UWC Reaches Settlement with EPA

[taricha]

This thread (and others) has rightfully been about laying blame at UWC for their bad acts. But can I sprinkle a tiny bit of blame/responsibility to us, the hobby? Can I say we should've done better and been more skeptical of something that was always pretty unlikely?

I don't mean we need to tinfoil-hat every bottled product we see. But we should ask if what's being claimed is fairly easy to do, or really hard?
A bottle that says it has some reasonable amount of Mg or Ca in it is easy to do, and easy to verify. No reason to go hard-skeptic there.
A bottle that says "these bacteria kill algae" - (when no other bacterial products in the hobby make your bubble algae, chaeto etc melt in days) should've rung skeptical bells. Some people with expertise who said what's claimed would be difficult to do, should've also been interpreted as the clue that what's being claimed is Hard Thing to Do, and thus skepticism is warranted and evidence is needed before considering that it really does that thing.

When you read a claim on a bottle, ask yourself if what it claims is an Easy Thing to Do or a Hard Thing to Do, and dial your skept-o-meter accordingly. If you can't tell, ask around. There are enough people with expertise around here who don't need to know the exact ingredients of the bottle to be able to answer if this is an easy problem or a hard problem.

 

[brandon429]

It did kill valonia, it was the best, nothing currently can compete against it. It's not fair to characterize this as anything other than a chemistry witch hunt, while we all allow other products mislabeled (Prime) to exist free of charge, no pitchforking by an angry digital crowd to shut them down, the whole entire company, due to the mislabeling of ammonia control printed on its label

Making it seem like the product didn't work is incorrect, it worked great, and better than algaefix marine considering the search returns over the years. The two products claimed similar have unsimilar work thread outcomes, that's still on file


What we as hobbyists have blame for is simply for zeroing in on UWC, crying foul, while only targeting them and not the others. We're not going to attack other businesses with this much collective passion, personal funding etc. We got shown a bandwagon

We jumped, piled on, this thread is the result.

I bet i see an ad for a new red sea edition reef tank pretty soon, though. We are trained to look past the big $ ventures, and zero in on startups with a passion until they do not exist


I can't wait for UWC to come back again it'll be awesome. He can design a new label that is pleasing to everyone. I'll then make a bunch of valonia work threads with it and we'll get some fair balance back here, one day

 

[taricha]

Don't worry, Brandon. I don't mean you. You're plenty skeptical already

 

[Reefer Matt]

When you read a claim on a bottle, ask yourself if what it claims is an Easy Thing to Do or a Hard Thing to Do, and dial your skept-o-meter accordingly. If you can't tell, ask around. There are enough people with expertise around here who don't need to know the exact ingredients of the bottle to be able to answer if this is an easy problem or a hard problem.

That’s a reasonable expectation of us here on R2R. However, many Reefers are not on here, and can only believe what they read on a bottle. They may assume that the product wording has been vetted and true, otherwise it couldn’t be sold. Thankfully someone cared enough to report this product and have this issue addressed for everyone.

 

[piranhaman00]

I remember when vibrant killed lion kings lionfish

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

It did kill valonia, it was the best, nothing currently can compete against it. It's not fair to characterize this as anything other than a chemistry witch hunt, while we all allow other products mislabeled (Prime) to exist free of charge, no pitchforking by an angry digital crowd to shut them down, the whole entire company, due to the mislabeling of ammonia control printed on its label

Making it seem like the product didn't work is incorrect, it worked great, and better than algaefix marine considering the search returns over the years. The two products claimed similar have unsimilar work thread outcomes, that's still on file


What we as hobbyists have blame for is simply for zeroing in on UWC, crying foul, while only targeting them and not the others. We're not going to attack other businesses with this much collective passion, personal funding etc. We got shown a bandwagon

We jumped, piled on, this thread is the result.

