Oh the hidden cost of unabated “deregulation”Crazy to me how a company:
- Does a bunch of illegal/unethical things
- Causes real monetary damage to peoples systems
- Digs in and takes no accountability for years
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh the hidden cost of unabated “deregulation”Crazy to me how a company:
- Does a bunch of illegal/unethical things
- Causes real monetary damage to peoples systems
- Digs in and takes no accountability for years
]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.
Never mind the cost of unabated regulationOh the hidden cost of unabated “deregulation”
So, Soylent Green?If you are interested, then please fully read this, do not skim it. The parallels are staggering...
Summary of Criminal Prosecutions | Enforcement | US EPA
cfpub.epa.gov
Here is a quick quote:
Yikes. That is maybe a more extreme case given the volume of product, it being poured directly into waterways, and especially the tax evasion that likely brought attention to his operation but daaaaang. Not a warm and fuzzy feeling if that is a reference case to what UWC has to look forward to.Some don't seem to be understanding, so I will try to break this down...
There are civil and criminal parts to this. Multiple agencies and entities can bring either, or both. This settlement was civil from the EPA - there could be more civil penalties from different places/orgs/etc. including even class action and/or lawsuits should somebody like API or Fritz (whose product they copied) want to file them. The criminal part needs to be handled by a DA - there are state and federal at play here.
EPA settled their labeling part of this - that is all. Consumer fraud, mail fraud are still at play here. DO NOT think that anybody looked past labeling a EPA Pesticide as a bacteria - since this is not in the EPA civil settlement, you can bet that a criminal case is ongoing.
If anybody is so inclined, you can see if there are cases filed in Minnesota State Court or the Feds for the District of MN. The criminal parts always take longer since judges are involved, even if there is a settlement.
If you are interested, then please fully read this, do not skim it. The parallels are staggering...
Summary of Criminal Prosecutions | Enforcement | US EPA
cfpub.epa.gov
Here is a quick quote:
Which has done more harm to the hobby, caused more loss and harm to reefers:
Vibrant, and it's label so vile
Or red sea brand reef tanks
Red Sea Reefer 350 G2 catastrophic failure
This should come as a surprise to no one here, but the front seal on our Red Sea Reefer 350 G2 failed catastrophically last night and the whole tank emptied onto our floor in just a few minutes. We reached out to their support team to seek remedy for the impact to us and premature loss on this...www.reef2reef.com
I think red sea is far more impactful because they're still amassing sales due to supporting entities for them that won't inform readers of these terrible breaks, across each production line from the recent past.
All the blogs sell for them daily via clicks and ads
But no blogs will report the breaks, so the info withholding cycle continues
But UWC is the bad guy.
Of course his labeling is epa illegal, that doesn't make my whataboutism less valid. We are all complacent in producing those seam break losses, because we'd rather rise up against other non damaging forces.
EPA not interested... What did happen? Fraud......It’s amazing how things have changed. If people read our original post on Vibrant, we didn’t just come up with some wishy washy thing. This was created in conjunction with a science firm to solve a issue that we had as a custom aquarium company, years ago...
None of you have been in my garage...we have an abstract and hope to win a major award......When we spoke with the EPA about registration and also third party registration companies, they seemed very uninterested in wanting to do anything with Vibrant. This market is too small and it seems like a sector they are not interested in getting involved in at this point...
...The EPA at this point is simply not interested in our market as it is such small fish, so to speak. They are after the broad market application products . Is the EPA being out of our hobby good or bad? I guess that's up to how you interpret what would happen if they were involved.
As for the fraud claims, yeah right...
Get back to us in the form of an EPA Consent Agreement and Final Order?You know what's odd. I've never seen any of you at the facility where Vibrant is made. I really don't need to spell anything out on a open forum. Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the (edit) extract is used. All created by BACTERIA.
The group we work with has submitted into the ASM Microbe abstract and awards for early 2022. Once things have been presented. I will gladly post up a bunch of info on our site.
We're still here. It's actually been kind of fun to watch them try and figure out what they think is in Vibrant. Just been sitting back and observing without interjecting. Eventually I'll tell you all exactly why you are getting the quat response on these tests, including how Vibrant is actually mixed up and bottled
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
Which has done more harm to the hobby, caused more loss and harm to reefers:
Vibrant, and it's label so vile
Or red sea brand reef tanks
Red Sea Reefer 350 G2 catastrophic failure
This should come as a surprise to no one here, but the front seal on our Red Sea Reefer 350 G2 failed catastrophically last night and the whole tank emptied onto our floor in just a few minutes. We reached out to their support team to seek remedy for the impact to us and premature loss on this...www.reef2reef.com
I think red sea is far more impactful because they're still amassing sales due to supporting entities for them that won't inform readers of these terrible breaks, across each production line from the recent past.
All the blogs sell for them daily via clicks and ads
But no blogs will report the breaks, so the info withholding cycle continues
But UWC is the bad guy.
Of course his labeling is epa illegal, that doesn't make my whataboutism less valid. We are all complacent in producing those seam break losses, because we'd rather rise up against other non damaging forces.
Hmmm…I wonder how many people with these seam issues used vibrant? Maybe vibrant weakens the sealant. I mean there have been fewer failure posts since this whole thing came about. I would never have put the two together…..until now! HahahaThis is a real post?
What an odd number for a penalty. $24255, lol! Why not round up?!I'm not going to research it, but I wonder if any of the coral dips are compliant?
Definitions from the Final Order.
$255 filing feeWhat an odd number for a penalty. $24255, lol! Why not round up?!
That works!$255 filing fee