residential premises should provide a safe and healthy environment for any occupier or visitor. Councils use it when they take formal enforcement action under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, and they employ environmental health officers or similarly trained staff to do so.

Where pests appear in the assessment

The assessment starts with a full inspection of the property, including any garden, yard or external structure. The assessor has regard to baseline indicators in the statutory operating guidance. The guide says these are broad in scope, ranging from drainage to fire safety and from noise to pest management. Anything that does not comply with a baseline indicator is a deficiency that must be assessed.

The landlord self-assessment checklist in the guide’s appendix includes a pest management heading. Its single indicator is that the property, its structures and the areas within its curtilage are free of pest infestation. A separate indicator in the moisture and contaminant control section says that only approved biocidal products may be used within the dwelling, in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

How a deficiency becomes a scored hazard

The assessor decides which of the 21 hazards a deficiency relates to, then judges the likelihood of harm requiring medical intervention over the next 12 months and how serious the harm would be if an incident occurred. The likelihood is assessed for the most vulnerable age group for the hazard, not for the actual occupant. Scores of 1,000 or more fall in the High Band and are Category 1 hazards; scores over 100 but under 1,000 are Medium Band, and scores of 100 or below are Low Band, with both of those treated as Category 2.

The guide does not say that any infestation is automatically a Category 1 hazard. Whether a particular infestation produces a scored hazard depends on the assessor’s findings in that home.

What the council can do

For a Category 2 hazard, the council has discretion about whether to act. For a Category 1 hazard, it must take action: section 5 of the Housing Act 2004, marked on legislation.gov.uk as applying to England and Wales, requires a local housing authority that considers a Category 1 hazard to exist to take the appropriate enforcement action, choosing the most appropriate of the courses available. The guide lists the main tools:

• Hazard awareness notice. An advisory notice that identifies the hazard and recommends remedial action but does not legally require action.
• Improvement notice. A formal notice requiring remedial work, which may not be required to start sooner than 28 days after service and must state a completion date. It is an offence not to comply without reasonable excuse.
• Prohibition order. An order restricting use of part or all of a property, which comes into force 28 days after it is made.
• Emergency remedial action or emergency prohibition order. Options available only for Category 1 hazards presenting an imminent risk of serious harm.

For failing to comply with an improvement notice, the guide says a council can impose a civil financial penalty of up to £40,000 for offences committed on or after 1 May 2026, and up to £30,000 for earlier offences. A person served with a notice has a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), and the guide gives 21 days for an appeal against an improvement notice.

How a council usually becomes involved

The guide says councils can inspect any property used for residential purposes and that inspections are often arranged following a complaint about a health and safety risk from a tenant or a neighbour. Where a pest issue goes beyond the HHSRS into statutory nuisance or verminous premises, other council powers apply, explained in Statutory Nuisance and the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Awaab’s Law and social housing

The guide notes that Awaab’s Law came into force in the social rented sector on 27 October 2025, requiring social landlords to investigate and make safe emergency hazards within 24 hours of becoming aware and to deal with significant damp and mould hazards within fixed timescales. It says the government has committed to extend a second phase in 2026 to a wider range of hazards, including hygiene hazards. Awaab’s Law is separate from the HHSRS and, as described in the guide, focuses on the individual circumstances of the actual tenant.

The bottom line

In England, the HHSRS gives councils a structured way to assess conditions in a home, and the GOV.UK guide lists freedom from pest infestation among its baseline indicators. What follows from a deficiency depends on the assessor’s scoring and the council’s judgement: notices range from advice to improvement notices, prohibition orders and civil penalties, with appeal rights to the First-tier Tribunal. Awaab’s Law applies to social housing and is a different regime.

Sources

• GOV.UK, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, “Landlord and agent guide to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)”
• GOV.UK, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, “Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS): Landlord and agent guide” (publication page)
• legislation.gov.uk, “Housing Act 2004, section 5 (Category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action)”

Why the type of trap has a legal status

Homeowners and pest controllers often assume that any trap sold for rodents is lawful anywhere. In England and Wales, spring traps are regulated by statute, and the rules depend on the trap type and the animal targeted. This article summarises section 8 of the Pests Act 1954, the Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 and the Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018, all as published on legislation.gov.uk. Section 8 is marked as applying to England and Wales but not Scotland, and the 2018 Order states that it applies to England only. The position in Scotland, and the separate approval arrangements in Wales, are not covered here.

