Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Chrisv.]

The problem in my mind has very little to do with the EPA. The problem is they lied to all of us for years about the fundemental nature of their product. That isn't "marketing".

I guess what I don't understand is why they bothered to lie. They had no obligation to tell us what's in it. Why say that it was something that it isn't. If they had left it at "it's proprietary" I don't think it would have attracted so much controversy.

 

[Jeeperz]

AlgaeFix works per bottle instructions and its active ingredient labeled. Consumer can do their own pros/cons assessment knowing what they are putting into their tank.

Vibrant is AlgaeFix but its bottle says it isn't AlgaeFix, its bacteria. It's simply a lie. Some had thousands in acros, believing they were dosing bacteria. Most of them would not have dosed AlgaeFix as it is very much an unknown but they did dose Vibrant. If you don't see the issue with that...

Antibiotics can be both broad spectrum and target many bacteria. It can also be narrow spectrum and target specific types. No one knew what Vibrant was until Taricha did his Voodoo in this thread and the previous one.

If amazon was selling Round-Up weed killer and it was actually mislabeled Agent Orange... you might be upset and I think Amazon would likely stop selling it..

Although Amazon allows the selling of fakes and knockoffs as they still get their $$$ so I'm not sure they care

 

[Jeeperz]

Alage is 100% a part of every healthy system out there. Algae has been vilified for years and that's wrong.

However, products like Vibrant do have a place in the hobby IMO. We, as consumers, just need to know exactly what they are or at a minimum how they work. Proprietary items are needed in the world. It's an incentive to innovate. But flat out lying about the product is wrong.

Can you imagine buying a product for your dog, cat, kid, whatever that has an ingredient list and story that was 100% made up? Then find out the real ingredients CAN be super dangerous to some life?

Like flea collars for dogs/cats that have killed the dog/cat or worse, made children very sick? Hartz for one is guilty plus some of those newer more expensive ones have also been guilty

 

[Jeeperz]

The problem in my mind has very little to do with the EPA. The problem is they lied to all of us for years about the fundemental nature of their product. That isn't "marketing".

But being as it can harm aquatic waterways, I believe it needs registration and approval with the EPA. I could be wrong though

 

[a.t.t.r]

I guess what I don't understand is why they bothered to lie. They had no obligation to tell us what's in it. Why say that it was something that it isn't. If they had left it at "it's proprietary" I don't think it would have attracted so much controversy.

Because no sane reefer would use something that can kill without knowing what it is and we have been trained to think bacteria is safe

 

[jda]

You all know why they lied. They wanted to set themselves apart from the other chemicals that were on the market... and charge more for it... and not have to spend the time or money registering with the EPA. They would have a marketshare like Algaefix if they did not lie... and would have to compete in the same price range. Lies for profit - aka fraud.

They also went out of their way to ridicule me, and others, for years even though I knew what was in it - local with a forensic lab tested it a long time ago when he did not believe their lies. I cannot count the nasty PMs that I got from people when I would tell them to be wary of the algaecide and that there was no bacteria in the bottle.

If anybody actually cares, has actual outrage or even cares about the next hobbyist that might have their tank harmed, then let anybody who sells this stuff know that you are not buying things from them until they stop selling the mislabeled product. I have also taken a lot of grief for suggesting that BRS videos are for them to make money and not for you to learn how to reef, but how they handle this will say a lot about if they are in it for the profit or for the benefit of the actual hobby... even if they feel that the product can work, still selling it and making excuses for the lies, fraud, etc. lacks integrity. BRS, Saltwater Fish, etc. can still sell AlgaeFix for the same things.

 

[GARRIGA]

This doesn’t even match what is on the bottle btw. The bottle says “other” instead of rodi.

Took this from their website.

 

[GARRIGA]

You all know why they lied. They wanted to set themselves apart from the other chemicals that were on the market... and charge more for it... and not have to spend the time or money registering with the EPA. They would have a marketshare like Algaefix if they did not lie... and would have to compete in the same price range. Lies for profit - aka fraud.

They also went out of their way to ridicule me, and others, for years even though I knew what was in it - local with a forensic lab tested it a long time ago when he did not believe their lies. I cannot count the nasty PMs that I got from people when I would tell them to be wary of the algaecide and that there was no bacteria in the bottle.

If anybody actually cares, has actual outrage or even cares about the next hobbyist that might have their tank harmed, then let anybody who sells this stuff know that you are not buying things from them until they stop selling the mislabeled product. I have also taken a lot of grief for suggesting that BRS videos are for them to make money and not for you to learn how to reef, but how they handle this will say a lot about if they are in it for the profit or for the benefit of the actual hobby... even if they feel that the product can work, still selling it and making excuses for the lies, fraud, etc. lacks integrity. BRS, Saltwater Fish, etc. can still sell AlgaeFix for the same things.

Just became aware of the product few months ago based on a YouTube video. Wasn’t aware this has been discussed as an issue before. I’ll search the thread. Curious to see how the manufacturer responded.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Took this from their website.

I know. The bottle and website do not match and considering the active ingredient is at about 3.5 percent it seems like they add it as an “other”.

 

[Brian_68]

If vibrant is purely an algaecide why does it typically bottom out nutrients as well. Seems there is more to it.

 

[mojo8427]

I guess what I don't understand is why they bothered to lie. They had no obligation to tell us what's in it. Why say that it was something that it isn't. If they had left it at "it's proprietary" I don't think it would have attracted so much controversy.

Federal regulations demand that every company doing business in the USA label pesticides. Provide the consumer the risks, first aid, proper use and dose that that we can safely use such a product.

