UWC Reaches Settlement with EPA

[Reefering1]

Iv would settle on stating what it is correctly. If the government had to verify effectiveness of products, prices would be astronomical

 

[littlefishy]

One side effect of this in the fw aisle is the pulling of carbon products to kill algae, i.e. Easy Carbon, Seachem Excel, etc. At least Aqueon and Aquarium Co-op have pulled theirs. Maybe Seachem is big enough to pay for the EPA studies.

 

[Malcontent]

It's the job of the FTC to police marketing claims. Being deceptive about ingredients can be considered false advertising. Manufacturers of products claiming to be "all-natural" often get targeted in class actions because, well, most of our food and nutritional supplements are far from natural.

These cases are a bit harder to prove whereas not labeling pesticides properly is a slam dunk.

 

[Malcontent]

One side effect of this in the fw aisle is the pulling of carbon products to kill algae, i.e. Easy Carbon, Seachem Excel, etc. At least Aqueon and Aquarium Co-op have pulled theirs. Maybe Seachem is big enough to pay for the EPA studies.

Good. Such casual use of glutaraldehyde was always a bad idea.

 

[Reefer Matt]

Iv would settle on stating what it is correctly. If the government had to verify effectiveness of products, prices would be astronomical

This is quoted from what the op posted:

“Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, products that claim to kill, destroy, prevent, or repel pests, including the sort found in an aquarium, are considered pesticides and must register with EPA to ensure they perform as intended and are appropriately labeled before distribution or sale. “

 

[taricha]

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

API is not doing anything sneaky in a legal sense. Those statements and ingredients on the label are explicitly EPA approved. I do not know what data they based that approval on, but it is not publicly available data.
API was initially denied the right to say "safe..." in 2004, but by 2007 that language had been approved and we don't know what data was submitted in between.
Here's more details on that....

I went hunting to see if I could track down the basis for the claim on Algaefix Marine labels.
"When used in saltwater aquariums, Marine AlgaeFix will not harm snails, clams, scallops, shrimp, anemones, sea cucumbers, feather dusters, coralline algae, soft corals, hard corals, and other invertebrates."

This statement is EPA-approved, but the EPA documentation on Polixetonium chloride (linked in 1st post) doesn't provide a basis for this.
And it seems a gray area - there are people who use it and find no harm (it's obviously less toxic than in freshwater), but there are others who find it probably did cause harm to inverts in saltwater under some circumstances. (my observed losses with heavy algaefix: 4 out of 4 peppermint shrimp, 4/5 urchins, 2/2 turbo snails, 1/1 montipora, 1/1 sand sifting cucumber, 2/~dozen hitchhiker bivalves)

I found this interesting document from 2004 where EPA denies API's request to say it's safe for reef inverts.

"General Comments:
Toxicity Studies in Saltwater and Reef Aquaria

While the submitted data did indicate no mortality from treatment with AlgaeFix, several things make the study of questionable scientific validity. Given the concerns in the attached review, the Agency cannot draw any scientific conclusion from the submitted data. Aquatic studies submitted according to OPPTS Guideline requirements have provided sufficient data to characterize Busan 77 as highly toxic to freshwater organisms, ranging from highly toxic to slightly toxic to marine organisms. Since the concentration of the test chemical was not determined in the study submitted with this package, it is unknown whether the level achieved during application according to label directions will approach levels shown to be toxic to marine invertebrates in the Guideline studies. If you wish to be protective of aquarium organisms such as marine crustacea, further analyses of the concentration of Busan 77 in the water during treatment with AlgaeFix should be conducted to ascertain that it does not approach the levels shown to be toxic to marine invertebrate species in the submitted studies [Mysid, LC50=13ppm (95% confidence interval of 9.1 - 16ppm) NOEC < 7.8 ppm; Quahog clam, LC50 = 350 ppb (95% confidence interval of 0 - 710 ppb), NOEC =230 ppb. Data from published scientific literature may also provide toxicity endpoints for additional species of interest, some of which may be more sensitive than the species tested in EPA Guideline studies."

That was in 2004, but by 2007, apparently additional data had been submitted that satisfied EPA's concerns. The product label documentation in 2007 contains the familiar approved claim of saltwater safety for inverts.

I say that it must've been additional data, because the EPA still (in 2020) has basically the same low 48hr LC50 for quahog clams - 0.21mg/L.
It's unclear to be how the recommended dose of Algaefix being ~1ppm of active ingredient can square with that unless they showed data that must've said it bonds very quickly and disappears from the water.

Curious if anyone else has seen any data that sheds light on the degree of "safety" for this ingredient in saltwater.

 

[jda]

Anybody applying with a known product (repackaging) likely is able to piggyback on what was submitted to the EPA by the original maker if you intend to use the product similarly. Novel products are a lot harder to get approved and probably require some testing be submitted -when is the last time that we have seen one of these in the hobby?