The basic offence

Under section 8, a person commits an offence if, for the purpose of killing or taking animals, they use, or knowingly permit the use of, a spring trap that is not an approved trap. The offence also applies to using an approved trap for animals or in circumstances for which it is not approved. Selling or offering for sale an unapproved spring trap with a view to unlawful use, and possessing a spring trap for an unlawful purpose, are also offences. The section sets the penalty on summary conviction as a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. An approved trap is one of a type and make specified by order, either generally or subject to conditions about the animals and circumstances of use. Section 8 also provides that no order may approve a leghold trap.

The exemption for ordinary rat and mouse traps

Section 8(5) disapplies the main offence for traps of any description specified by order as adapted solely for destroying rats, mice or other small ground vermin. The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 does that. Its schedule lists two categories: spring traps known as break-back traps and commonly used for destroying rats, mice or other small ground vermin, and spring traps of the kind commonly used for catching moles in their runs. The version on legislation.gov.uk is the original 1958 text.

In practical terms, the familiar snap trap on a kitchen floor is a break-back trap and falls within the category the 1958 Order describes, as does a mole trap of the kind used in runs. That does not mean any use is lawful: the Order concerns the approval requirement in section 8, not other rules such as those on protected species, or those on glue traps, which are covered in Glue Traps for Rats and Mice: What the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 Changed in England.

Approved traps in England: the 2018 Order

Traps that go beyond the 1958 categories, such as tunnel traps and traps for grey squirrels, need approval. The Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018 came into force on 1 January 2019 and approves any spring trap of a type and make listed in Column 1 of its schedule, or any trap equivalent in all relevant respects in construction, materials and impact force or momentum. Legislation.gov.uk records amendments to the Order up to 1 June 2023.

The approval carries general conditions. The trap must be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and, so far as practicable without unreasonably compromising its use against target species, it must be used in a way that minimises the likelihood of killing, taking or injuring non-target species. Further conditions appear beside each entry. Examples from the schedule show the pattern:

• The Fenn Vermin Trap Mark IV is approved only for killing grey squirrels, weasels, rats, mice and other small ground vermin, subject to exceptions for species listed in Schedule 5 or 6 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and must be set in a natural or artificial tunnel suitable for the purpose. The schedule permits use against stoats only before 1 April 2020.
• The Goodnature A24 Pro is approved only for killing rats and mice, and must be placed so it can be entered only through a suitable artificial tunnel.
• The Aurotrap is approved only for killing rats.

The lesson from the schedule is that approval is specific to the animal and the setting. A trap approved for rats and mice in a tunnel is not thereby approved for another species, and tunnel conditions are a recurring requirement.

Species that change the picture

The schedule contains a footnote that, under section 11(2)(b) of, and Schedule 6 to, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to use any trap to take or kill a dormouse except under a licence from the appropriate authority, whether or not the trap is approved by the Order. Squirrels raise separate questions about capture and release, examined in Grey Squirrels: Why the Law on Trapping and Release Is Different From Rats or Mice. Mole control is covered in Molehills in the Garden: When Is Control Actually Needed?.

Questions to ask a pest controller

• Which trap types will be used, and are they break-back traps within the 1958 categories or approved traps under the 2018 Order?
• For approved traps, what conditions apply, such as tunnels or target species?
• How will non-target animals, including pets and wildlife, be protected?
• Does the site involve a species subject to separate licensing?

These questions fit alongside the wider quote checks in Pest Control Costs: Callouts, Follow-Up Visits and Quote Comparison.

