Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I stopped holding my breath waiting for their response a long time ago.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Looks like UWC hasn't been on the site in a year. Are they banned, or what is their status?

They are not presently banned.

No moderator makes banning decisions without consulting other moderators and administrators, but IMO, if they returned, Reef2Reef management would need to assess past statements of theirs against whatever explanations of those statements they provide in the future.

 

[piranhaman00]

This information has spread everywhere, I see it on Amazon under vibrant.

 

[rtparty]

An interesting note is they are now a registered pesticide producer yet the bottle, descriptions, and all marketing is still the same with zero mention of them selling a known "pesticide"

I don't know the EPA rules and regulations but I would assume that if one is producing a pesticide of some kind, it needs to be mentioned on the label in some way.

 

[cwerner]

This seems like it could have very easily been avoided by simply labeling the bottle correctly in the first place. Many people have used Vibrant in their tanks with positive effects (me included). My issue with them is the obvious deceptive labeling and subsequent behavior when Randy exposed them. It sounds to me like they wanted to avoid using 'trigger' words such as 'pesticide' or 'algaecide', since those words cause some people to be turned off to the product and associate negative connotations to it even if it's exactly what's needed.

 

[MnFish1]

An interesting note is they are now a registered pesticide producer yet the bottle, descriptions, and all marketing is still the same with zero mention of them selling a known "pesticide"

I don't know the EPA rules and regulations but I would assume that if one is producing a pesticide of some kind, it needs to be mentioned on the label in some way.

Yes - I mentioned this on another thread. The problem is the EPA's definition of a 'pesticide' - even a bacterial product is considered a 'pesticide' under their definition. So - my understanding is that the EPA did an audit/inspection, registered UWC as a pesticide producer - and thats it. I looked for any warning letter or results of the inspection - and besides the date of the inspection and no findings - I couldn't find any penalty, etc.

In other words - the fact that they are now listed as a 'pesticide producer' and had an EPA inspection does not help with the decision as to whether they their product contains an algae fix-like compound or not. I'm not saying it does or doesn't - just that I agree with you - that the marketing is still the same, and the product is still for sale despite the EPA inspection

 

[Malcontent]

Do you know of any bacteria products that are EPA listed as a pesticide?

Maybe this:

<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> (<i>Bt</i>) Fact Sheet

npic.orst.edu

 

[Epic Aquaculture]

This seems like it could have very easily been avoided by simply labeling the bottle correctly in the first place. Many people have used Vibrant in their tanks with positive effects (me included). My issue with them is the obvious deceptive labeling and subsequent behavior when Randy exposed them. It sounds to me like they wanted to avoid using 'trigger' words such as 'pesticide' or 'algaecide', since those words cause some people to be turned off to the product and associate negative connotations to it even if it's exactly what's needed.

This is true, however labeling the bottle correctly would have reduced sales as it would have identified the product as being the same as API Algae Fix at a higher price. In fact, I'd venture to say that if the bottle had been labeled correctly the product would have been discontinued due to poor sales by now. This is also the most likely reason that they have not changed the advertising or the product label to date.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Maybe this:

<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> (<i>Bt</i>) Fact Sheet

npic.orst.edu

Thanks.

 

[nereefpat]

Maybe this:

<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> (<i>Bt</i>) Fact Sheet

npic.orst.edu

There are examples in agriculture, like this one.

There are also several fungicides: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=13543

There is also one for killing bagworms in trees: https://lancaster.unl.edu/hort/bagw...y labeled for,and follow all label directions.

 

[nereefpat]

whether they their product contains an algae fix-like compound or not. I'm not saying it does or doesn't

The compound in Algae fix is the same one that's in Vibrant, as proven by NMR. Why can't you say whether it does or doesn't?

 

[jda]

You cannot have fraud without dishonesty. Where is the fun in that? #tongueincheek

Don't forget about the time and cost needed to properly register a pesticide for resale.

