Got Bed Bugs? Bedbugger Forums » Bed bug news and events

Why is this milestone getting so little press?

(15 posts)
  1. ThePlague

    newbite
    Joined: Apr '14
    Posts: 4

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 15:22:14
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Nina Jenkins from Penn State got a lot of attention for her 2012 publication about the efficacy of an isolate of beauveria bassiana against bed bugs; now she has incorporated (Conidio Tec), applied for a patent and is seeking EPA approval for this biopesticide and there is little to no coverage. I have a feeling this will disappear somehow. The EPA will approve toxic chemicals that need repeated applications (providing a steady stream of revenue to their big chemical company cronies) with no guarantee of efficacy; but something efficacious with minimal collateral damage by a research scientist? Good luck. She hopes to have this on the market by 2015. So curious to see if it makes it to market.

    http://www.centredaily.com/2014/05/07/4168717/penn-state-researchers-seek-epa.html
    http://agsci.psu.edu/entrepreneur/news/2013/bedbug-remedy-wins-10-000-top-prize
    http://news.psu.edu/story/307767/2014/03/14/academics/ben-franklin-announces-winner-big-idea-business-plan-contest

  2. Winston O. Buggy

    oldtimer
    Joined: May '07
    Posts: 1,484

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 15:37:07
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Unfortunately the trip from lab to market can be difficult and expensive. I know the research and some team members and hope the product holds up. Obviously when you introduce fungus into sleeping areas you must be sure there are no surprises and it remains active for the desired length of time to impact the target organism and achieve control or significant reduction. I wish them luck.

  3. P Bello

    oldtimer
    Joined: Nov '11
    Posts: 4,863

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 15:44:51
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Dear plague,

    Above is posted:

    " . . . The EPA will approve toxic chemicals that need repeated applications (providing a steady stream of revenue to their big chemical company cronies) with no guarantee of efficacy; but something efficacious with minimal collateral damage by a research scientist? . . ."

    Unless you have concrete evidence that supports the assertion that the US Environmental Protection Agency in fact has an other than "arm's length" relationship with the industry entities they are regulating, the comment above is erroneous, misleading and mischaracterizes the realities present in the process of how a potential efficacious product moves from discovery to a commercially available product.

    Further, the implication that something is efficacious and cost effective simply because work on the product in question was or may have been conducted ". . . by a research scientist? . . . " is also erroneous. This is so because research scientists may work in numerous settings and at various entities who pay them for their work. Who's to say that a formulation chemist with many years of experience working at a lab facility for XYZ chemical company is any less qualified to discover and develop the next new product than a similar person who happens to work at a university lab anyway?

    Even still, this "new product", which by the way is anything but new and/or unique, will need to survive the same development process and the competitive nature of the commercial market before it assumes a respectable place amongst competing products on commercial market shelves.

    Perhaps these factors answer the question posed as to the lack of press coverage observed thus far.

    There's still many miles of the required journey ahead for this potential product.

    Have a nice day ! pjb

  4. bed-bugscouk

    oldtimer
    Joined: Apr '07
    Posts: 17,791

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 16:25:22
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Hi,

    While it's a clever idea using it as a different shaped hammer makes it no smarter than the next synthetic or 25B product.

    There are better ways to use this approach without needing to mix it with a hydrocarbon and spraying if on your sleeping area. Even if the product is safe what they are mixing it with is not.

    While I support the science concept I can't support how this is currently being done on the grounds that there are safer ways to do it.

    David Cain
    Bed Bugs Limited

    If you have found this information helpful please consider leaving feedback on social media via google+ or FaceBook or by like/loving the images.

    In accordance with the AUP and FTC (legal requirements) I openly disclose my vested interest in Passive Monitors as the inventor and patent holder. Since 2009 they have become an integral part in how we resolve bed bug infestations. I also have a professional relationship with PackTite in that they distribute my product under their own branding. I do not however receive any financial remuneration for any comments I make about products.
  5. ThePlague

    newbite
    Joined: Apr '14
    Posts: 4

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 21:02:54
    #



    Login to Send PM

  6. ThePlague

    newbite
    Joined: Apr '14
    Posts: 4

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 23:08:47
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Paul,
    Regarding the EPA, see above post.

    Re:
    "Further, the implication that something is efficacious and cost effective simply because work on the product in question was or may have been conducted ". . . by a research scientist? . . . " is also erroneous. This is so because research scientists may work in numerous settings and at various entities who pay them for their work. Who's to say that a formulation chemist with many years of experience working at a lab facility for XYZ chemical company is any less qualified to discover and develop the next new product than a similar person who happens to work at a university lab anyway?"