The bottom line

In England and Wales, spring traps are controlled by section 8 of the Pests Act 1954. Ordinary break-back rat and mouse traps and mole traps of the kind used in runs fall within the Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958, so the approval offence does not apply to them. Other spring traps must be an approved type used only within the conditions attached, which in England means the 2018 Order’s list, its general conditions and the per-trap limits on species and tunnels. Scotland is outside section 8, and the Welsh approval arrangements need to be checked separately. Anyone unsure about a trap should ask the supplier or contractor to name the trap and the legal basis for its use.

Sources

• legislation.gov.uk, “Pests Act 1954, section 8 (Restriction on type of trap in England and Wales)”
• legislation.gov.uk, “The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958”
• legislation.gov.uk, “The Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018”

Federal registration, provincial rules

A homeowner in Ontario treating weeds, wasps or mice is dealing with two layers of regulation. This article summarises the Government of Ontario pages “Pesticides (home lawns and gardens)”, published on 20 March 2014 and updated on 23 June 2021, and “Guide to pesticide classes”, which describes the Pesticides Act and Ontario Regulation 63/09. It concerns Ontario, Canada. Other provinces and territories set their own rules, which are outside the scope of this article. The Ontario guide itself says that it should not be construed as legal advice and that, in a conflict with the Act or Regulation, the legal requirements apply.

Two layers of control (Canada and Ontario)

The guide says management of pesticides in Canada is a joint responsibility of federal and provincial or territorial governments. Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency registers pesticides under the federal Pest Control Products Act, while Ontario regulates their sale, use, storage, transportation and disposal, including licences and permits. Amendments to the Act and Regulation made in 2020 aligned Ontario’s classification with the four federal classes: Manufacturing, Restricted, Commercial and Domestic. The Ontario-specific classification process was eliminated, so a federally registered pesticide can be sold and used in Ontario immediately, and the guide states that the cosmetic pesticides ban and its related requirements have generally been maintained. A single Allowable List of active ingredients replaced the former list of Class 11 pesticides.

What is banned for cosmetic use (Ontario)

The province’s page says that by law certain pesticides cannot be used to kill weeds and insects on lawns, vegetable and ornamental gardens, patios, driveways, parks and schoolyards. It names ingredients that cannot be used, including 2,4-D, diazinon and glyphosate. The stated reason is that these pesticides may pose an unnecessary risk to human health, particularly children’s health.

What is allowed (Ontario)

For cosmetic purposes, only pesticides that contain solely active ingredients on the List of Active Ingredients Authorized for Cosmetic Uses (the Allowable List) can be used. The page gives common household examples of such ingredients:

• borax;
• corn gluten meal;
• soap; and
• sulphur.

It describes the permitted products as including biopesticides and certain lower-risk pesticides.

Health and safety exceptions (Ontario)

The province’s page says pesticides can also be used to protect health or safety from certain pests. Its list includes wasps and mosquitoes, plants that are poisonous by touch such as poison ivy and giant hogweed, fleas or ticks that bite pets, indoor pests, rodents or pests that can cause structural damage to the home, and rodents that may spread diseases. For anyone weighing a professional pest treatment, that list matches the situations covered by this site’s guides on choosing a pest controller and integrated pest management.

Controlled sales pesticides (Ontario)

Some pesticides are controlled sales products. The page says these are not readily available on store shelves and typically need to be specially requested. A buyer must speak to a store manager, since products can be locked, and read the information sheet provided by the seller and follow its instructions for allowed use. For restricted controlled sales products, such as bear repellents, the buyer must be 18 or older, and a licensed seller gives an information sheet and keeps a record of the sale including the buyer’s name, address, the amount and a signature.

Disposal and reporting (Ontario)

The province advises never putting pesticides in the garbage and never pouring them down a drain or sewer. Empty containers can be wrapped in newspaper. Stewardship Ontario runs the “Make the Drop” programme, which lets residents search for a facility that accepts household hazardous waste containers and items. Anyone unsure how to dispose of a particular pesticide is directed to a local ministry district office. Suspected use of a banned pesticide can be reported to a local ministry district office in business hours, and after hours to the Pollution Hotline on 1-866-MOE-TIPS or the Spills Action Centre on 1-800-268-6060.