I bet i see an ad for a new red sea edition reef tank pretty soon, though. We are trained to look past the big $ ventures, and zero in on startups with a passion until they do not exist


I can't wait for UWC to come back again it'll be awesome. He can design a new label that is pleasing to everyone. I'll then make a bunch of valonia work threads with it and we'll get some fair balance back here, one day

Seems a bit off. You keep mentioning how well vibrant worked for things like valonia in your work threads. Yet you never acknowledge all the issues multiple people had in many different posts from many different people…. Most likely as they weren’t in your work thread? That’s an aside to the quote mislabeling. I guess I could put your shoe on and say that rs is just mislabeling their tank to say they hold water and that you are the one with a pitchfork, on a witch hunt, trying to shut a business down. A lot of pot/kettle, black in this argument.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It did kill valonia, it was the best, nothing currently can compete against it. It's not fair to characterize this as anything other than a chemistry witch hunt,

What an insanely silly take. The product contains a powerful herbicide and is not labeled as such, and worse, the vendor purposefully misled the public about the contents using lies and deception.

while we all allow other products mislabeled (Prime) to exist free of charge, no pitchforking by an angry digital crowd to shut them down, the whole entire company, due to the mislabeling of ammonia control printed on its label

This has nothing to do with marketing claims and everything to do with mislabeling and deceit regarding controlled, scheduled or regulated chemicals or substances.

This has been explained ad nauseam and you have chosen to myopically ignore it in favor of posting apoplectic comments about your favorite tool being unfairly targeted. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARKETING CLAIMS.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Can I say we should've done better and been more skeptical of something that was always pretty unlikely?

.....When you read a claim on a bottle, ask yourself if what it claims is an Easy Thing to Do or a Hard Thing to Do, and dial your skept-o-meter accordingly...

I agree but how do we reconcile the likes of Mr. Schumacher and his insanely misleading chemical and biological fantasies and pontifications that are parroted by the masses as "reef science" in a bottle...

You know - when the scientists are portrayed as wearing the tin-foil and the tin-foilers are pretending to be the scientists

 

[GARRIGA]

This thread (and others) has rightfully been about laying blame at UWC for their bad acts. But can I sprinkle a tiny bit of blame/responsibility to us, the hobby? Can I say we should've done better and been more skeptical of something that was always pretty unlikely?

I don't mean we need to tinfoil-hat every bottled product we see. But we should ask if what's being claimed is fairly easy to do, or really hard?
A bottle that says it has some reasonable amount of Mg or Ca in it is easy to do, and easy to verify. No reason to go hard-skeptic there.
A bottle that says "these bacteria kill algae" - (when no other bacterial products in the hobby make your bubble algae, chaeto etc melt in days) should've rung skeptical bells. Some people with expertise who said what's claimed would be difficult to do, should've also been interpreted as the clue that what's being claimed is Hard Thing to Do, and thus skepticism is warranted and evidence is needed before considering that it really does that thing.

When you read a claim on a bottle, ask yourself if what it claims is an Easy Thing to Do or a Hard Thing to Do, and dial your skept-o-meter accordingly. If you can't tell, ask around. There are enough people with expertise around here who don't need to know the exact ingredients of the bottle to be able to answer if this is an easy problem or a hard problem.

I tend to question everything where I have enough knowledge to question it yet in this regard I just assumed BRS had done the vetting since they appear way more knowledgeable then myself. I now question everything they claim and especially since being bought out.

 

[taricha]

However, many Reefers are not on here, and can only believe what they read on a bottle. They may assume that the product wording has been vetted and true, otherwise it couldn’t be sold.

True, some people buy things in their LFS and only ask the employees of the LFS about the product. It's a great way to end up buying something they have in the shop! If the LFS is very good, then your system might do well.
Others will actually look up a fish or product before walking out with it. I think that is likely to increase over time. R2R discussions of products often end up being quite prominent in search results.

@BeanAnimal Some people can increase or decrease their credibility in this hobby over time. Hobby memory isn't that short.

This idea I'm getting at - asking is it an Easy Thing to Do or a Hard Thing to Do? isn't new of course. @Thales article on Reef Baloney Detection Kit from years ago is worth a fresh read when thinking how the hobby might more efficiently sort through this stuff.

https://reefs.com/magazine/skeptical-reefkeeping-ii-magic-in-a-bottle-by-richard-ross/

the Hard Thing to Do question is pretty much covered by points number 3.....

3. Does this fit with how reef aquariums are generally thought to work (is it too good to be true)?

and number 7.