    I didn't imply nor overtly state that her work was efficacious or cost effective because she is a "research scientist" from a university (or otherwise), nor that she was any more or less qualified than a research scientist employed by a corporation; you put those words in my mouth. I was making the point - and I guess should have specified, seeing as you like to fill in the blank - that she is a university research scientist not receiving funding from a large, influential corporate entity, likely making the EPA approval process more difficult; in part, because of her lack of experience in navigating the process (something a corporation would hire individuals experienced in the process to do) or the impediments she might encounter due to cronyism between the EPA and the chemical companies that benefit from the status quo. The Thomas lab researchers declare no conflict of interest and receive funding from state and federal grants only, as far as I have seen.

    You mention in a previous post 3 reasons as to why the idea of B Bassiana should be put to rest as a potential treatment. #2. (If it did work...)"The leading University Labs would be working with them". Now that they are (and are having success), has that ceased to be a criterion of yours?

    Loved numbers 1 and 3 also:

    "#1. If they did work, the global manufacturers would be busy developing them.

    #3. The pros would be working with them."

    Not if they stand to gain more from the status quo.

  7. ThePlague

    newbite
    Joined: Apr '14
    Posts: 4

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Fri May 16 2014 23:21:13
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Hi, David.
    I appreciate your feedback. What is your issue with the suspension they are using and what do you think should be used instead?
    Thanks!

  8. P Bello

    oldtimer
    Joined: Nov '11
    Posts: 4,863

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Sat May 17 2014 8:29:27
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Dear plague,

    My comments are made under my own name and not some hacked up screen name.

    Additionally, implications subject to interpretation are avoided.

    I'm not looking to argue with anyone however, I will post clarification when needed.

    The registration process via the EPA is what it is. The process does not favor one entity over another. In fact, those registration candidates which are viewed as being "more environmentally responsible" may be "fast tracked" in the process.

    The source of this product candidate's funding is of no concern however, it is indicative and underscores the points I've made previously. Let's not be naïve here and ignore the absence of a major industry player working with this product. Simply stated, if this product had the overall promising future that you thought it did, there'd be significant folks interested in it and getting on board to support the development. There's not.

    Certainly many agree that the world needs the next bed bug magic bullet. However, under the current discovery and registration parameters unearthing this "magic bullet" is a lot more difficult than it may appear else we'd have one or a number of them by now. We don't.

    And, the reformulation/repackaging of a product we've known about in the insect control world for a relatively long time is not going to be the magic bullet sought the world over. If this was "the milestone" that warranted broad scale recognition it would likely be presented in a number of papers at the upcoming ESA type conferences. It's not.

    However, this does not mean that the research work was not good, viable work. It likely was and is. However, to suggest at this point in time this would be akin to the discovery of "game changer type compounds" in the world of pest control such as Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, DDT, Organo- phosphates, Pyrethroids, etc. is a mischaracterization at best.

    This is a "natural" fungi based product with some insecticidal activity. Thus far it has been tested under certain conditions to be active against a modest number of insects and the activity reported is not yet comparable to alternative means. Let's not ignore that either.

    When credible folks in my industry start running it up the flagpole as the next best insecticide due to fantastic published results, I'll be one of those recommending it for use against bed bugs. However, that's not where we're at yet and there's a long way to go for that to occur.

    It is what it is.

    It can't be what it's not.

    PJB

  9. bed-bugscouk

    oldtimer
    Joined: Apr '07
    Posts: 17,791

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Mon May 19 2014 6:55:53
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Hi ThePlague,

    I would rather they suspended it in something that was not carcinogenic, especially if it is to applied to peoples beds.

    The better option is to seek to use the product in a fashion that brings bedbugs into contact with it through their movements rather than spraying the area in the hope a bedbug will pass over it. I have some ideas on how to do this but I am sure you appreciate that the ones of commercial value will not make the path between the brain and the fingers on this occasion.

    A more theoretical example would be to apply the product in great concentration to a tape barrier that bedbugs need to cross in order to feed thus exposing them without the need for a blanket spraying approach.

    I have mentioned this to the academics in charge but sadly they do not at this stage seem to appreciate that bedbugs are a field science and that understanding them at all stages of the infestation pattern is essential to designing something that will work time after time. To give you more perspective on this I was once approached by a PhD entomologist who had been working on bedbugs for 3 years. When it came to tailoring their training package they expected to be significantly shorter than the 3 month full course. The reality is that by removing the bedbug biology and physiology sections I was able to trim their time down by one half of one day and a further one day to reflect the time they had already spent with us in the field.