Common questions

Can glyphosate be used on an Ontario lawn to remove weeds? The province lists glyphosate among ingredients that cannot be used for cosmetic purposes on lawns and gardens.

Can a wasp nest be treated? The page lists wasps among the pests that pesticides can be used against to protect health or safety.

Does the ban apply to the whole of Canada? The Ontario pages cover Ontario only, and other provinces have their own rules.

Are borax-based products covered by the ban? The province lists borax among common household examples of ingredients on the Allowable List, so products containing only allowed ingredients are not banned for cosmetic use.

Are indoor pests covered by the ban? The province’s list of health and safety uses includes indoor pests, rodents and pests that can cause structural damage to the home.

Where should leftover product go? The province says pesticides should not go in the garbage or down a drain, and points residents to household hazardous waste facilities such as those found through the Make the Drop programme.

The bottom line

In Ontario, cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns, gardens, patios, driveways, parks and schoolyards is banned, apart from products whose only active ingredients are on the Allowable List. Health and safety uses, including wasps, rodents, fleas and ticks on pets, indoor pests and pests that can damage structures, remain allowed. Federal registration comes first, Ontario controls sale, use and disposal, and unused products should go to household hazardous waste facilities rather than the garbage or a drain.

Sources

• Government of Ontario, “Pesticides (home lawns and gardens)”
• Government of Ontario, “Guide to pesticide classes”

A national code with local variations

Buying or building a house in Australia means inheriting whatever termite protection went into it. This article summarises Part 3.4, “Termite risk management”, of the National Construction Code (NCC) 2025 Housing Provisions as published by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), and compares it with the same Part in NCC 2022. The Code applies across Australia, and the ABCB text records variations for individual states and territories, including Queensland and the Northern Territory. Editions and state and territory variations differ. This article is general information, not legal advice or building advice, and it is not specific to any one property.

When Part 3.4 applies (Australia)

Clause 3.4.1 says the Part applies where a Class 1 or Class 10 building is constructed in an area where subterranean termites are known to present a potential risk of attack, and where a primary building element is considered susceptible. Materials treated as not subject to termite attack include:

• steel, aluminium and other metals;
• concrete;
• masonry;
• fibre-reinforced cement;
• timber that is naturally termite resistant under Appendix C of AS 3660.1; and
• preservative-treated timber under Appendix D of AS 3660.1.

The ABCB’s explanatory notes say termites are not considered a risk in Tasmania and are a lesser risk in parts of Victoria, that the appropriate authority may hold records of termite activity by area, and that masonry is not subject to attack although termites may gain entry through mortar and other joints. Where only some primary elements are susceptible, only those elements need a termite management system.

What the system must be (Australia)

Clause 3.4.2 says a required termite management system must be selected from Table 3.4.2, comply with AS 3660.1 or have passed the tests in Section 5 of AS 3660.3, have a durable notice, and, where a chemical system is used, use a chemical listed on the appropriate authority’s pesticides register. It must also include additional measures in areas where the termite Mastotermes darwiniensis is prevalent. For that species, a chemical external perimeter system must be installed by excavating a trench, treating it and backfilling with treated material, and covered by a concrete strip at least 50 mm thick and 300 mm wide from the external wall.

Table 3.4.2 lists options such as sheet material, granular material and chemicals for slab perimeters, penetrations and control joints, suspended floors and attachments to buildings. A table note says the entire area beneath a slab must be treated when the slab is not designed and built to AS 2870 or AS 3600. The ABCB explains that a “component” combines with others to form a full system, so a concrete slab on its own is not a complete system.

Why inspection still matters (Australia)

The explanatory information says more than 350 species of termite occur in Australia, about 30 of which cause costly damage to building structures, and that it is extremely difficult to prevent termites gaining access to a building. It says a system’s effectiveness relies on regular maintenance and competent inspection as well as correct installation.

The durable notice (Australia)

Clause 3.4.3 requires a durable notice, permanently fixed to the building in a prominent location such as a meter box, showing:

• the termite management system used;
• the date of installation;
• where a chemical is used, its life expectancy as listed on the appropriate authority’s register label; and
• the installer’s or manufacturer’s recommendations for the scope and frequency of future inspections.