Before anybody worries too much about other companies being shut down, remember that it was the fraud, lying and knowingly calling a QA pesticide a bacterial supplement that drove this case. The people investigating this are smart and unequivocally know that the lying about the bacterial part is what drove sales and profits to unknowing consumers who likely would have choose different things if they were adverse to the pesticide, or a cheaper option if they knew*. It is possible that if it was just an honest mistake, inviting them to register and paying a small fine (if any) would have gotten this done. There are cases available online that show no/small fines to honest companies who complied and were helpful when notified.

It is my understanding that the 'side hustle' video, posts on this board, facebook, letters/emails to suppliers, etc. that were all used here. Could be RICO type of things with an organized effort if somebody wanted to prosecute it this way. There are r2r posts back to 2015/2016 where at least I state that this product is an algaecide and the lengths that UWC went to deny this and try and trash just me are kinda unbelievable.

In the end, I would get registered ASAP if you have anything that deals with algae, bacteria, diseases, living pests and anything else on the edge.

*EPA, MDA and DAs offices have smart folks and are not like some of the morons on the internet who lack the ability for dynamic or critical thought who think that the same compound in a different bottle somehow work differently.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It is my understanding that the 'side hustle' video, posts on this board, facebook, letters/emails to suppliers, etc. that were all used here. Could be RICO type of things with an organized effort if somebody wanted to prosecute it this way. There are r2r posts back to 2015/2016 where at least I state that this product is an algaecide and the lengths that UWC went to deny this and try and trash just me are kinda unbelievable.

For folks not following this over the years, there were also some folks, and one in particular, who went to great pains to post at Reef2reef to try to find any tiny perceived or imaginary flaw in the various experiments that taricha and JDA and others did to show it really could be what it claimed.

That individual signed up here and only ever posted on that comment extensively, then left. It was a fairly sophisticated attempt to muddy the waters, IMO. it's not something that I'd expect the folks at UWC to be able to put together, but could have been a paid "consultant". It really did not seem like someone searching for the truth, but someone wanting to cloud the issue.

example, suggesting some random combinations of stuff that he says would match the various results (sounds good but isn't true). Quite sophisticated, but not accurate.

Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

Pretty much all of the mini assays conducted have some glaring confounding variables that make the results inconclusive yet they go wholly unacknowledged. The NMR's pin down the exact match to Algaefix. That's the show stopper. Nothing else matters, IMO. I told that to Jeff from UWC when...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Malcontent]

I feel like there should be more consequences and hope they're forthcoming.

 

[ChiCity]

hot take,
but threads like these
are the ones on r2r i cherish the most!

always find them super informative…
regardless of the side,
and as long as things stay objective

 

[ingchr1]

...That individual signed up here and only ever posted on that comment extensively, then left...

Interesting that that individual joined on March 6, 2022. UWC's last post was this on February 28, 2022:

Hello Everyone,

As everyone knows Vibrant has been wildly popular. We stand by Vibrant 100% and we are not taking these accusations lightly.

At this time, we have samples of Vibrant out to Labs for independent certified testing dating back to batches from 2016 to current to compare them to see if there have been any changes in the production of Vibrant.

We are hoping to have these results back by the end of this week and we will post everything that we have.

I know this post will not please everyone, but we want to have as much information as possible for the community before we make any official statements.

Thank you,
Jeff
UWC

That individuals last post was on March 24, 2022. The inspection of UWC by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture was on or about March 23, 2022.

All a coincidence?

 

[rtparty]

Interesting that that individual joined on March 6, 2022. UWC's last post was this on February 28, 2022:



That individuals last post was on March 24, 2022. The inspection of UWC by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture was on or about March 23, 2022.

All a coincidence?

Just reading Jeff’s comment again makes the whole thing so much more comical

 

[JCOLE]

Well it has been 3 years since the owner wrote me this. I am still waiting....

 

[workhz]

Has the product been 'removed from shelves'? I still see it on Amazon and a bunch of other sites.

 

[polyppal]

Has the product been 'removed from shelves'? I still see it on Amazon and a bunch of other sites.

 

[polyppal]

Crazy to me how a company:

1. Does a bunch of illegal/unethical things
2. Causes real monetary damage to peoples systems
3. Digs in and takes no accountability for years

Has ample opportunity to defend itself / finally has their day in court / is finally held accountable for their fraud and illegal behavior - and people will still come to their defense to hate on the people who exposed them

The people who brought a companies blatantly fraudulent claims to the attention of the proper channels do the future of this hobby a disservice by holding unethical manufacturers who take advantage of our hobbyists to account?

Unbelievable how some peoples minds work... I'm starting to think a handful of these UWC defenders were drinking the stuff...

 

[polyppal]

Well it has been 3 years since the owner wrote me this. I am still waiting....

 

[Malcontent]

False advertising usually only results in civil penalties but this kind of behavior elevates things to criminal fraud resulting in prison time (see Theranos).

 

[aquadise]

This is criminal. They claimed it as probiotic. So people may overdose and cause problem with their tank.

 

[Doctorgori]

It really did not seem like someone searching for the truth, but someone wanting to cloud the issue.

Going one step further….
Hardly a stretch of the Imagination for a search “bot” programmed to search and find any negative reviews or threads related to a product then deliver canned answers of misinformation or favorable information.
That can’t be far off….