Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[MnFish1]

FWIW - a pesticide is anything that is designed to 'kill a pest (i.e. in this case algae). According to the EPA - a bacterial product/bacteria is also considered a pesticide. FWIW - on Amazon Canada vibrant is still available for sale - and the ingredients are noted on the website. So - As far as I can see nothing has been banned. "Amazon product

EDIT - not trying to take away any of the other posts - just that - you can still buy vibrant in Canada - and (somehow) - the product is being allowed to - after an EPA audit - in May 2022 (as far as I can see) - market their product. why? IDK.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW - a pesticide is anything that is designed to 'kill a pest (i.e. in this case algae). According to the EPA - a bacterial product/bacteria is also considered a pesticide. FWIW - on Amazon Canada vibrant is still available for sale - and the ingredients are noted on the website. So - As far as I can see nothing has been banned. "Amazon product

EDIT - not trying to take away any of the other posts - just that - you can still buy vibrant in Canada - and (somehow) - the product is being allowed to - after an EPA audit - in May 2022 (as far as I can see) - market their product. why? IDK.

One can still buy it, but we do not know anything about when those products entered the distribution channels. Since it exactly matches a product currently being sold legally in the US, the regulatory authorities may have just blocked further production and distribution, but not felt the need to track down every reseller and recall it.

It is certainly not just business as usual, even after being registered as a pesticide producer, since it has not been available directly from UWC since the inspection (not to mention the fact that, if that were the case and it was all resolved in UWC's favor, they would have publicly told folks they were correct, as they promised they would do).

 

[MnFish1]

One can still buy it, but we do not know anything about when those products entered the distribution channels. Since it exactly matches a product currently being sold legally in the US, the regulatory authorities may have just blocked further production and distribution, but not felt the need to track down every reseller and recall it.

It is certainly not just business as usual, even after being registered as a pesticide producer, since it has not been available directly from UWC since the inspection (not to mention the fact that, if that were the case and it was all resolved in UWC's favor, they would have publicly told folks they were correct, as they promised they would do).

Agreed. I was just making an observation. It is my recollection that many people thought UWC would be hit with fines, etc etc etc - for misleading information. This hasn't happened. (PS - I agree with the results from the testing here - I'm just surprised that nothing has happened - my normal thought would be that that product would be forbidden to be sold - which it is not) - in other words - lets pretend a drug is found to be deficient - normally there is an immediate recall (i.e. pharmacies, etc are not allowed to sell it)

 

[a.t.t.r]

Agreed. I was just making an observation. It is my recollection that many people thought UWC would be hit with fines, etc etc etc - for misleading information. This hasn't happened. (PS - I agree with the results from the testing here - I'm just surprised that nothing has happened - my normal thought would be that that product would be forbidden to be sold - which it is not) - in other words - lets pretend a drug is found to be deficient - normally there is an immediate recall (i.e. pharmacies, etc are not allowed to sell it)

I think the EPA only cared that they were registered. Labeling would fall to FTC And drugs involve FDA so not quite the same case.

 

[A Young Reefer]

Man, this thread was amazing! Over the last three days I’ve been reading this like a mystery novel. There were clear good guys, bad guys, annoying antagonists….I could barely put it down!
The only problem is the ending. 82 pages with no satisfactory ending in site. I really thought UWC would have posted in the last year like they promised. Big let down.
Thanks for resurrecting this @Randy Holmes-Farley. I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise. Thanks @taricha for all the hard work.
If anyone has any other great reads, let me know.
Greg

Hope you enjoyed my cameos

 

[Acros]

What came of this? Nothing? They still claim only to have bacteria, amino acids, vinegar, and water in it.

 

[MnFish1]

What came of this? Nothing? They still claim only to have bacteria, amino acids, vinegar, and water in it.

Yes - thats what they claim.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What came of this? Nothing? They still claim only to have bacteria, amino acids, vinegar, and water in it.

They never came back as promised to explain their product and give their test results, they registered as an EPA pesticide producer, and have not sold any vibrant from their web site since this unfolded and the EPA inspected them.

 

[Joe31415]

and have not sold any vibrant from their web site since this unfolded and the EPA inspected them

I know at least one LFS in my city still has some on the shelf (and I see it for sale at other online retailers as well).
I don't believe the dislike for them has really spread beyond internet message boards, at least not enough that those bottles have been sitting there for years collecting dust.
If that's the case, that the stores are still selling and restocking them, I'm curious if they're just getting old stock or if UWC is still making it and simply not selling it on their website anymore.

It's worth noting that every single item on their website, like Vibrant, is listed as out of stock.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Totally speculation on my part, but here's a hypothesis...

EPA said its Ok to sell what you have in the distribution pipeline if you register as a pesticide producer since what you are selling is an already registered pesticide, but any future production needs to be labeled correctly.

Anyway, I'd certainly be happy if Underwater Creations came back as promised to give their side of the story, but I've long ago given up that expectation.

 

[jda]

Here is my speculation...

