UWC Reaches Settlement with EPA

[jeffww]

We live in a world where people defend getting tricked into putting toxic chemicals in the water their pets live in? Really? The Vibrant issue is on an entirely different level than whatever seachem is pulling.

Seachem might be overselling their product but not in an illegal way. Dechlorinators aren't regulated. They tell you what's in it. You can look up spec sheets for its safe handling and disposal. They have done their due diligence in the eyes of the law.

Vibrant lied to you about its contents repeatedly. Distributed this toxic chemical knowingly, and got rightfully taken down.

Set aside whatever grievances you have against three letter agencies for a moment and think about how the latter case is dangerous to the consumer. The fact is we just live in a country where pesticide laws are enforced by EPA (because who else would?). And pesticides are rightfully very strictly controlled for the health of workers, the public, and the environment.

 

[jda]

I do agree if products have pesticide ingredients or hazardous this should be well known, I always read available MSDS files for products I use. This is one reason I like Red Sea so much, they're all on the site with each product.

Yeah. They are required to do so to sell in the EU, Japan and other parts of the world. A perfect example of how none of this is some sort of exponential expense or overly cumbersome that some of the anti-government morons want you to think that.

 

[JayM]

Oh please. Let's not take this off track or political or it will end up being closed, but that statement shows a total lack of understanding of what is asked of pharma companies for approval and what is legally required to be on the package insert of an approved pharmaceutical, including an exact detailing of what is in the product.

With all due respect, I’m very familiar with what goes into pharma getting products approved - and it’s pretty terrifying.

But yeah, you’re right about the product details, and I am very aware of that. I should have detailed my comment, and thought about it but obviously politics are taboo here so I really can’t.
I’ll just say that safety isn’t #1 on the list as it should be, and leave everyone to do some digging if they’re interested.

 

[Reefer Matt]

Imo, cautious optimism is more appropriate than a victory lap here. I wonder how many coral dips are mislabeled or unregistered pesticides as well, for example? Hopefully this will spur positive changes and transparency in labeling as opposed to sending a negative rift throughout the industry. I am curious if product manufacturers assumed aquarium products weren’t covered by this law, or did they know and tried to get around it?

 

[BeanAnimal]

With all due respect, I’m very familiar with what goes into pharma getting products approved - and it’s pretty terrifying.

Maybe in a better world there would be heavily regulated protocols and some type of well thought out and documented phased trials where efficacy, side effects and safety are looked at.

Is the system perfect, of course not, money is involved. Could it be better? Sure... but it could be far worse and one only has to look over a bit of water from any coast to see where.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

With all due respect, I’m very familiar with what goes into pharma getting products approved - and it’s pretty terrifying.

But yeah, you’re right about the product details, and I am very aware of that. I should have detailed my comment, and thought about it but obviously politics are taboo here so I really can’t.
I’ll just say that safety isn’t #1 on the list as it should be, and leave everyone to do some digging if they’re interested.

Since it's off topic, I'll let this go. It's been my job for decades and I think you are wrong.

 

[rtparty]

Imo, cautious optimism is more appropriate than a victory lap here. I wonder how many coral dips are mislabeled or unregistered pesticides as well, for example? Hopefully this will spur positive changes and transparency in labeling as opposed to sending a negative rift throughout the industry. I am curious if product manufacturers assumed aquarium products weren’t covered by this law, or did they know and tried to get around it?

I think any coral dip out there should be in serious “fix it” mode. If they’re advertising it as a pesticide, it better be registered. This is beyond clear in the FIFRA and this settlement.

I really hope we don’t continue to see “secret ingredient blue bottle” products any longer. I can’t think of a single product we dose that is proprietary and essential

 

[rtparty]

I think any coral dip out there should be in serious “fix it” mode. If they’re advertising it as a pesticide, it better be registered. This is beyond clear in the FIFRA and this settlement.

I really hope we don’t continue to see “secret ingredient blue bottle” products any longer. I can’t think of a single product we dose that is proprietary and essential

To add on:

I would be shocked to see any of the coral dips, flatworm medications, cyano treatments, etc not change up their business model.

Many of them clearly state the eradication of pests

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I wonder how many retailers comply with local, state and federal rules and regulations……

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-01/documents/ecomfact.pdf

 

[ingchr1]

I think any coral dip out there should be in serious “fix it” mode. If they’re advertising it as a pesticide, it better be registered. This is beyond clear in the FIFRA and this settlement...

Depends on what's in it and how it's labeled if it's required to be registered, there does appear to be exemptions.

The EPA, FIFRA, and various aquarium products

First, let me state clearly: I AM NOT A LAWYER. I'll probably get many things wrong here, and I welcome correction where I am misinterpreting or misreading things. One or more recent lengthy threads here on R2R regarding the contents of a particular "Liquid Aquarium Cleaner" product has...

www.reef2reef.com

In any case, this should be a warning to all manufacturers, distributors and sellers to ensure they are in compliance if not done already. Reach out to experts in the regulations.

 

[JimWelsh]

To add on:

I would be shocked to see any of the coral dips, flatworm medications, cyano treatments, etc not change up their business model.

Many of them clearly state the eradication of pests

I started a thread about this some time ago: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-epa-fifra-and-various-aquarium-products.901500/post-10055418

EDIT: LOL, I just saw the previous post!

 

[polyppal]

Read to understand, not to respond.

Your expectations may be too high for this community...
This is the place where people who've never had reef tanks and don't currently have reef tanks think they are experts on reef tanks

 

[KrisReef]

Maybe in a better world there would be heavily regulated protocols and some type of well thought out and documented phased trials where efficacy, side effects and safety are looked at.