7. What do people you trust think of the claim?

I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to answer for themselves how many of the 7 points in the Reef Baloney Detection Kit had Vibrant already failed before any chem testing was done.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

True, some people buy things in their LFS and only ask the employees of the LFS about the product. It's a great way to end up buying something they have in the shop! If the LFS is very good, then your system might do well.
Others will actually look up a fish or product before walking out with it. I think that is likely to increase over time. R2R discussions of products often end up being quite prominent in search results.

@BeanAnimal Some people can increase or decrease their credibility in this hobby over time. Hobby memory isn't that short.

This idea I'm getting at - asking is it an Easy Thing to Do or a Hard Thing to Do? isn't new of course. @Thales article on Reef Baloney Detection Kit from years ago is worth a fresh read when thinking how the hobby might more efficiently sort through this stuff.

https://reefs.com/magazine/skeptical-reefkeeping-ii-magic-in-a-bottle-by-richard-ross/

the Hard Thing to Do question is pretty much covered by points number 3.....



and number 7.



I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to answer for themselves how many of the 7 points in the Reef Baloney Detection Kit had Vibrant already failed before any chem testing was done.

I’d take it a step a further and apply the exercise to things outside of the hobby as well. There’s a lot of baloney out there in the wild!

 

[BeanAnimal]

I tend to not take anything at face value and research even mundane purchases... I think that is why some of this stuff always kind of shocks me... As in, "I can't believe you fell for that". I always just assume people are more skeptical than they are.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It did kill valonia, it was the best, nothing currently can compete against it. It's not fair to characterize this as anything other than a chemistry witch hunt, while we all allow other products mislabeled (Prime) to exist free of charge, no pitchforking by an angry digital crowd to shut them down, the whole entire company, due to the mislabeling of ammonia control printed on its label

Making it seem like the product didn't work is incorrect, it worked great, and better than algaefix marine considering the search returns over the years. The two products claimed similar have unsimilar work thread outcomes, that's still on file


What we as hobbyists have blame for is simply for zeroing in on UWC, crying foul, while only targeting them and not the others. We're not going to attack other businesses with this much collective passion, personal funding etc. We got shown a bandwagon

We jumped, piled on, this thread is the result.

I bet i see an ad for a new red sea edition reef tank pretty soon, though. We are trained to look past the big $ ventures, and zero in on startups with a passion until they do not exist


I can't wait for UWC to come back again it'll be awesome. He can design a new label that is pleasing to everyone. I'll then make a bunch of valonia work threads with it and we'll get some fair balance back here, one day

A chemistry witch hunt? Since the hunt found exactly what was being hunted, this statement implies you believe witches exist, but that perhaps we should just leave them alone?

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

A chemistry witch hunt? Since the hunt found exactly what was being hunted, this statement implies you believe witches exist, but that perhaps we should just leave them alone?

Have you met my ex? Haha

 

[brandon429]

Having just re read Richs article on identifying reef junk/ junk claims/ marketing lies, I kept thinking during the count list of the exact moment where pico reefing could not have passed his criteria

That would be in 2001. I think that sometimes, simple truth withstands written scrutiny even when written to match a hungry audience for debate. It didn't take long for the large tank owners who were 100% sure pico reefs were photoshop (criteria: were reefs known to work that way, at the time?) to turn around after whole boards opened up for the niche (nano-reef.com)

What credibility did someone with a ridiculous pico reef have among giants in 2001? Zero. They said it was impossible because marine studies cited allelopathy and inevitable space wars, nutrient acquisition impossibilities, stability issues, on and on



Sometimes the results matter most

I was able to work well with vibrant in anyone's tank by modifying the doses for the few times we used it in large tank green hair algae challenges



There are times criteria from that article doesn't apply to reefing, so I don't think we should oversell that article.

It also didn't apply to the emergence of peroxide use in the hobby.

Lots of credible reefers try and tell me someone's cycle is broken, when we know darn sure it's not.

Credibility? Subjective bigtime.

The only published writer who wasn't a self appointed gatekeeper for that which is valid in reefing in 2001 was Eric Borneman at reef central. In his forum we could discuss pico reef biology straight up without being just about forced out of the board by these gatekeepers who kept saying pico reefs were lies, tricks, just like that article implied.

