Glueboard versus Electrocuter Flytraps: 
By David W. Gilbert II

Throughout the 1990's, accusations were made against electrocuters by manufacturers who make only glueboard flytraps. They claimed electrocuters "explode" flies and scatter microparticles up to 6 feet away. They claimed this to be so significant that the sun was setting on electrocuters. To date, this has been a very one-sided, propaganda attack of one commercial technology against another. The Gilbert company intends to lead the search for truth on this issue. After all the Gilbert's invented the indoor electrocuter.

FIRST, TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK

To start, you don't need a microscope. Look at electrocuted houseflies yourself. Use a hand lens if you have one, but it is not necessary. Are electrocuted flies basically intact or "exploded"?

Of course, you can find a dictionary definition to argue the use of the word, but you would have to ignore the actual way it has been used in this decade old, smear campaign. It is a word with several different definitions, making it imprecise, and a poor choice for description of insect electrocution, unless you happen to be a demagogue. The accusation has very clearly been that electrocution "explodes" flies to bits. When a person gets hit by lightning, does he "explode"?

THE CHICKEN LITTLE VIEWPOINT

Only from the viewpoint of alarmists can the leap to the word "explode" be made. And, that viewpoint is microscopic. So, let's get microscopic. Let's focus in so closely that we might imagine small electric zaps to be lightning bolts, but, please, no imaginary explosions. Let's take a different kind of "exploded" view, where (as the dictionary defines it) the small parts are shown, but in correct relationship to each other.

How many potentially hazardous microparticles are on a typical fly? How many are transferred the instant a fly lands on a surface in a food plant or on your food in a restaurant? How many are in the droplets flies use to dissolve their food before they consume it? How many come out the other end of the fly? How many potentially harmful microparticles are around us, in the air, on things we touch, on our hands, and in our mouths, in our everyday world? Now, how many is it Chicken Little wants us to be so fearful of?

All of these are large numbers aren't they? But remember, these are very small, very very small, micro particles? How easy is it to use such naturally large numbers to make alarmist claims? More importantly, and here's the key, the alarmists' use of these large numbers is selective and selectively focused, as a magician would focus attention while doing a parlor trick.

THE MAGICIANS' TRICK

If attention can be focused intensely enough, exclusively enough, on Chicken Little's rants, no one notices the sky is not falling. If attention is focused on the alarmists' mythological "exploding" flies, it may not be noticed what is actually happening in a real food plant, pharmaceutical laboratory, hospital, supermarket, or restaurant.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

What is the micro environment in these places really like? Does it vary by type of facility, location within a facility, management's level of concern? How many whole flies are normally buzzing around these facilities? The best way to estimate the population of flies is to monitor with professional flytraps. They routinely catch more flies than are seen on visual inspections. Once this number is captured, multiply it by the number of potentially hazardous microparticles on a typical fly. Does this wider, more encompassing, macro view of the micro world reveal billions of microparticles on the wing in all types of facilities?

NOW, ZERO IN

Using slow-motion photography, we can see a fly flap its' wings exceptionally fast and adeptly. It's been reported that the horsefly can "turn in mid-flight and pursue a passing female at 90 miles per hour."* Now, how many microparticles fall off a fly when it simply flies over an area? How about when it does an acrobatic loop or maneuvers a small gust of wind (which to the fly and the microparticles it carries may be quite severe)? How many such maneuvers does it make as it cruises back and forth between its favorite places inside and the dumpster outside (or worse)?

Now, don't forget that the electrocuted fly is taken out of the population. The one flapping its wings overhead continues on its' way. How many hazardous microparticles are deposited directly on food processing lines, when flies frolic freely, defecating and vomiting where ever they like? How many when a fly, only one fly, actually lands on and is stuck in an open food container?

Even if the questionable research and accusations approached reality, do properly placed electrocuters eliminate a far greater number of microparticles than the alarmists have been squawking so long and loud about and want us to be so fearful of? What reason is there for such abusive trash talking if electrocuters are doing such a wonderful job, so far superior to having no trap at all? Is the micro advantage glueboards provide actually significant, or not?

Retired USDA researchers, Weidhass and Morgan found that "Damage to the flies from electrocution in the light traps was seen as the separation of some legs from the body and the loss of wings or parts of wings. The majority of flies showed no damage from electrocution....Since it has been reported that small microscopic particles have been detected in electrocution of flies, it may be possible that some of the missing wing parts are a source of these particles because they are singed in the process of electrocution. In practice the small amount of wing material involved would seem to be inconsequential."** What does the phrase, an insignificant part of the background noise, mean?