In this fallen world there are only sinners and AEFW. A perfect world would have neither, imo.

Is the system perfect, of course not, money is involved.

People should learn to spend their money on reefing and KCL to avoid bad outcomes.

The Government is here; “Help!”

I tried a bottle of Vibrant and I thank them for their emotional support but their actions have caught up with them now. I don’t expect them to be better people in the future and don’t expect things to change for the better for the hobby.

Someone will step up to fill the void and promise us all something better, based upon nothing at all.

 

[Kylesreeftank]

Wow. Nice. And sadly depressing that it’s needed.

My Brightwell Razor pitchfork is ready, Andy.



Lol.

 

[Kyl]

@ingchr1

Should we take down seachem? Their label is a lie.

Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?

All the ammonia ISE instructions I've seen involve the addition of a pH adjuster to raise pH and convert all ammonium to ammonia. In theory, you could skip the pH adjuster and test free/unbound-to-Prime ammonia but I'm not sure it'd actually work. Thanks. I’ve got a few ideas I want to try...

www.reef2reef.com

***truly I want to know how do chemists draw a line between remove business forever due to infraction on label, vs tolerate the product as above.

there's no way this business takedown logic doesn't apply to prime.

Maybe the police can use the angle that due to mislabeling, people might dump out unused bottles and contaminate the ground with vibrant, that's a true risk for mislabeled vibrant

That's why I up voted your post, the EPA has a job to do agreed, we can't lie to them and profit from it, but I want to keep the pile reasonable: nobody can fix valonia tanks now.

That's one of the unstated consequences Matt mentioned.

But bad product/ tank harm?
There's a thousand of these posts:



The reason I advocated for them these years was because the harm rate was low to non existent, much like peroxide. There were enough of those unsolicited independent posts with pics to warrant UWC into the work threader's guild.

I agree the EPA must do it's enforcement. Yall sicc them on seachem then

It did make a difference in my nano tank, but had I known it was an algaecide, as it turned out to be, I would not have put that garbage in my tank.

 

[VintageReefer]

So if vibrant got a mds sheet and registered then they would have avoided this. Totally agree.

Algaefix marine has a mds but doesn’t clearly say on the bottle it’s an algaecide Busan 77. The mds says that chemical but it’s not on the package from what I can see, so an average consumer coming in petco would have no idea

The algaefix website boldly claims it will not harm fish corals snails or inverts. And we know that this chemical has caused tank crashes in the past. Why isn’t api under some form of review for falsely stating it’s product as safe and for hiding it’s ingredient from the packaging

 

[Doctorgori]

Your expectations may be too high for this community...
This is the place where people who've never had reef tanks and don't currently have reef tanks think they are experts on reef tanks

The Dunning-Krueger effect is alive and well on every reef forum

 

[Reefering1]

So if vibrant got a mds sheet and registered then they would have avoided this. Totally agree.

Algaefix marine has a mds but doesn’t clearly say on the bottle it’s an algaecide Busan 77. The mds says that chemical but it’s not on the package from what I can see, so an average consumer coming in petco would have no idea

The algaefix website boldly claims it will not harm fish corals snails or inverts. And we know that this chemical has caused tank crashes in the past. Why isn’t api under some form of review for falsely stating it’s product as safe and for hiding it’s ingredient from the packaging

Does it state proper handling and disposal instructions on the bottle? If I'm understanding correctly, the law is not concerned with effectiveness. But rather proper registration of product and saftey/disposal instructions. Intended to prevent people from just pouring it down the drain or trash. So they know they need to wash poison off their hands after contact.

 

[Clarkjw2002]

Does it state proper handling and disposal instructions on the bottle? If I'm understanding correctly, the law is not concerned with effectiveness. But rather proper registration of product and saftey/disposal instructions. Intended to prevent people from just pouring it down the drain or trash. So they know they need to was poison off their hands after contact.

This. Any ingredient that is classified as a pesticide (per FIFRA definition) is required to be registered w/ the EPA. And any product with said ingredient in it is required to have it's label approved by the EPA, These labels have minimum requirements as laid out in FIFRA. This is the issue, not wether it actually works or not.

All this talk of false efficacy labelling is completely missing the point. All these coral dips that use essential oils and mystery ingredients are probably already using compounds with 25B exemptions so there is nothing to clean up. They can keep claiming whatever they want.

I can understand where this is coming from, though, as a logical assumption by the average person would be that they are in trouble because their product must not work as they suggest. This is not the case. The gov, whether it be EPA or FDA or whatever, does not police label claims on everything out there, only those labels that have ingredients that fall under their purviews--and then they are looking at the requirements as laid out in the CFR.

 

[VintageReefer]

This. Any ingredient that is classified as a pesticide (per FIFRA definition) is required to be registered w/ the EPA. And any product with said ingredient in it is required to have it's label approved by the EPA, These labels have minimum requirements as laid out in FIFRA. This is the issue, not wether it actually works or not.

All this talk of false efficacy labelling is completely missing the point. All these coral dips that use essential oils and mystery ingredients are probably already using compounds with 25B exemptions so there is nothing to clean up. They can keep claiming whatever they want.

I can understand where this is coming from, though, as a logical assumption by the average person would be that they are in trouble because their product must not work as they suggest. This is not the case. The gov, whether it be EPA or FDA or whatever, does not police label claims on everything out there, only those labels that have ingredients that fall under their purviews--and then they are looking at the requirements as laid out in the CFR.

Understood. I didn’t miss the point. Just wondering if there is anything unrelated regarding false claims. Would love to see false claim products or products that claims to be safe, that actually aren’t, be forced to clean up their act