Rich was on rc in 2001 as Thales. That's about when we all joined. Only Eric agreed the science was real, I didn't forget who were the permanent skeptics to any status quo change unless they deemed it valid.

Complete skepticism to the degree that we can't perceive evolution in the hobby is also damaging. We need a balancing article for how to spot truths without eschewing the inherent values of the uber-aloof reef skeptic.

Someone got together to take down a business that wasn't harming them, based on label inaccuracy yet i can find lots of label inaccuracy threads from the business- hunters where they never hollered out to the epa


The selectivity applied, when to holler out to the epa vs when to just make a web thread calling out the lie, is what I can't tie down.

What motivates our reef leaders to do things is fascinating to me. I'll always wish someone used their skills to simply develop a better product, with the best most detailed ingredients label ever seen in reefing. That will make the market sway away from UWC without having to get the feds involved, a better product that still works on valonia will have emerged, we'd all win.

Throwing stones at other people's glass houses is an unwise venture, just reinforce your own house. That's my take. Don't make threads that champion taking down a business over a label unless that's what you always did when labeling issues came up for prime three years ago and still ongoing with no class action by any reefers as of today. How to pick only UWC from this lot of label shorters and be this happy about it I cannot grasp

 

[BeanAnimal]

Having just re read Richs article on identifying reef bs, I kept thinking during the count list of the exact moment where pico reefing could not have passed his criteria

....There are times that criteria doesn't apply

Brandon, context is everything. Richard's article was mostly aimed at marketing claims and application of critical thinking vs blind acceptance. Part of that critical thinking is applying criteria only when it is appropriate logically.

What does this have to do with "pico reefing"?

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Making it seem like the product didn't work is incorrect, it worked great, and better than algaefix marine considering the search returns over the years. The two products claimed similar have unsimilar work thread outcomes, that's still on file

I don't remember anyone saying the Vibrant product didn't work. What they said was that it was dangerously mislabeled. It was marketed as reef safe bacteria... it was an algaecide (literally a type of poison) that was killing things it wasn't "supposed" to kill in many people's tanks which is WHY it came to light.

 

[brandon429]

-Vibrant already failed before any chem testing was done-

I was debating that part. It didn't fail a single check point for me, at all, none.

for sure that implies to readers that it didn't work, bc I just thought that as well.

It didn't fail those criteria, credibility of the claimant and general acceptance by the masses on how reefs 'work' because I don't look to the masses to validate or invalidate anything for me.

It's merits, what it did in challenge tanks, was my accepted place for vibrant. Not on the trash heap, it's important to consider it's positives just the same.

I think it's important readers don't get confused thinking vibrant failed something that's more serious than red seas fails daily, and the coming months or seachems fails on the label. Vibrant wasn't killing tanks and causing thousands of dollars in flooring losses in pattern for three years

UWC is not the crowned prince of bad reefing, he is just positioned that way here as the initial thread direction.

If anyone reading with a large reef can still get a used bottle off ebay I would, or two, to have as backup. I'm telling you it's a secret weapon against valonia and have been saying that long before this thread existed. Keep it as backup, the chance of you beating a true valonia invasion is about 90% or better with it, and without it you have a 2% chance.

For the love of Pete don't dump it in a river, we've covered that applies to everything we own in reefing, but past that-》 notice my paragraph above didn't mention it's ingredients (bc most people don't care in actuality)

It mentions a rare benefit from the product

It's a warning to large tank owners who can't easily access all surfaces in the system in the event of an emergency to attain final stocks; nobody is assembling to bring you a better option as of today at least. There's no other stand-in currently.

It also exists as an important tool option for dinos challenges. Considering how we're pretty much helpless against certain strains, having a half used backup bottle of vibrant is for sure something I'd recommend to any large tank owner looking to best shore up possible challenges. If I didn't see it accomplish a few jobs for dinos pretty well I would not be recommending it.

You'd save it for last go, after a rip clean of course.

People who fix other people's reef tanks don't see vibrant as bad.

It's now a valid helpful tool removed from my toolbox by someone else, and they didn't include any better alternative for the jobs still due, being worked. It's simply a helpful tool, gone now for a reason that never would have impacted me or my friends.

