Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

So in the end we can all agree that Vibrant is algaefix that isn't labeled and the EPA unfortunately probably has more important things to deal with at the moment and isn't at the time interested in enforcing the rules at this time.

Great!
 
Given any mention of it being a bacterial product has been removed from the US Amazon listing, it seems the ship has sailed on the idea of prompting Amazon to punish them somehow.
 
Given any mention of it being a bacterial product has been removed from the US Amazon listing, it seems the ship has sailed on the idea of prompting Amazon to punish them somehow.
Actually, the listing I saw claims "Vibrant is safe with all fish, corals and invertebrates." Isn't the actual ingredient categorized as molluscicidal? Aside from that, Amazon as a rule of thumb sides (for better or for worse) with their customers, not the manufacturers. In other words, their account can be suspended simply by receiving some number of complaints, regardless of the basis or validity of those complaints.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Actually, the listing I saw claims "Vibrant is safe with all fish, corals and invertebrates." Isn't the actual ingredient categorized as molluscicidal? Aside from that, Amazon as a rule of thumb sides (for better or for worse) with their customers, not the manufacturers. In other words, their account can be suspended simply by receiving some number of complaints, regardless of the basis or validity of those complaints.
Related to that I’d love to know what vendors are still peddling this stuff… Makes me wonder if its a profits vs responsibility thing …gonna do a search now as a matter of fact/…..
Edit add: the winners are: Ebay, Fish Tanks Direct, Aquacave, and “petpetssmart “ (not a typo) ….
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
For those who want to remember, this was posted before. ...a really good comparable of a person who rebottled a known EPA substance (diuron 80 or diquat) without disclosing what it was. Product falsely stated that it contained no chemicals and was "biological method with live bacteria." Familiar? Anybody? Happened from 2008 to 2011 ish and only got a final disposition in 2015. This also included some back taxes owed, but got about 8 years in jail for mail fraud.


Anybody who thinks that this is over or that something final has happened is a fool, IMO.

You can search for more on the website.
 
Lol at anyone thinking Amazon gives a rip about this hobby or our systems. Hahaha

If enough people file complaints or ask for refunds, they will care.

For those who wish to do something, follow the red arrow... EDIT: these sites rely on community enforcement, so enforce it if you see fit. This is what Amazon wants and needs since they cannot possibly keep track of so many products.
Screenshot 2023-04-20 at 10.07.44 AM.png
 
If enough people file complaints or ask for refunds, they will care.

For those who wish to do something, follow the red arrow...
Screenshot 2023-04-20 at 10.07.44 AM.png

They don’t care about the hobby or our systems. They care about the $$$ and any legal problems
 
I agree, but you can say the same about BRS or anybody... or that a reefer could not care less about running a data center or fleet of trucks as long as the products are cheaper and make it on time. File a complaint with amazon and feel good that you did some good today. These type of mega sites rely on crowd and/or community policing, so do it if you care. Amazon will remove things if enough people complain. It happens.
 
Wait, are you people saying this stuff is still being marketed? You would almost have to be from mars to not know about this stuff
Most buying this likely clueless to R2R therefore won’t know about this concern. Reefing is a small community and not the only participants preoccupied with ridding their tanks of algae.
 
Actually, the listing I saw claims "Vibrant is safe with all fish, corals and invertebrates." Isn't the actual ingredient categorized as molluscicidal?
This claim parallels the language that API Algaefix uses and is EPA approved language on their label . Quoted is a bit of a rundown on some EPA letters I found.
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.

2007_sw_safety claim.png


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.

Additionally, here's a letter from 2007 where API says to the EPA they should keep "safe for use" on Algaefix because Tetra Algae Control also did.
safefor use.png
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Given any mention of it being a bacterial product has been removed from the US Amazon listing, it seems the ship has sailed on the idea of prompting Amazon to punish them somehow.
Can you provide a link? Their own website lists the same ingredients.
 
To the Amazon listing?
This is the non-reef version - either way - who cares - and what ae you trying to say - if you go to the product website - from either the reef safe or the salt or the freshwater version - as far as I can see - there is no difference from before. Perhaps the federal government didn't do as careful testing as that done on R2R or perhaps the federal government doesn't care what's in it. I n any case - IDK take it up with the EPA ??
 
Just my two cents..

I’ve used it. Killed a bunch of stuff.

There is probably an organic/holistic solution to most problems in reefing that’s not fish disease.

I carbon dose, run ozone, follow moonshiners reefing, run bio pellets, run an algae scrubber, rarely run activated carbon, change filter socks. I know to a science what goes into my aquarium. I’ll NEVER, EVER add another snake oil.
 
Just my two cents..

I’ve used it. Killed a bunch of stuff.

There is probably an organic/holistic solution to most problems in reefing that’s not fish disease.

I carbon dose, run ozone, follow moonshiners reefing, run bio pellets, run an algae scrubber, rarely run activated carbon, change filter socks. I know to a science what goes into my aquarium. I’ll NEVER, EVER add another snake oil.
Agreed,
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top