Witnesses tell Vermont panel professionals should control rodenticides; non‑toxic traps offered as alternatives

At a committee hearing in Montpelier, Christopher Sweezy, region director for RK Environmental Services, told lawmakers that proposed restrictions in bill H.326 could limit the pest‑control tools food processors rely on and increase food‑safety risks.

Sweezy said RK Environmental Services, which he said works primarily for the food industry and serves customers in 33 states, relies on anticoagulant rodenticides as a first line of defense in food facilities. “These products should not be available to the general public,” he said, adding that rodenticides “should not be sold on the Internet” and “should not be in the hands of anyone other than the professionals.” He said his company is requiring its field technicians to become certified pesticide applicators and that certification and locked, anchored bait stations are part of how professionals manage non‑target risk.

The central concern raised by Sweezy was a tradeoff between environmental harms from secondary poisoning and immediate food‑safety risks. He warned that an abrupt ban on anticoagulant rodenticides, before effective alternatives are widely available, could increase contamination risks for food processors: “If we just throw out the baby with the bathwater and we eliminate the use of this…right now, what I believe we’re going to see is more food safety concerns, more listeria, more salmonella,” he said.

Blair Calder, president of Automatic Trap Company and North American distributor for the Goodnature line of self‑resetting traps, told the committee about CO2‑powered and mechanical devices used in other jurisdictions. Calder said the Goodnature devices deliver an instantaneous skull strike using a CO2 cartridge and are “completely toxin free.” He described deployments on islands and in ecological restoration work in New Zealand and Hawaii and said California’s restrictions on some rodenticides have helped drive demand for these devices.

Calder gave practical details about the traps’ operation and costs: he said a starter kit sells for about $99 and a cartridge can provide roughly 18 to 24 kills depending on the model; five replacement cartridges cost about $20. Calder noted the traps are designed to be “scavenger friendly”: when a rodent is killed the carcass drops from the trap and can be consumed by scavengers, which he described as reducing secondary‑poisoning risk compared with poisoned rodents.

Lawmakers pressed both witnesses on effectiveness and operational limits. Sweezy said organic‑approved rodenticides listed under the National Organic Program have lower bait acceptance than conventional products and that he could not supply quantified efficacy statistics on the record. He described experimental CO2 applications and electrocution devices as promising but said mechanical and electrocution options can leave gaps in continuous protection because bait stations and mechanical devices may be checked only weekly or monthly on many commercial sites.

Calder acknowledged occasional non‑target captures and said manufacturers add fittings and attachments to reduce bird or unintended species access. He also described field experience showing the traps operate across temperature ranges and said lure cartridges can last roughly six months, with CO2 and lure replacements commonly handled every six months in outdoor programs.

The testimony left the committee with contrasting operational pictures: industry testimony argued professional use of anticoagulant rodenticides remains necessary for continuous protection inside high‑risk food facilities, while vendor testimony showed toxin‑free alternatives that reduce secondary‑poisoning risk but impose different inspection and maintenance regimes in the field.

The committee continued to take testimony and posted related video materials on its committee page for further review.