The loss of the product is a setback for the hobby, however UWC did the wrong legal dance that's for sure.

I honestly get the feeling UWC might rebound and with a much better label for round two one day.

If he does that it'll be the sixth most savory turnabout I've seen in reefing. He may not be able to post it here, but something tells me we'll see vibrant or it's obvious cousin from UWC one day in the future/ on shelves/ in blog ads

There was enough market pull for it to come back is my prediction.

 

[jda]

I told people starting in 2015/2016 that it was an algaecide and did not have any bacteria - 2015 MACNA in Denver is where I started to talk about it. UWC claims that the bacteria could not grow in SW which is why you had to keep dosing it, yet the bacteria count was so low that you could not see them in the bottle so they needed to culture in the tank (both real statements by UWC). No shelf life or need to be refrigerated like most other bacteria. The fact that nobody knew of a bacteria that targeted algae in saltwater that a garage in the suburbs of Minneapolis created THAT WOULD DESTROY OUR KNOWN WORLD IN A MAJOR EXTINCTION EVENT. This SHOULD have warned nearly everybody if they were looking hard enough. People did not want to see it with Vibrant.

Then, add in the partnership with BRS - who still has taken no responsibility or even offered an apology or statement, so they get none of my business. They had a video up for like half a day that is now gone... I never got to see it, but heard it was a half hearted plea to investigate? Clowns up there too, IMO... before and after the private equity changeover. Some mod on here asked me not to post such things about a sponsor - I told them no and they could ban me if they wanted (they did not, of course). Others were complicit in some way.

Here is what nobody can explain about BRS... they either are not competent enough of reef keepers to be doing videos if they cannot spot the warning signs in the first paragraph OR they just want the money. I think that we all know what it is...

You should have seen the garbage that I took for posting that it was algaecide. It is all still out there if you want to look. Somebody dug up some of them on the big Vibrant thread. There are some that remember.

For me, blame goes to UWC first and foremost like 90%. Second goes to BRS and to a lesser degree sites like reef2reef who took their money - although not knowing, offering nothing in the aftermath. The hobbyists who might have seen some of the things in the first paragraph and not spoke up have some blame. I do not blame the regular folks who have no idea about how stuff works and need to trust bottle labels and believe 100% of BRS/other videos and stuff.

I still think that it is cowardly that this board who is here to help the hobby will not allow people to gather to see if they can get a class action going. This is pure fraud that is now admitted and not some mad simpleton thumb-sucking noobie who wants to launch ridiculous idle threats with a law suit. Are you here to help the hobbyists, or not? Anybody think of the UWC payments as dirty money and at least donate them to Scripts or MANSA or something? I have a profession that has public trust as the first thing of our standards and the two things when you are even near a public trust issue is to admit the issue and to help solve it - admit that this board helped UWC sell product, although mostly unknowingly and solve it by getting rid of their dirty money and allowing victims to congregate here with some basic rules of decorum if the wish to seek retribution. This can help restore public trust but also keep away future bad actors looking to use your platform to screw over hobbyists in the future. Otherwise, I don't blame the people who have left here to find other places to congregate.

I have the same issue with other products too. Go and get them if you want. EPA made it pretty clear that lots of stuff needs to be registered, so at least any cycling (ugly stages is pests, right?), disease, dips or algae stuff probably applies. Even the natural stuff still need an accurate label to comply.

What this whole thing has taught me is that fraud and misdeeds are only a problem if it happened to YOU - too many fools and simpletons defend them with "whats the big deal" or "somebody else did this too," and even more are indifferent. Too few are steadfast on integrity and honesty mattering - I am happy for the ones who have these qualities. There are also some who just want to argue who don't have the self awareness to know that this was not a side to jump on.

This is really easy for hobbyists: no ingridient list, then no use. Period.

This is still up, but not listed. I cannot believe that BRS has not taken it down. It will make you sick. Download a copy before it disappears... I have one in 360p, but somebody post a 720p if you have YouTube Plus and can download the good one:

 

[DylanE]

It's amazing to me the number of people who bemoan government regulation and then in the same breath say things like this could be avoided with "common sense" labeling ect. Companies don't do those things out of the goodness of their hearts, it's due to threat of regulatory consequences