Flocoumafen vs Brodifacoum

Flocoumafen and brodifacoum are both second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs)—often referred to as “superwarfarins.” They sit at the high-control end of the rodenticide spectrum, which is exactly why they also sit at the center of tighter regulation and stewardship expectations in many markets.

If you’re evaluating these actives for import, distribution, or professional pest control channels, the business decision is rarely “which one works.” The decision is whether your program can carry the risk profile: persistence in tissues, secondary poisoning potential, and market-specific restrictions on who can buy, who can apply, and in what contexts.

What are flocoumafen and brodifacoum?

Both are SGAR “superwarfarins”

Both actives are 4-hydroxycoumarin anticoagulants designed for strong efficacy at low exposures and long persistence in the body, which increases both control impact and downstream risk.

Hazard profile is a core part of the product story

Authoritative hazard summaries underline why these actives are treated as high-stewardship substances. For example, PubChem notes brodifacoum technical grade is classified as WHO Class IA (extremely hazardous) in WHO’s recommended pesticide hazard classification.
For flocoumafen, hazard summaries and pesticide property databases highlight very high mammalian toxicity and strong aquatic toxicity concerns, reinforcing that this is not a “general retail” category of chemistry.

How SGAR anticoagulants work

Mechanism: vitamin K cycle disruption (delayed but severe)

SGARs inhibit the vitamin K cycle (commonly via vitamin K epoxide reductase pathway interference), ultimately preventing normal blood clotting factor function. A key operational reality is delayed onset—effects develop over days rather than immediately—which is central to both efficacy perception and risk exposure pathways.

Why “long-acting” is commercially meaningful

Long-acting does not just mean “effective.” It typically implies tissue persistence and a higher probability that predators/scavengers encounter residues through the food chain. This trade-off is the headline reason SGARs face restrictions and are increasingly positioned for professional-only use cases in multiple jurisdictions.

Flocoumafen vs brodifacoum: differences that matter to buyers

There are two honest ways to compare these actives: (1) persistence indicators and (2) non-target risk narrative under modern regulation. In many regulatory reviews and stewardship discussions, both brodifacoum and flocoumafen are consistently treated as higher secondary poisoning concern SGARs relative to some other anticoagulants.

Persistence and residues: a risk driver, not a marketing line

Multiple reviews describe SGARs (including brodifacoum and flocoumafen) as having long liver/tissue elimination in mammals—often used as a proxy indicator for how long residues can remain available for secondary exposure.
Wildlife residue surveillance studies frequently find SGAR residues in raptors at high prevalence, which is part of the evidence base regulators cite when tightening controls.

Secondary poisoning: the main reason SGARs are under pressure

A comprehensive review literature notes widespread reports of anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and secondary poisoning incidents in non-target wildlife, particularly raptors.
Regulatory discussions often treat secondary poisoning risk as structurally higher for SGARs because delayed time-to-death allows multiple feedings and residue accumulation in carcasses, increasing the chance a predator/scavenger receives a meaningful dose.

Market reality: brodifacoum has clearer “US availability,” flocoumafen varies by country

In the United States, EPA’s public SGAR summaries list brodifacoum among registered second-generation anticoagulants, while flocoumafen is not listed in EPA’s SGAR set on those pages—a practical reminder that “SGAR” is not one global market. Your RFQ must start with target country regulatory status rather than assuming cross-market interchangeability.

Direct poisoning vs secondary poisoning: the risk framework buyers should use

SGAR risk communication works best when it’s structured as Risk = Hazard × Exposure.

• Direct exposure includes accidental ingestion by pets or non-target species.

• Secondary exposure includes predators/scavengers consuming poisoned rodents.

Most modern regulatory pressure is driven by the secondary exposure pathway, because it’s systemic and harder to control at scale without restricting access, use scenarios, and product formats.

Compliance line to include on-page: Use only as permitted by the approved product label and local regulations. SGAR products are typically intended for trained, professional contexts with documented stewardship controls.