PERTINENT QUESTIONS

Are there instances where electrocuters are needed, preferable, do a superior job? Do glueboards have drawbacks other than short life? Cost? Hassle? Time consumption? Do glueboards accumulate in garbage dumps? Are they biodegradable? Do they make insect identification more difficult? Are there necessary uses for each type trap under various circumstances? These questions have yet to be asked, much less, answered. How many other questions have yet to be asked?

THE UNEXAMINED VIEW

Have inspectors, all of us, been intentionally misled, tricked into requiring superior equipment to be replaced with inferior gimmicks? If it is true that electrocuters are not allowed in food plants, as has been claimed. Why, then, does the FDA have guidelines for their proper use in these places?

Rumors have been spread that, "the FDA has been after electrocuters for a long time." Well, the only PhDs in high positions I know, basically, agree with me. However, amazing as it seems, government bureaucrats, even PhDs., can be wrong. We all can. Appealing to authority to prove your point can be a fallacy of logic.*** Let's stick to the facts, the pertinent questions, the scientific debate. Some moths, such as the ones used in the earliest exaggerated research, fall apart in your hand, no matter how gentle you try to be. Why were these insects chosen and focused on so heavily?

Were too many insects used in too small a test chamber? How hard did the microparticle measuring system suck? If a facility has this many insects, is the real problem something other than electrocuters, such as lack of sanitation, exclusion, etc.?

I am certain there has been misleading information on the trapping efficiency of flytraps from PhDs who don't seem to have any idea what they are talking about or how it is likely to be used/interpreted in the marketplace where claims routinely exceed scientific evidence.

Of course, electrocuted insects, this issue, should be considered, but does the exaggeration appear amazingly early and often, combined with what appear to be other exaggerated or false claims? Why have manufacturers (who make only glueboard traps) advertised this "exploding" flies exaggeration so heavily? Could it be so they could point at their competition and call them old-fashioned, so their weak designs would appear new and innovative? Are there inspectors who have been so misled as to insist that superior glueboard flytraps be removed simply because it has a classic design (it looks like an electrocuter), but has no electric grid, only glueboards?

As a result of marketing gimmicks presented as educational courses, are there inspectors, "professionals", who believe stunning circuitry to be a necessity rather than a gimmick?

If you dig out this research, question the methods, consider the "ballastic" language, investigate the references, what do you discover?**** We need an indepth look at the bare bones methods and materials and discern what is actually there. We need the help of serious microbiologists from across the liberal/conservative spectrum (I'm sure opinions will vary). They need a better understanding of how professional flytraps actually fit into different micro-environments, pro, as well as con.

Of those of you who believe the research has merit, have you or do you know anyone who has actually investigated the claims in detail? Can you defend the research against real scientific inquiry. If not, it might be wise to take a harder look, to think for yourself. It would appear there has been an ad ignorantiam***** attack against electrocuters. For those of you who believed this debate was over a long time ago, you should wake up, the debate has just begun.

Is it in such debates, in sincerely questioning, stuggling, with all viewpoints of an issue, not simply repeating what the "experts" tell us, that true professionalism is born and 60 minutes fiascos are avoided. When confronted with a mirror, do the brave shoot it or polish it and look into it? Of course, we may need to sandblast through several layers of hardened mud first, only to discover a funhouse mirror. The only thing certain in an open-minded search for truth is that we will learn something.

AN ISSUE WORTHY OF SINCERE DISCUSSION/DEBATE

It's not that there is no issue worth discussing. In 1986, Gilbert recommended to the FDA that electrocuters be kept at least 10 feet away from open food containers and food handling surfaces. USDA research****** led the FDA to set the recommended distance at 5 feet. We didn't disagree. We felt there was a need, in some circumstances, for shorter distances and knew a number of inspectors would view it as an absolute. The FDA interpretation remains at 5 feet today.

We have always emphasized eliminating flies as early as possible, before they get into critical areas. I believe there is a real need for electrocuters, but I am not certain what to recommend, today. I want a clearer view of the research that exists (how exaggerated is the exaggeration) and better research done. That's why I am calling for serious study and discussion.

CONCLUSION

What is needed is sincere hazard analysis from truly non-partisan scientists, a sincere public debate of reasonable length, and, perhaps, an update of our interpretation, not a Chicken Little inspired interpretation, but a thoughtful, even-headed interpretation. And, I am not just refering to the FDA's Interpretation. If professionals do not have their own well considered interpretation, how do you know if the FDA is right or wrong or somewhere in between?