The ABCB notes that, for the pesticides register, the appropriate authority is the government body responsible for registering pesticides, and that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority coordinates the registration scheme.

Queensland and Northern Territory variations (Australia)

The ABCB text records that Queensland adds requirements including a design life of at least 50 years for a termite management system in a non-temporary Class 1 building, unless the system is easily accessible for replenishment or replacement and capable of being replenished. Queensland also specifies that a chemical external perimeter system must be installed by excavating trenches and covered by a concrete strip at least 50 mm thick and 300 mm wide. In the Northern Territory, naturally resistant timber is treated as not subject to attack only in areas where Mastotermes darwiniensis is not prevalent. Anyone reading a notice on a home in Queensland can compare it with this site’s guide to Queensland termite management notices.

What a notice does and does not show (Australia)

The notice records what was installed, when, and the recommended inspection schedule. It is not a certificate that a property is free of termites, and the explanatory information stresses ongoing inspection. What to record when termites are suspected is covered in this site’s article on suspected termites and professional inspections.

Common questions

Does Part 3.4 apply to every home? No. It applies to Class 1 and Class 10 buildings in areas where termites are known to present a risk and where a primary element is susceptible.

Does masonry need no protection at all? The ABCB treats masonry as not subject to attack while noting termites may enter through mortar and other joints.

The bottom line

Under the NCC 2025 Housing Provisions, new Class 1 and Class 10 buildings in termite-risk areas need a termite management system that meets AS 3660.1 or AS 3660.3 testing, plus a durable notice recording the system, installation date, chemical life expectancy and recommended inspections. States and territories vary the detail, and the ABCB stresses that maintenance and inspection determine how well a system performs.

Sources

• Australian Building Codes Board, “NCC 2025 Housing Provisions, Part 3.4 Termite risk management”
• Australian Building Codes Board, “NCC 2022 Housing Provisions, Part 3.4 Termite risk management”

A label that carries legal force

Before a household spray, bait or powder is used in the United States, the label is the first document to read. This article summarises the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pages “Introduction to Pesticide Labels”, last updated on 2 June 2026, and “Keep Safe: Read the Label First”, last updated on 7 November 2025, the EPA’s “Pesticide Labeling Questions and Answers”, and two pages from the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) at Oregon State University, “Reading Pesticide Labels” (last updated 24 July 2025) and the “Signal Words Fact Sheet”. The rules described are federal. EPA notes that states, tribes, territories and other federal agencies may have additional requirements, so state rules for a particular product or applicator must be checked separately. This article is general information, not legal advice.

The label is the law (United States, federal)

EPA says pesticide labels are legally enforceable, unlike most other product labels, and that all of them carry the statement “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” EPA describes the label as translating its scientific evaluation into conditions, directions and precautions that define who may use a pesticide, and where, how, how much and how often. Label requirements are found in 40 CFR Part 156.

EPA also explains that “labeling” is broader than “label”. Under the federal pesticide law, labeling covers written, printed or graphic matter accompanying the product at any time, or referred to on the label, as well as what is printed on the container itself.

What a label tells the user (United States)

NPIC lists the questions a label answers:

• what is in the product (the ingredients);
• how toxic the product is (the signal word);
• how it can be used safely (precautionary statements);
• what to do if it reaches the eyes, mouth, lungs or skin (first aid);
• what special restrictions protect the environment;
• what protective equipment to wear;
• how and where to use the product, and how much;
• how it must be stored and what to do with leftovers; and
• how to contact the manufacturer, plus the EPA registration number, which NPIC describes as the unique product number.

EPA says reading the label is the first step to choosing the right product, keeping family and pets safe, saving money and helping the environment.

Signal words (United States)

NPIC explains that signal words describe the acute, or short-term, toxicity of the formulated product. EPA requires a signal word on most pesticide labels, printed in capital letters on the front panel. The three words are:

• CAUTION, for products that are slightly toxic if eaten, absorbed through the skin or inhaled, or that cause slight eye or skin irritation;
• WARNING, for moderately toxic products or moderate irritation; and
• DANGER, for products that are highly toxic by at least one route or may be corrosive, with the word “POISON” in red letters also required where the product is highly toxic if eaten, absorbed through the skin or inhaled.