It didn't matter if they said there was no bacteria in it. In order to comply with the law, they had to list chemicals. The same rules API followed when they came out with AlgaeFix.

 

[mojo8427]

Like flea collars for dogs/cats that have killed the dog/cat or worse, made children very sick? Hartz for one is guilty plus some of those newer more expensive ones have also been guilty

So you think they are selling recalled collars? Source?
Walmart, Target, Costco? Them as well?

Here is a cut and paste from one of Hartz recalls:

• Reason for recall: EPA requires new label for package with the pesticide active ingredient in this product.

So, label appropriately so that people know the risks, etc.

Voluntary Recall: Hartz Ultraguard Rid Flea & Tick Shampoo for Cats 15 oz. - Buehler's Fresh Foods

Voluntary Recall: Hartz Ultraguard Rid Flea & Tick Shampoo for Cats 15 oz. Date of recall: 1/4/16 UPC code(s): 3270012599 / 3270096037 Manufacturer of item: Hartz Reason for recall: EPA […]

www.buehlers.com

 

[areefer01]

You all know why they lied.

With all due respect to you and others posting similar comments. This takes away from the discussion and work the OP put forth when it is closed due to posts like this.

 

[Brian_68]

Federal regulations demand that every company doing business in the USA label pesticides. Provide the consumer the risks, first aid, proper use and dose that that we can safely use such a product.

It didn't matter if they said there was no bacteria in it. In order to comply with the law, they had to list chemicals. The same rules API followed when they came out with AlgaeFix.

I would like to understand the requirements for labeling and if this is not as cut and dry. At 30% concentration OSHA does not feel there is any hazard on the MSDS, the health rating is only a 1, and this concentration in Algaefix (or perhaps Vibrant) is only 4.5%, not 30% on the MSDS.
"
OSHA Regulatory Status: This chemical is not considered hazardous by the 2012 OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.122). Not a dangerous substance or mixture according to the
Globally Harmonized System (GHS)."

 

[mojo8427]

With all due respect to you and others posting similar comments. This takes away from the discussion and work the OP put forth when it is closed due to posts like this.

Well, we do know why... and I personally feel that the reasons behind such practices are pertinent to the discussion. Why should we not have an open and frank conversation?

I read some old threads and the previous Vibrant thread and no one gave JDA the same level of "requisite" passivity. The dude (I assume) was right for years and got dunked on by UWC when he was outright lying.

 

[areefer01]

Well, we do know why... and I personally feel that the reasons behind such practices are pertinent to the discussion. Why should we not have an open and frank conversation?

I read some old threads and the previous Vibrant thread and no one gave JDA the same level of "requisite" passivity. The dude (I assume) was right for years and got dunked on by UWC when he was outright lying.

As I said it takes away from the work the OP did and the subsequent discussion. Statements like they lied, or snake oil, or similar wording without proof of a vendor doing so will only get the thread closed. It doesn't matter if it is the product herein this thread or others.

Have the discussion but remove some accusations. Unless you can explain to me how some of these words used are actually helping in the conversation. Admin has already made it clear and it has nothing to do with censorship. Personally speaking I'd hate to see it closed due to the material provided. I'm also pretty sure that wasn't their intent to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[mojo8427]

I would like to understand the requirements for labeling and if this is not as cut and dry. At 30% concentration OSHA does not feel there is any hazard on the MSDS, the health rating is only a 1, and this is concentration is only 4.5%, not 30%.
"
OSHA Regulatory Status: This chemical is not considered hazardous by the 2012 OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.122). Not a dangerous substance or mixture according to the
Globally Harmonized System (GHS)."

OSHA is workplace. EPA is environmental.

They require any chemical that acts as a pesticide to be labeled as such. Moreover, if a chemical or substance is used in another industry and its use there isn't regulated or required to be labeled as it is the safe. But, that chemical is sold in any way in which its primary function is to remove algae, pets, etc. it must be labeled.

 

[Malcontent]

The problem in my mind has very little to do with the EPA. The problem is they lied to all of us for years about the fundemental nature of their product. That isn't "marketing".

Paging Seachem...

 

[mojo8427]

As I said it takes away from the work the OP did and the subsequent discussion. Statements like they lied, or snake oil, or similar wording without proof of a vendor doing so will only get the thread closed. It doesn't matter if it is the product herein this thread or others.

Have the discussion but remove some accusations. Unless you can explain to me how some of these words used are actually helping in the conversation. Admin has already made it clear and it has nothing to do with censorship. Personally speaking I'd hate to see it closed due to the material provided. I'm also pretty sure that wasn't their intent to go down this rabbit hole.

I think that the general direction that this thread and the previous one move in. Was establishing that the product sold is a dangerous misrepresentation of what was actually in it.

Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive. He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writerthe lies we tell ourselves to feel betterhistorical records containing numerous lies
2: something that misleads or deceivesHis show of remorse was a lie.

Given the above definition, what is the acceptable alternative that won't offend?

 

[areefer01]

I think that the general direction that this thread and the previous one move in. Was establishing that the product sold is a dangerous misrepresentation of what was actually in it.

Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive. He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writerthe lies we tell ourselves to feel betterhistorical records containing numerous lies
2: something that misleads or deceivesHis show of remorse was a lie.

Given the above definition, what is the acceptable alternative that won't offend?

Your first sentence probably would have been enough. Possibly misrepresentation rather than the more aggressive word of lying. Your choice. I have no skin in the game other than enjoying the information the OP provided. It seems some are not able to have conversation though and the thread will get nuked.