It is not that there is no issue worth consideration. It's the exaggeration, partisan zealotry, and "ballistic" use of language which explodes things out of any real scientific proportion. "Expert" recommendations today range from, keep them 5 feet away to you can't use a trap that even looks like an electrocuter anywhere in any food facility. There is a need for simple guidelines, but not for simplemindedness.

I don't believe anyone's idea is clear enough at this point to start making people expend large amounts of money changing existing flytraps and their locations as long as existing standards are being met and no real need for change exists. There may be no real problem at all, only exaggeration. However, in new installations, it might be prudent to go by our 10 foot recommendation, or perhaps even 20 or 30 foot spacing; especially, if it's easily achievable, considering the specific circumstances for each trap, each type facility, each situation, and reconsidering this issue.

I hope the FDA would not change the 5 foot rule to 10 feet if it is to be interpreted as an absolute distance through which you could not even roll a cart of packaged product. Professionals need room for flexibility, for reasonable adjustments to specific situations, to new, better research, and future deeper understanding. It appears the FDA has given us that room all along.

A FINAL THOUGHT

If the relatively small number of microparticles reportedly scattered by electrocuters is considered significant enough to warrant more restrictive use, then how much more imperative is it that scientists/pest management professionals get a better grip on controlling the much larger numbers of microparticles being transported around our food plants, pharmaceutical laboratories, hospitals, supermarkets, and restaurants by unhindered flies?

Area Coverage & List of Don'ts

Area Coverage?

File any published "area covered" claims in your wastebasket. At best, they are, generalized, rules of thumb. At worst, they are misleading advertising. They certainly shouldn't be used to compare traps. It is nonsense to say any flytrap will control insects within "X" square feet of space (even indoors) without, at least, specifying the species of insects concerned, the type and condition of the facility, the surrounding environment, and management's level of concern. The distance at which an insect responds is determined by lamp type and trap design, of course, but also by the number, visual acuity, and nature of the specific insect.

Visual Acuity

Generally speaking, most insects do not respond to light traps more than a hundred feet away. Houseflies appear to respond at about 20 to 25 feet with a significant increase at about 12 feet, but just as important is the nature of the response.

Nature Of The Fly

Many flies will respond immediately to a flytrap, most do not. In our lab tests with 100 houseflies, pro flytraps sometimes catch 20 to 30% in the first five minutes, 50 to 60% in 15 minutes, and 100% in less than two hours. On average, however, they have caught 92% in seven hours, 98% in 24 hours, and 99% in 36 hours. Quite often, a fly or two will be completely unresponsive for two or even three days; then suddenly, it's caught. All appear to respond, eventually, but in their own time. Houseflies appear to go through periods when they are simply more interested in resting, buzzing around searching for food or water, or frolicking with a playmate than responding to light (and vice-versa). This periodic-response-to-light combined with a strong flying ability make the housefly one tough insect to control. Their filth and germ dispersal makes it imperative.

A List Of Don'ts

• Do not use ceiling-hung flytraps in food processing areas. Use only low, wall mounted, professional flytraps at low height. And, keep them at least 5ft. (preferably 15 or 20 ft.) away from open product. Though our traps are escape-resistant (designed to retain the insect within the device); lightweight insect fragments can, on occasion, bounce or be blown out of any flytrap (including glueboards, especially when servicing boards that may have dried out). 
• Do not use light traps where their attractant light shines directly out glass doors or doors to be open after dusk. Outside insects can be attracted in. 
• Do not use any electric flytraps in explosion sensitive areas. See the National Electric Code. Remember that UV from flytraps can color-fade wall paper, fabrics, etc.
• Do not place flytraps in direct sunlight. Sunlight contains all the wavelengths of energy that both humans and insects see as light, including the wavelengths that attract insects to flytraps. This does not mean that the darkest spot in the room is always the best place for a light trap. 
• Do not place UV light traps of any kind so that employees are required to work continuously in close eye level proximity (i.e. over a sink or table where an employee would be stationed continuously within one meter). 
• Do not overestimate the ability of light meters; especially, cheap, little ones. If properly used (and that's the crux of the matter); they can distinguish an old lamp from a new one, but "if" and only "if" comparing the exact same brand and model of lamp. METERS ARE NOT FLIES! They cannot evaluate trap designs, the comparative effectiveness of different lamps, or shatter-proof coatings. Only good, honest research with insects can do that. Seen any?