Products in the lowest toxicity category are the only ones not required to show a signal word. NPIC says the study showing the highest toxicity sets the word: a product that is low in toxicity when eaten but highly toxic on the skin receives DANGER.

NPIC’s practical tips (United States)

NPIC advises users to read the label before buying and confirm that the product is intended for their specific use, to use only the amount the label directs because more can waste money, harm people, pets or the environment and may be less effective, and not to assume a product bought for one setting can be used in another. It recommends buying only what is needed, re-reading the label before each use, storing products out of reach of children and pets, and never removing a label or using unlabelled pesticides. It states that using a pesticide in any manner other than those listed on the label is against the law.

Claims made on labels and adverts (United States)

EPA’s question-and-answer pages say that claims such as “free of” a named active ingredient may amount to misbranding and may need to be removed, because users might read them as safety claims. The pages point out that consumers can check the ingredient statement on the front panel instead. They also explain that under the federal pesticide law a substance sold with claims that it can prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate a pest generally must be registered unless an exemption applies.

Where this fits with pest control services (United States)

The label also governs professional treatments. This site’s comparison of termite treatment contracts in the USA explains why the products and directions named in a contract matter, and the guide to choosing a pest controller covers questions to ask about treatments.

Common questions

Does the label apply to homeowners as well as professionals? EPA says the label is legally enforceable and NPIC advises household users that using a product in any way other than listed on the label is against the law.

Does a low-toxicity signal word mean a product is harmless? No. NPIC says every product still has the potential to poison at high doses, whatever the signal word, and that the directions on the label should be followed carefully each time a product is used.

Where does the registration number appear? NPIC lists it among the items a label provides.

The bottom line

In the United States, a pesticide label is a legal document. EPA says using a product inconsistently with its labeling violates federal law, and NPIC’s checklist of ingredients, signal word, precautions, first aid, directions, storage and registration number shows what to read before buying. Signal words describe acute toxicity, “free of” claims can be misbranding, and state rules may add further requirements.

Sources

• US Environmental Protection Agency, “Introduction to Pesticide Labels”
• US Environmental Protection Agency, “Keep Safe: Read the Label First”
• US Environmental Protection Agency, “Pesticide Labeling Questions & Answers”
• National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University, “Reading Pesticide Labels”
• National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University, “Signal Words Fact Sheet”

Who may use outdoor rat poison in Ireland

Anyone hiring a pest controller in the Republic of Ireland meets a system that ties professional rodenticide use to personal registration. This article summarises pages published by the Pesticide Registration and Control Division of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) on trained professional use rodenticide products, registration of Pest Management Trained Professional Users (PMUs), registration requirements, trainee PMUs and the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU) in Ireland. It concerns the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and follows separate rules, and Great Britain’s approach is covered in this site’s article on professional and consumer access to rodenticides. This is general information, not legal advice.

Why outdoor use is restricted (Ireland)

DAFM says regulatory environmental risk assessments concluded that outdoor use of anti-vitamin K (AVK) rodenticide products presents a higher risk to non-target animals, such as birds of prey and companion animals, than would normally be considered acceptable. It recognises that outdoor use is sometimes necessary as part of a properly managed rodent control strategy based on integrated pest management. Outdoor use around buildings is restricted to professional and trained professional users, and suppliers of these products must demonstrate that they adhere to the requirements in their authorisation.

The PMU register (Ireland)

DAFM defines a PMU as any person using products authorised for trained professional or professional use who offers a pest management service. PMUs must register with DAFM and receive a PMU number. From 1 January 2018, a PMU offering rodent control with products authorised only for trained professional use outdoors, in open areas and in sewers has to provide proof of competence at the point of sale, using the PMU number in the format PMUxxxxxx.

The number belongs to the individual, not the employer. DAFM says a pest control company cannot obtain a PMU number. A company buying product must present the PMU numbers of its trained staff, and only those PMUs can use the product purchased.

