Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[MnFish1]

Here's an actual example of how long these things take:

Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order issued to eBay, Inc. | US EPA

eBay, Inc., have been issued a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (SSURO) for potential violations of the FIFRA.

www.epa.gov

Beginning in March 2018, the EPA received tips and complaints of pesticides being distributed or sold on eBay.com in violation of FIFRA. Subsequently, the EPA began collecting and reviewing additional information on product sales...

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “the Agency”) issued an order to eBay, Inc. (eBay), directing the company to immediately stop the sale or distribution of over 40 different types of pesticide products

Yet Vibrant is still being sold on Ebay...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yet Vibrant is still being sold on Ebay...

It's possible determination as a pesticide post dates that order.

 

[Who me?]

So then aren't the online vendors still selling vibrant also committing fraud by knowingly selling the product without adding a disclaimer on their site?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So then aren't the online vendors still selling vibrant also committing fraud by knowingly selling the product without adding a disclaimer on their site?

If they have not been told it is a pesticide, nor that there is any issue at all, I cannot see how they are liable.

 

[jda]

You would have to prove that they know. The few that actually do know for sure, and admitted that they likely know of the pesticide, like BRS, have stopped selling the stuff.

Besides, it is not fraud yet... there has to be a settlement or verdict first. Even after a final disposition, you still have to prove that they knew.

 

[Who me?]

If they have not been told it is a pesticide, nor that there is any issue at all, I cannot see how they are liable.

Reasonable knowledge.

Lack of direct contact of information isn't a valid legal argument.

 

[MnFish1]

Vibrant has always been considered 'a pesticide' by the definition of the government (even if the label/website were correct and it only contained 'bacteria'). Assume it contains the same ingredient as Algaefix (which is still on the market) - and still available at BRS. It remains confusing that on the EPA website there is no indication that there is any action required, or violation. Perhaps as Randy says, it's too early. PS the Ebay list was amended to add 170 more pesticides in 2021. Mislabeling is certainly seems to be against EPA regulations

 

[jda]

Admittedly, this is not worth much, but my dudes expect this to settle. The comps out there of 8-10 years of jail time are too big of a risk, of which you have to serve 85% mandatory. From the linked comparable, the IRS thing is not nothing, but people who have avoided paying taxes on 400k have often just had large fines and not had Federal charges filed, so was not likely a significant part of the penalty and moreso with fines. If they have dead-to-rights evidence, and you can bet that the EPA/Dept of Ag does since we have it here at r2r, then it appears foolish to take this to trial... but it was also foolish to try this scheme in the first place, so a fool is what a fool does, I guess.

Here is my guess as to what happened: Feds and State showed up. Saw what they needed to see with either 55 gallon drums of Busan 77 laying around or UWC admitted that it was Busan 77 - too easy to just test a bottle from your local LFS like we did. UWC knew that the gig was up. First day was cataloging stuff in the garage or basement or whatever they called a lab. Computers were taken. Subsequent days for were files, computers, sales receipts, etc. - deeper dive. UWC laywer'd up which is why they have gone silent, which is smart. The rest of it is ongoing in radio silence from both sides.

Me editorializing: Since only Trump feels the need to talk more than the UWC guy, I just cannot believe that he would be totally quiet on this stuff if there were not serious consequences on the line. If UWC were off the hook, I just feel that he would be out there paying some fanboys or doing some talking themselves. To me, it is no coincidence that the fanboys with new accounts have disappeared too. If API and Fritz can make money selling this stuff with the correct labeling, then UWC could change the label and still sell it for $30 a bottle based on old word of mouth and online reviews even taking out the bacterial part and most folks would never notice and still buy it in pet stores or online... and there are the fools who have the "who cares since it works" mentality even if AlgaeFix costs less. Just the change of behavior from UWC should be enough for anybody familiar with human nature to know that something is happening...

 

[MnFish1]

Admittedly, this is not worth much, but my dudes expect this to settle. The comps out there of 8-10 years of jail time are too big of a risk, of which you have to serve 85% mandatory. From the linked comparable, the IRS thing is not nothing, but people who have avoided paying taxes on 400k have often just had large fines and not had Federal charges filed, so was not likely a significant part of the penalty and moreso with fines. If they have dead-to-rights evidence, and you can bet that the EPA/Dept of Ag does since we have it here at r2r, then it appears foolish to take this to trial... but it was also foolish to try this scheme in the first place, so a fool is what a fool does, I guess.

Here is my guess as to what happened: Feds and State showed up. Saw what they needed to see with either 55 gallon drums of Busan 77 laying around or UWC admitted that it was Busan 77 - too easy to just test a bottle from your local LFS like we did. UWC knew that the gig was up. First day was cataloging stuff in the garage or basement or whatever they called a lab. Computers were taken. Subsequent days for were files, computers, sales receipts, etc. - deeper dive. UWC laywer'd up which is why they have gone silent, which is smart. The rest of it is ongoing in radio silence from both sides.