    Its why I am often able to say that something will not work having only seen the design because I know exactly how bedbugs work, I have worked with and studied them for over 12 years and if there was anyone bold enough to allow me to transfer my field time and case notes into academic credits I would have made tenure a long time ago.

    This could be a powerful tool but there is no point in wielding it in such a blunt and cumbersome fashion.

    David

  10. pabuggs

    newbite
    Joined: Dec '13
    Posts: 28

    offline

    Posted 5 years ago
    Wed May 21 2014 19:08:03
    #



    Login to Send PM

    David...your dedication and vast bank of usable real world knowledge is verfy impressive.....we are forever greatfull of your participation at this site....your #1 fan....thanks again

  11. sassy123

    junior member
    Joined: Nov '14
    Posts: 70

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Sat Jan 24 2015 13:41:44
    #



    Login to Send PM

    I had posted before regarding the pheromone trap being created and have thought this would be a good match. Most especially since in this thread using the fungi is good just not spraying it. I truly hope this works and that people can finally get relief.

  12. sassy123

    junior member
    Joined: Nov '14
    Posts: 70

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Sun Jan 25 2015 15:07:17
    #



    Login to Send PM

    For the person asking why this milestone is getting little press, please google Nina Jenkins who is the lead researcher of the Penn state fungal bed bug project. There is an abundance of articles regarding this including a journal article. They have also received grants including from the USDA to do this work. They are in the process of getting EPA approval and hopefully they get it.

    If you read the articles, the fungi was proven to work at regular home temperature and only last for three months. Enough time for the bed bugs to take them to harborage areas and kill off the rest. It killed 100% of the bed bugs. According to them, it was tested in the lab and field. It would be applied by a pco only and in areas like furniture, light sockets and etc. They didn't say anything regarding putting it on your bed.

    It should be any day now to know whether EPA approves because they asked for approval around April or May 2014. They said it would be ready to market by January 2015. At this time, I have not seen that they have received approval. If they don't I believe it would mean they would need to do more tweaking of the formula. Either way, I believe this is very promising and I will continue to see what happens.

  13. bed-bugscouk

    oldtimer
    Joined: Apr '07
    Posts: 17,791

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Sun Jan 25 2015 15:52:34
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Hi,

    Given how bedbugs colonies harbourages it is not enough to apply thus away from the bed and expect them to "pick it up" it would require application on and around the bed for it to work.

    In order for it to work the spores need to be applied in a solution where the carrier is a hydrocarbon ( a but like gasoline ).

    That fact alone given that it could be done in a less hazardous fashion should be enough to make you stop and think.

    While the fungus biological control route may work it is far from an appropriate method for spraying and once you see this sort of product cleared for the market I may actually launch something to show you all how to use it correctly, after all you can't patent a naturally occurring fungus so there is nothing stopping me from doing it.

    In the meantime I would urge anyone reading these threads to look up why applying hydrocarbons to sleeping areas is not good for your health especially with regards cancer development.

    David

  14. sassy123

    junior member
    Joined: Nov '14
    Posts: 70

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Sun Jan 25 2015 17:37:58
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Thank you David for your reply. I am thinking that if the EPA approves this then they would have had the same thoughts as you. If they approve this, i will be the first in line to use it.

    In my opinion, I think any person would just get rid of the bed and so they can concentrate on other areas of the home where the bed bugs are harboring. There should be a window of opportunity for the person to find another area to sleep bed bug free before they find them. also, from what I have read they come from adjoining apts through light sockets and etc. All you need are a few bed bugs to transmit the spores as they are coming through these areas. There is also no reason why this fungus can't be used along with another insecticide that can be used in sleeping areas. In any case, I am sure the researchers have thought of all this as well. Its my understanding that one of them works with bed bugs so knows all about their behavior.

    Either way, I hope this works out so that people can get relief from these vile insects.

  15. bed-bugscouk

    oldtimer
    Joined: Apr '07
    Posts: 17,791

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Sun Jan 25 2015 17:47:44
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Hi,

    Sorry you are missing my point.

    A solution which requires the disposal of a bed is no economically viable for those in economic strife.

    Bedbugs initially hang out in and around beds, the exactl areas you don't want to be applying carcinogenic products.

    The reality is when talking about bedbugs and solutions it's never going to be good enough to "think it will be OK" it's a case of "needing to know".

    David


RSS feed for this topic


Reply

You must log in to post.

293,552 posts in 49,285 topics over 152 months by 21,598 of 22,023 members. Latest: TW20, MyAccountHere, eldina714