Training requirements (Ireland)

A PMU must give evidence of being a trained professional user and agree to take part in continuing professional education to keep the registration valid. DAFM requires a recognised Ofqual Level 3 training course or equivalent. Its page names two:

• the Lantra Level 3 Award in Pest Management Services (Trained Professional User), which includes the CRRU Wildlife Aware course; and
• the RSPH Level 3 in Pest Management, which requires the CRRU Wildlife Aware course to be completed as well.

Where the Level 3 course does not include it, the Wildlife Aware course or an equivalent is required. For “own use” PMUs, DAFM lists a single approved course, a Lantra-certified 1.5-day rodent management course.

New entrants (Ireland)

DAFM allows trainees to work with indirect supervision during a nine-month period while completing formal training. A trainee applies for a conditional PMU number with a training plan and proof of registration on an Ofqual Level 3 (or equivalent) pest management qualification. The certificate must be submitted within nine months of starting employment, with extensions where a course is not available within that time. If the documents are not submitted, the conditional number is revoked and the trainee can no longer legally use rodenticide for professional or trained professional use. Companies must keep training records for audit.

Farmers and other professional users (Ireland)

Professional users such as farmers using professional AVK products in and around buildings have been classified as professional users since 1 January 2018. They must show proof of their professional activity at the point of sale, such as a herd number, flock number or HFR/HPR number.

Wildlife Aware and the CRRU Code (Ireland)

DAFM says CRRU Ireland exists to promote best practice and responsible use of chemical rodent control while limiting exposure of birds of prey, other predators and pets. In cooperation with the Irish Agricultural Supply Industry Standards body (IASIS), it has established the Wildlife Aware training and accreditation scheme for pest control technicians and other competent rodenticide users. Accredited professionals are listed on the IASIS website. The training emphasises integrated pest management, the CRRU Code and local-area environmental assessments.

Questions worth asking a contractor (Ireland)

The DAFM pages make some questions reasonable for customers: whether the technician holds a PMU number, which Level 3 qualification they completed, whether they hold Wildlife Aware accreditation, and how the treatment fits an integrated approach that starts with proofing rather than poison alone.

Common questions

Can a pest control company hold a PMU number? No. DAFM says the number is linked to the individual.

Does the rule cover every rodenticide? DAFM’s PMU requirement covers products authorised for trained professional use outdoors, in open areas and in sewers.

The bottom line

In the Republic of Ireland, professional outdoor rodenticide use is tied to individual PMU registration with DAFM, backed by Level 3 training, Wildlife Aware content and continuing education. The PMU number is the proof of competence at the point of sale, trainees have a nine-month conditional route, and the rules exist because outdoor use presents risks to birds of prey and pets.

Sources

• Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (PRCD), “Registration of Pest Management – Trained Professional Users”
• Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (PRCD), “Trained Professional Use Rodenticide Products”
• Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (PRCD), “Professional Use Rodenticide Products”
• Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (PRCD), “Requirements for registration as a Pest Management Trained Professional User”
• Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (PRCD), “Registration as a Trainee PMU (New Entrants)”
• Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (PRCD), “Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use in Ireland”

Plug-in devices with big promises

Ultrasonic repellers are sold as a quiet, chemical-free answer to mice, rats, cockroaches, ants and spiders. This article summarises advice from the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on pest repellents, dated 2 February 2018, a University of Arizona Cooperative Extension publication on sonic pest repellents, revised in October 2015, and a 2021 laboratory study of ultrasonic devices and ticks published in the journal Insects. The advertising advice covers the United Kingdom. The Arizona review draws on earlier published studies and is written for a United States audience, and the tick study was carried out by researchers in Thailand and Australia. None of these sources is legal advice.

What UK advertising advice says (United Kingdom)

CAP’s advice states that the ASA, together with independent experts, has closely examined the evidence for claims made for pest repellent devices, ranging from cat-shaped metal sheets with glowing eyes to ultrasonic and electromagnetic equipment, and that it has “yet to accept any claim of efficacy”. The advice says marketers who do not hold evidence in the form of UK-based trials should not state or imply efficacy through claims, visuals or product names.