What you can never explain or factor out of these type of deals is the rush of feeling important that some people have, even if their empire is built on a lie. This is not understandable to those of us who don't have this need.

 

[piranhaman00]

This seems like it could have very easily been avoided by simply labeling the bottle correctly in the first place. Many people have used Vibrant in their tanks with positive effects (me included). My issue with them is the obvious deceptive labeling and subsequent behavior when Randy exposed them. It sounds to me like they wanted to avoid using 'trigger' words such as 'pesticide' or 'algaecide', since those words cause some people to be turned off to the product and associate negative connotations to it even if it's exactly what's needed.

Uhhh someone else did all the work

 

[jda]

Please don't anybody go down this rabbit hole of "bacteria is a pesticide." This is not relevant in this case whatsoever, even if it is true. There are multiple carbon and hydrogen NMR results as well as infrared analysis that show that Vibrant is Busan 77 - with analysis and conclusions by a few world-class chemists on this board. Case closed. Engaging in this stupidity will get this thread closed again. Just ignore this dude.

Beyond this, a company that had no hesitation to thump their chest and make threats now has disappeared completely (smart and likely part of an agreement or on advice of counsel). Similar EPA cases which involved jail time and fines require years for public disposition. Any reasonable person knows what is coming next.

The next time that we hear anything is if a settlement is reached with the MN district DA or if the case is going to trial - both of which should be public. EPA will report their final findings and punishment on their website similar to those posted on these threads with similar cases - these case are always after the final legal action, including appeal if no settlement.

 

[nereefpat]

Please don't anybody go down this rabbit hole of "bacteria is a pesticide." This is not relevant in this case whatsoever, even if it is true. There are multiple carbon and hydrogen NMR results as well as infrared analysis that show that Vibrant is Busan 77 - with analysis and conclusions by a few world-class chemists on this board. Case closed.

Correct. In the case of Vibrant, there isn't measurable bacteria in it. If you put the stuff in a centrifuge, you can tell it isn't a bacterial culture, as there isn't pellet formed.

 

[MarineLunatic]

what the heck I paid like £48 for a bottle how can I get this refunded?

 

[MnFish1]

Maybe this:

<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> (<i>Bt</i>) Fact Sheet

npic.orst.edu

If you go to the EPA website - there is a definition. As far as I know - they were not fined, or criticized.

 

[MnFish1]

Please don't anybody go down this rabbit hole of "bacteria is a pesticide." This is not relevant in this case whatsoever, even if it is true. There are multiple carbon and hydrogen NMR results as well as infrared analysis that show that Vibrant is Busan 77 - with analysis and conclusions by a few world-class chemists on this board. Case closed. Engaging in this stupidity will get this thread closed again. Just ignore this dude.

Beyond this, a company that had no hesitation to thump their chest and make threats now has disappeared completely (smart and likely part of an agreement or on advice of counsel). Similar EPA cases which involved jail time and fines require years for public disposition. Any reasonable person knows what is coming next.

The next time that we hear anything is if a settlement is reached with the MN district DA or if the case is going to trial - both of which should be public. EPA will report their final findings and punishment on their website similar to those posted on these threads with similar cases - these case are always after the final legal action, including appeal if no settlement.

Oh you're wrong. In fact - according to the US government - a pesticide is defined as xxxxxxxxxxx. UWC was not cited for a problem except they produce a pesticide. IMHO
they used the defined definition - and said - ok we're a pesticide. HOWEVER - this does not differentiate between a governmental definition - vs another

 

[MnFish1]

Correct. In the case of Vibrant, there isn't measurable bacteria in it. If you put the stuff in a centrifuge, you can tell it isn't a bacterial culture, as there isn't pellet formed.

Just going to say - you're right - and then criticize your comment. Bacterial spores may not show. My guess is that its a spore issue

 

[MnFish1]

Should we all write a protest to the EPA - which as far as I can find on the internet - there were no violations - and they are using the same marketing? IDK - Serious question