Me editorializing: Since only Trump feels the need to talk more than the UWC guy, I just cannot believe that he would be totally quiet on this stuff if there were not serious consequences on the line. If UWC were off the hook, I just feel that he would be out there paying some fanboys or doing some talking themselves. To me, it is no coincidence that the fanboys with new accounts have disappeared too. If API and Fritz can make money selling this stuff with the correct labeling, then UWC could change the label and still sell it for $30 a bottle based on old word of mouth and online reviews even taking out the bacterial part and most folks would never notice and still buy it in pet stores or online... and there are the fools who have the "who cares since it works" mentality even if AlgaeFix costs less. Just the change of behavior from UWC should be enough for anybody familiar with human nature to know that something is happening...

My guess is that UWC doesn't have 55 gallons of Busan 77 that they personally funnel into a bottle (i.e. there is probably a company that produced and labeled the product for them). The fines (according to the law FIFRA that Randy posted are surprisingly minimal. The EPA (according to my reading) reports an inspection with no findings. If what you're saying is anywhere near the case that report would be available. And in my opinion the EPA would easily google the remaining people selling Vibrant and they would be told not to sell it. All of that said there are multiple issues that don't quite make complete sense here and perhaps others are investigating the advertising issue (assuming there was one). From a non-legal perspective

 

[jda]

If the EPA reports inspections with no findings, then where is the report about this site visit? We have proof that it happened from UWC. This is not how the EPA works. ...nothing until final disposition.

Buckman Labs will sell you a 55g drum of Busan 77 if you call them and pay for it. They come with a pump. You don't have to dip them on their side and use a funnel, although that was a fun image in my head.

Is there anything that I have been wrong about since 2015 in this whole deal? Anything?

I imagine that there are all kinds of other companies nearby who pump liquid from drums of biocide into bottles with wrong labels who are dying to go to jail too. If this were true, then organized crime and rico could come into play here. This is not likely. If it is, then others are going to jail too.

 

[Joe31415]

Reasonable knowledge.

Lack of direct contact of information isn't a valid legal argument.

How would they know? It's not that every vendor looks up all of their products every day to make sure they're still allowed to sell them. A reasonable person would have no way to know until informed.

I'm in the food industry. If some random product in my store is recalled, I have no way of knowing until I get a barrage of phone calls, email and faxes from some combination of local and state health inspectors, the USDA and/or DATCP or the vendor. But once I've been informed, I best be removing those items from the shelf. It's not uncommon to end up with a local or state (or even USDA) inspector to stop in a few hours/days later to make sure the product has been removed.

Granted, if I hadn't been notified but they had proof I spent a year talking about it on a message board, that might be different.

 

[Who me?]

How would they know? It's not that every vendor l
Granted, if I hadn't been notified but they had proof I spent a year talking about it on a message board, that might be different.

You answered your own question.


Many of the vendors still selling this are hobbyists as well... It would be a stretch to claim no knowledge.



With that said, it's doubtful law agencies would pursue any party other than the manufacturer/distributor.

 

[MnFish1]

If the EPA reports inspections with no findings, then where is the report about this site visit? We have proof that it happened from UWC. This is not how the EPA works. ...nothing until final disposition.

Buckman Labs will sell you a 55g drum of Busan 77 if you call them and pay for it. They come with a pump. You don't have to dip them on their side and use a funnel, although that was a fun image in my head.

Is there anything that I have been wrong about since 2015 in this whole deal? Anything?

I imagine that there are all kinds of other companies nearby who pump liquid from drums of biocide into bottles with wrong labels who are dying to go to jail too. If this were true, then organized crime and rico could come into play here. This is not likely. If it is, then others are going to jail too.

The report is on the website. There were no findings - to my interpretation. Thats how government inspections work - they do not always report if there are no problems - but if there are problems they do. Suggestion - why not call the EPA and ask them?

 

[MnFish1]

The report is on the website. There were no findings - to my interpretation. Thats how government inspections work - they do not always report if there are no problems - but if there are problems they do. Suggestion - why not call the EPA and ask them?

If you use the site and click on the 'C' button over reports you can get more details

 

[Joe31415]

TLDR, cuz this post got away from me...They could theoratically look at someone's posting history to see if they've knowingly been selling a product that's been recalled, but this early on, it's unlikely.

You answered your own question.

I disagree. I provided a hypothetical answer that isn't likely to come into play.

Many of the vendors still selling this are hobbyists as well... It would be a stretch to claim no knowledge.

But it's not about a merchant claiming they don't have knowledge, it's about a regulatory agency proving that you did have knowledge. In my expierence in the food industry (which I've been in for an extraordinarily long time), if I have some recalled product, and it's a big enough deal to trigger inspectors to do random audits to make sure stores actually pulled the product, they're going to show up at my store and if the product is on the shelf, they'll make me pull it. That's typically about it other. They're not searching the internet to see if they can find me posting something that proves I knew about the recall before they showed up but ignored it.
And, in my experience, they'd follow that up with a letter that would serve as the official notice and proof that, at least as far back as that day, I was aware of the recall and knew I was not allowed to sell that product anymore.