The advice adds that customer testimonials do not by themselves constitute evidence, that a product name which amounts to an efficacy claim needs a clear disclaimer, and that claims of being “pet friendly” need objective evidence. It records that in 2008 the ASA upheld a complaint about a mole product, “Anti-Mole Bulbs”, because no robust evidence of effectiveness was provided. CAP notes that its advice does not bind CAP, its advisory panels or the ASA.

What the Arizona review found (United States extension review)

The University of Arizona publication concludes that commercially available sonic pest devices for residential use have not been shown to be effective in scientific studies and that using them for common pest problems is not advised. It summarises earlier research:

• Kansas State University trials of three devices on three ant species found that none repelled ants in field and laboratory trials, although one appeared to repel them briefly in the laboratory before losing effectiveness.
• A study of nine devices on German cockroaches found no response, with equal numbers of cockroaches entering rooms with and without sound.
• Testing on four commercial devices found no effect on bed bugs.
• A study of three commercial devices found bite rates in mosquitoes increased by as much as 50 per cent when the devices were on.
• In work on rats and mice, animals showed mild aversion to ultrasound that diminished over time, which the authors describe as habituation.

The review adds that some researcher-developed devices aimed at specific species have shown promise, mostly in studies away from natural environments, but that these are not yet on the market. It also notes that dogs and other non-target mammals can hear ultrasonic sounds.

Ticks: a 2021 laboratory study (Australia and Thailand)

The 2021 study tested nine ultrasonic devices with different frequencies against female Australian paralysis ticks, Ixodes holocyclus. Each device ran for one hour with 20 ticks in a test chamber, and ten replicates were run per device. More ticks moved to the escape chamber in every test arena than in the control, and three devices differed significantly from the control. Even so, the highest proportion of ticks that escaped was only 19.5 per cent. The authors judged that amount insufficient to protect against tick bites, and said the results cannot support recommending the devices for that purpose. The work was a laboratory experiment on one species, so it does not cover other ticks or field conditions.

Reading an advert critically (United Kingdom)

CAP’s advice implies several questions for any advert. Does it cite a UK trial? Does it rely on testimonials? Does the product name itself promise a result? Does it describe the device as “friendly” to pets or other animals without objective evidence? CAP notes that no set rules exist for testing repellent devices in UK conditions and that more than one design could be acceptable, including a three-phase design of pre-treatment, treatment and post-treatment periods in which animal activity should be similar and higher in the first and last phases than in the middle one.

What tends to matter more

For readers looking for an alternative starting point, this site’s guides on pest-proofing entry points, food and moisture and on what to record when rats are suspected begin with inspection and proofing rather than a device. The Arizona review does not say sound has no role in pest management. It says the products sold for homes have not been shown to work.

Common questions

Are ultrasonic repellers banned? None of the three sources says so. The UK advice concerns what advertisers may claim.

Do they work on mice? The Arizona review describes mild aversion that faded through habituation in the study it cites.

Could a repeller harm pets? The Arizona review notes that dogs hear ultrasonic sounds. CAP’s advice says “pet friendly” claims need objective evidence.

The bottom line

UK advertising guidance says the ASA has yet to accept any efficacy claim for pest repellent devices, and a United States extension review found that commercially available sonic devices for homes have not been shown to work, with rodents habituating and no response from cockroaches, ants or bed bugs. A 2021 laboratory study of ultrasonic devices against a tick species found at most 19.5 per cent of ticks moved away. The advertising questions above and this site’s proofing guides give readers a practical way to weigh a purchase.

Sources

• Advertising Standards Authority and CAP, “Pest repellents (AdviceOnline, 2 February 2018)”
• University of Arizona Cooperative Extension (Aflitto and DeGomez), “Sonic Pest Repellents (AZ1639, revised October 2015)”
• Panthawong, Doggett and Chareonviriyaphap, Insects 2021, “The Efficacy of Ultrasonic Pest Repellent Devices against the Australian Paralysis Tick, Ixodes holocyclus (Acari: Ixodidae)”