I know here in Canada you have to list what the final component is in the bottle so regardless of whether there is any bacteria left if the bacteria produced algaecide and that's in the bottle it has to be listed with all of the appropriate labeling (like do not drink or get on skin or in eyes, etc) and all the appropriate safety sheets and registerd with the government. There is no way around that and I believe it works the same way in every country that regulates this stuff.
Again, the point of my post was questioning the test results and feeling a little misled. No one is questioning what Vibrant is. Knowing what it is made me question BRS's study.
As GillMeister mentioned they are in very close proximity , and had some mutual friends. Much of BRS success is due to their willingness to spend money on testing products and creating a general resource to the reefing community. Living in Mpls I've talked with Ryan and Randy several times. I know they try and support Mpls local business when possible, Fiji Cube is another example. I honestly believe they have the best interest of the reefing community at heart. There is no way they have the time, resources or money to validate everything they sell. It would have been nice if they had gone more in depth with Vibrant, but I think the old adage applies. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". The removing of the product is their response to the latter.
I would still condemn them for doing what I was suggesting but I thought it would explain the ingredients list on the bottle. I used btk as an example because in Canada the ingredients list the bacteria but not the insecticidal proteins produced by the bacteria, it is sold as an organic approved biological pesticide with none of the normal pesticide regulations. I'm not a chemist I was just using a precedent from horticulture as that is my field. I brought this up to further my own understanding on the subject not to convince anyone of anything. I understand how the theory I broached does not apply after that discussion. I do apologize if I offended anyone that was not my intention nor is it my intention to defend UWC.
I wouldn’t go as far as labeling them ‘victims’, they made the video to sell product, get notoriety and make money, not out of a sense of loyalty to another local business or education for the community.
This is something I said about 50 pages back. We all know BRS was duped like everyone else but what this situation has highlighted is that we can't trust any product that claims to be a natural alternative. If BRS wants to be the "go to trusted source" in this hobby they are going to have to "up" their game and go to the lengths of doing NMR testing for products like this or simply not review them if they can't be bothered to go to that level. Obviously this doesn't apply to just BRS. If I saw a future video from them (or anyone) like the Vibrant review and there was no scientific data backing up their claims I would be leaving a comment asking for that data and I would have no problem reminding them of what happened with Vibrant. It diminishes their integrity as well and I'm sure they're trying to escape the fallout and possible liability as well. I'm sure a lot of people purchased Vibrant on BRS's recommendation alone let alone anyone else who might have reviewed it (although I don't recall seeing videos from anyone else).
I wonder if this should be reported to the government (btk). From my understanding if a pesticide like chemical is produced that is regulated then it has to be listed/registered/etc. If a natural known pesticide is produced (let's say tea tree oil) that is not regulated then it doesn't have to be listed so it would depend on what is produced by the bacteria. In the case of Vibrant, even if it was bacteria producing the algaecide, the resulting chemical is epa/government regulated.
. I give it until lunch. lol