Charges were filed in Federal Court in Minnesota. Production stopped. What you see in the stores and online was already in the pipeline. UWC is under order from their attorneys not to say anything. Final disposition will take years including fines and some jail time. IRS and maybe some other agencies that we do not even know about are involved - no idea, but the Feds go all-in. The EPA cases linked here (or the other thread) will serve as a guideline - both selling pesticides as bacterial/natural supplements (one below). The fines and jail time is not for UWC, it is for the next batch of people who might want to try this.

That dude from UWC could not wait to run his mouth and had no issue telling lies and stuff. He would have been back if he was allowed.

This one took three years. Take a minute and read this... seem like a step-by-step playbook for UWC?

Gibson City Man Sentenced To Eight Years In Federal Prison For Mail Fraud, Tax Evasion

www.justice.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, February 20, 2015

Gibson City Man Sentenced To Eight Years In Federal Prison For Mail Fraud, Tax Evasion

Peoria, Ill. – A Gibson City, Ill., man, Carl Kieser, has been sentenced to eight years in prison for mail fraud, tax evasion, and illegal application of a pesticide inconsistent with its labeling. Yesterday, Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid ordered that Kieser, 63, serve 97 months (8 years, 1 month) in federal prison, and three years of supervised release following his release from prison. Kieser was ordered to report on May 5, 2015, to the federal Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his sentence. Kieser was also ordered to pay restitution in the total amount of $75,862; $71,411 to the IRS and $4,451 to victims he defrauded.

On Oct. 31, 2014, a jury convicted Kieser of three counts of mail fraud and illegal application of a pesticide inconsistent with its labeling. On July 8, 2014, Kieser had entered open pleas of guilty to four counts of tax evasion.

Kieser owned and operated Aquatic Control of Illinois, at his Gibson City Fishing and Camping Club, south of Gibson City on Route 47. At trial, the government presented evidence that Kieser manufactured, advertised, sold, and distributed a product he called Pond Clear Plus. Kieser produced Pond Clear Plus by mixing Diuron 80DF with other ingredients, including a blue pond dye. Diuron 80DF is a pesticide registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the control of land-based weeds; the EPA-approved labeling for the pesticide warns that the chemical should not be applied directly to water due to its toxicity to fish and other aquatic wildlife.

Kieser’s advertisements for Pond Clear Plus in newspapers and magazines falsely and fraudulently represented that Pond Clear Plus could control lake weeds and algae “Mother Nature’s Way,” with “No Chemicals,” using a “biological method with live bacteria that dissolves plant nutrients, black muck, and rotten egg odor.” Kieser also falsely and fraudulently represented to customers that Pond Clear Plus contained no chemicals. In fact, as Kieser knew full well, Pond Clear Plus contained the chemical pesticide Diuron 80DF, which was prohibited by its EPA-approved labeling from being applied directly to water.

As a result of his false advertising and representations, Kieser sold and distributed Pond Clear Plus to customers from approximately July 2007 to September 2012. Kieser obtained more than $400,000 in proceeds from customers from the sale of Pond Clear Plus, but failed to pay any federal income tax on his profits from 2008 to 2011.

Kieser provided Pond Clear Plus to his customers via Federal Express or some other means in 2.5 gallon jugs without any labels, including any labels informing customers that Pond Clear Plus contained Diuron 80DF and should not be applied directly to water. To the contrary, Kieser advised customers that Pond Clear Plus contained no chemicals and should be applied by pouring it directly into the customer’s pond or lake. Moreover, Kieser himself on occasion directly applied Pond Clear Plus to lakes or ponds for his customers. As a result, Diuron 80DF was directly applied to ponds and lakes throughout the U.S. in direct contravention of its EPA-approved labeling, and multiple customers experienced fish kills following the application of Pond Clear Plus to their ponds and lakes.

“Mail fraud is a crime that can have wide-ranging impacts, sometimes leading to serious public health threats,” said Randall Ashe, Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Illinois. “EPA’s mission of protecting public health and the environment is undermined when violators misuse and illegally market potentially harmful chemicals. This sentencing sends a strong message that violators who skirt the law to line their own pockets will pay the price.”

The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugene L. Miller. The charges were investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division, and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, with the assistance of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
October 4, 2012
Carl Kieser was charged with three counts of mail fraud, tax charges, and violating 07 U.S.C. 136j (a)(2)(G).
CITATION: 07 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)(G), 18 U.S.C. 1341, 26 U.S.C. 7201
February 19, 2015
Kieser was sentenced to serve 97 months in federal prison and three years of supervised release following his release from prison.
Kieser was also ordered to pay restitution in the total amount of $75,862; $71,411 to the IRS and $4,451 to victims he defrauded.

 

[MnFish1]

Here is my speculation...

Charges were filed in Federal Court in Minnesota. Production stopped. What you see in the stores and online was already in the pipeline. UWC is under order from their attorneys not to say anything. Final disposition will take years including fines and some jail time. IRS and maybe some other agencies that we do not even know about are involved - no idea, but the Feds go all-in. The EPA cases linked here (or the other thread) will serve as a guideline - both selling pesticides as bacterial/natural supplements (one below). The fines and jail time is not for UWC, it is for the next batch of people who might want to try this.