I can go on, but at least in the food industry, they don't screw around. They're not looking at your internet history. They make absolutely, and provably, sure that you're aware, and then levy fines against you for non-compliance.

Having said that, if you got someone sick, I could see the lawyer in their civil suit digging around for things like internet posting history, but not the government.

With that said, it's doubtful law agencies would pursue any party other than the manufacturer/distributor.

And that's probably the important takeaway. In a case like this (UWC), the EPA isn't digging into this stuff*, it's their customers. And, that's what screwed things up for them. Think about how different this would have played out had UWC's very first post when they started getting questions was to say sorry and make up some quasi-plasuible excuse. At the very least, their reputation wouldn't have been trashed. Regardless of what's in the bottle, plenty of people have had good experiences with it. But because of they way they acted, even people that liked the product may choose to stop using it.

*I say 'in a case like this', but in this specific case, I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but mostly because I'm guessing the person or persons that tipped off the EPA probably linked to these threads. While I haven't read them in a while, I can think of a few specific posts that may be helpful should anyone want/need to prove intent to defraud.
Come to think of it, I wonder if they could be looking at wire or mail fraud issues as well?

 

[jda]

Got a call and Vibrant is now a registered pesticide with the EPA with a conditional approval as of July 13th.

This means one of two things, but my guy said that it is mostly likely the first step in a settlement or trial by admitting what is in the product by registering it retroactively and agreeing on the contents. It also could mean that they intend to sell the product again, but these type of registrations are just approved normally.

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/101854-00001-20230713.pdf

The way that he explained it, the conditional approval is key. Conditional approval is for special circumstances only. Each State has 1 year to take action with of some sort of a plan for enforcement of or else the product goes to disapproval. Conditional approval is not usually a path to approval.

If you want to read more about what conditional approval means, it is here:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf

In any case, it is now even beyond totally clear that everybody in the testing was correct about nearly everything that they said from the product to the amount - not that he needed it but @taricha and the crew should feel even better for their hard work and the garbage takes and posts that they had to endure. It also is consistent with the path that some have laid out that something is happening, that the process is slow and that we will really know nothing until it is all done.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Got a call and Vibrant is now a registered pesticide with the EPA with a conditional approval as of July 13th.

This means one of two things, but my guy said that it is mostly likely the first step in a settlement or trial by admitting what is in the product by registering it retroactively and agreeing on the contents. It also could mean that they intend to sell the product again, but these type of registrations are just approved normally.

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/101854-00001-20230713.pdf

The way that he explained it, the conditional approval is key. Conditional approval is for special circumstances only. Each State has 1 year to take action of some sort of action for enforcement of some sort or else the product goes to disapproval. Conditional approval is not usually a path to approval.

If you want to read more about what conditional approval means, it is here:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf

In any case, it is now even beyond totally clear that everybody in the testing was correct about nearly everything that they said from the product to the amount - not that he needed it but @taricha and the crew should feel even better for their hard work and the garbage takes and posts that they had to endure. It also is consistent with the path that some have laid out that something is happening, that the process is slow and that we will really know nothing until it is all done.

This is beautiful. Now can we sue for damages ? Also who the heck would ever give this loser money after the junk he pulled?

 

[a.t.t.r]

Also, it is my opinion that this man belongs in jail. Knowingly Breaking laws and mislabeling should not just result in a fine that is a cost of business expense. Profit $100k pay a $1000 fine seems all to common in this country.

 

[jeffww]

Got a call and Vibrant is now a registered pesticide with the EPA with a conditional approval as of July 13th.

This means one of two things, but my guy said that it is mostly likely the first step in a settlement or trial by admitting what is in the product by registering it retroactively and agreeing on the contents. It also could mean that they intend to sell the product again, but these type of registrations are just approved normally.

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/101854-00001-20230713.pdf

The way that he explained it, the conditional approval is key. Conditional approval is for special circumstances only. Each State has 1 year to take action with of some sort of a plan for enforcement of or else the product goes to disapproval. Conditional approval is not usually a path to approval.

If you want to read more about what conditional approval means, it is here:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf

In any case, it is now even beyond totally clear that everybody in the testing was correct about nearly everything that they said from the product to the amount - not that he needed it but @taricha and the crew should feel even better for their hard work and the garbage takes and posts that they had to endure. It also is consistent with the path that some have laid out that something is happening, that the process is slow and that we will really know nothing until it is all done.

Here is the registration. Lists 3.5% polyquat lol https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/101854-00001-20230713.pdf

Ah you linked it. My mistake. Now the question is whether or not they look at any other vibrant products like their flatworm treatment.

No longer says safe for corals on the registered label either.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Wow!