Regulatory lens: what changes by market (and why it changes your go-to-market plan)

United States: consumer channel restrictions + packaging/sales controls for SGAR products

EPA has published restrictions indicating SGAR products intended for professional use are not sold through typical consumer retail channels and are subject to specific sales/packaging controls. This affects not just compliance—it affects channel strategy and SKU design (pack format, labeling claims, distribution route).

EPA has also been developing broader rodenticide risk mitigation under Endangered Species Act workstreams, signaling continued focus on non-target impacts in future regulatory decisions.

European Union / Great Britain: PT14 approvals, substitution pressure, and derogation logic

Brodifacoum is approved for use in biocidal products (PT14 rodenticides) under EU biocidal frameworks, with renewal decisions documented in implementing regulations.
Separately, anticoagulant rodenticides are frequently treated within “exclusion / derogation” logic under biocide regulation due to hazard and persistence profiles, which raises the bar on justification, risk assessment, and authorization constraints.

Australia: active regulatory review explicitly anchored to wildlife risk

APVMA’s recent review materials emphasize non-target and wildlife risk, and explicitly discuss differing secondary poisoning potential among anticoagulant options—commonly placing brodifacoum and flocoumafen on the higher-concern end.

Canada (British Columbia example): targeted restrictions to reduce wildlife exposure

British Columbia has implemented a minister’s order / requirements that restrict SGAR sale and use to reduce wildlife poisoning risk—an example of sub-national controls that can directly affect regional supply planning and customer qualification.

Quick comparison matrix

Evidence base for matrix framing includes EPA SGAR risk explanation, APVMA review findings, and published residue/secondary exposure literature.

Regulatory gate table

Sources: EPA rodenticide restriction pages and ESA strategy materials; EU implementing regulation for brodifacoum; APVMA review and consultation pages; BC government SGAR restriction page.

Procurement checklist: RFQ-ready without creating downstream risk

If you’re sourcing flocoumafen or brodifacoum for professional channels, treat the RFQ as a compliance dossier alignment exercise first, and a pricing exercise second.

What you should specify upfront

• Target country and sub-region (some restrictions are provincial/state-level)

• Intended channel (licensed pest control / agriculture structures / industrial facilities—market definitions vary)

• Formulation category and packaging expectations (driven by local compliance, not just preference)

• Your internal policy on wildlife risk and non-target stewardship (often requested by institutional buyers)

What documents buyers commonly require

• COA (batch), SDS/MSDS, TDS, stability/shelf-life statement

• Transport and labeling compliance fields for the destination market

• Traceability language (lot/batch) aligned to distributor QA

What you should not do in a compliant marketing page

Avoid any content that can be interpreted as application instructions (placement, quantity, intervals, or disposal steps). Keep content focused on mechanism, risk boundaries, regulatory status, and professional stewardship—and always point users back to the approved label and local laws.

FAQs

Are flocoumafen and brodifacoum both SGARs?

Yes. Both are second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) with long-acting profiles that are closely scrutinized due to non-target and secondary poisoning concerns.

What is the main difference buyers should focus on?

Focus on market authorization status and the risk/controls burden (secondary poisoning potential, permitted channels, packaging/label constraints). In many regulatory reviews, both brodifacoum and flocoumafen sit on the higher-concern end of SGARs for wildlife exposure.

Why are SGARs restricted in many places?

EPA and other regulators highlight that SGARs can persist in tissues and that delayed time-to-death can lead to residues in carcasses, creating a pathway for predators/scavengers to be harmed.

Is brodifacoum “available everywhere”?

No. Even within SGARs, availability differs by jurisdiction. EPA public materials list brodifacoum among SGAR actives registered in the U.S.; other actives such as flocoumafen require market-by-market confirmation.

What should importers/distributors request before listing a SKU?

At minimum: batch COA, SDS/MSDS, technical data, compliance labeling fields for the destination market, and a clear statement of permitted channels/use patterns consistent with local regulation. EPA’s restriction frameworks make it clear why channel and packaging compliance can be as important as chemistry.

Next step: align active choice with compliance and stewardship

If you share your target country, sales channel, and the buyer profile (licensed pest control, facility maintenance, agriculture structures), you can quickly determine whether flocoumafen or brodifacoum is even eligible for that market—and what documentation and stewardship framing the channel will expect.