That dude from UWC could not wait to run his mouth and had no issue telling lies and stuff. He would have been back if he was allowed.

This one took three years. Take a minute and read this... seem like a step-by-step playbook for UWC?

I do not believe charges were filed because the results of the inspection (as per the EPA website do not appear to show any violations? It also does not show any regulatory issues (It does look like they are inspected quarterly):

EDIT - the link did not work. Click the link below, type in 'Underwater Creations' in the search bar (click on facilities) and you can view any inspection reports and actions: https://echo.epa.gov/

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I do not believe charges were filed because the results of the inspection (as per the EPA website do not appear to show any violations? It also does not show any regulatory issues (It does look like they are inspected quarterly): https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search/results

Do you know how fast or what sorts of issues necessarily show up on that site? IMO, it's unlikely they would post that charges had been filed without the charges being adjudicated first.

I'd also add that the resolution may be under the auspices of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, not the EPA, sicne the inspector signing the EPA inspection form was from the MDA.

Finally, I wonder what the implications are for UWC to register as a pesticide producer in a residential location.

 

[shwareefer]

Here is my speculation...

Charges were filed in Federal Court in Minnesota. Production stopped. What you see in the stores and online was already in the pipeline. UWC is under order from their attorneys not to say anything. Final disposition will take years including fines and some jail time. IRS and maybe some other agencies that we do not even know about are involved - no idea, but the Feds go all-in. The EPA cases linked here (or the other thread) will serve as a guideline - both selling pesticides as bacterial/natural supplements (one below). The fines and jail time is not for UWC, it is for the next batch of people who might want to try this.

That dude from UWC could not wait to run his mouth and had no issue telling lies and stuff. He would have been back if he was allowed.

This one took three years. Take a minute and read this... seem like a step-by-step playbook for UWC?

Sad to say it was probably tax evasion that brought the heat to that guy and the EPA just jumped on board.

So is the UWC site unchanged because it is in fact evidence?

 

[Who me?]

I've been a proponent of bacteria in the past ... The last 9 months I've taken the natural approach. I add nothing to my tanks other than salt water, fish and coral.


Unfortunately, there are too many dishonest people in this world. I no longer trust any of the marketing claims.

It's surprising how well an aquarium will do when you just let it go natural and stop adding things.

 

[jda]

Do you know how fast or what sorts of issues necessarily show up on that site? IMO, it's unlikely they would post that charges had been filed without the charges being adjudicated first.

They do not comment in any way, shape or form on pending or ongoing investigations. The EPA says as much and I also heard firsthand from a local attorney with some experience in this matter - he expects radio silence until an agreement or verdict is recorded in Federal Court, which takes years. He also indicated that Minnesota might want a pound of flesh as well... states do not always get involved, but it depends on how serious they are about their environment.

 

[MnFish1]

Do you know how fast or what sorts of issues necessarily show up on that site? IMO, it's unlikely they would post that charges had been filed without the charges being adjudicated first.

I'd also add that the resolution may be under the auspices of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, not the EPA, sicne the inspector signing the EPA inspection form was from the MDA.

Finally, I wonder what the implications are for UWC to register as a pesticide producer in a residential location.

Usually (at least, for example after an FDA audit/inspection) they are required to notify and publish the results/any findings within a certain period of time. You would be surprised, the violations that can occur and the only 'punishment' is that the company has to respond with a letter telling the inspecting agency their plan to rectify the situation. But - everything is listed as 'out of stock' even non-vibrant products so who knows

 

[Who me?]

If charges were pending and the EPA were still involved I would think existing product on store shelves would be forcibly recalled.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here's an actual example of how long these things take:

Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order issued to eBay, Inc. | US EPA

eBay, Inc., have been issued a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (SSURO) for potential violations of the FIFRA.

www.epa.gov

Beginning in March 2018, the EPA received tips and complaints of pesticides being distributed or sold on eBay.com in violation of FIFRA. Subsequently, the EPA began collecting and reviewing additional information on product sales...

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “the Agency”) issued an order to eBay, Inc. (eBay), directing the company to immediately stop the sale or distribution of over 40 different types of pesticide products

 

[jda]

Unlike the linked case where Diuron 80 was not meant for use in water, the Quat is OK in water when labeled and used appropriately, so maybe not as much urgency to recall. Also, with shoddy record keeping and stuff, it is nearly impossible to get a full chain of custody on products to do a recall. Even if the product is to be recalled, this takes a LOT of time. It is the fraud for profit with the outright lies that is the issue. Mail fraud is a huge deal.

We are not talking about sending an apology letter to the FDA for not wearing a hair net whilst making a cheeseburger, or some other honest mistake.

This summary from the EPA lead investigator says it all:

“EPA’s mission of protecting public health and the environment is undermined when violators misuse and illegally market potentially harmful chemicals. This sentencing sends a strong message that violators who skirt the law to line their own pockets will pay the price.