Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[jda]

@Lasse - you are right for this part. EPA wants products labeled correctly and instructions to handle, use and dispose of safely. I don't think that the EPA gets into efficacy, but most products like this have indigents that already have tests run - Busan 77 already had all of these in this case. There is a pig/sheep livestock drug Levamisole in Flatworm Exit that is regularly used in aquariums to kill flatworms - I wonder if the EPA would approve this... the EU doesn't have a problem with it even though it is not labeled as a pig dewormer.

The fraud is a separate issue, which I understand is not fully settled yet.

 

[JimWelsh]

I do not know much of US laws and US bureaucratic language but when I read the paper from the EPA it seems to me that the crime is not that these products content a registered pesticid but instead was the crime that the products was sold with the intention to eradicate a pest without being registered as a pesticid

For me - its means that the illegality consists in the purpose - not the content. with other words - if the purpose with a product is to eradicate something that is defined as a pest it must be registered as a pesticid.

If I´m right in this interpretation - I think that more companies than UC that sells this type of products (products that have a goal to eradicate a pest) in US can have problems with the law here.

Please correct me if I´m wrong

Sincerely Lasse

I started a thread about this some time ago: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-epa-fifra-and-various-aquarium-products.901500/post-10055418

 

[taricha]

This is what he told Mn Dept of Ag when they came on site:

I guess the apologists and excuse makers might have a hard time navigating this one.

Dude did not even buy wholesale Busan 77, but rather bought retail pool algaecide at a higher price?

This actually addresses a mostly irrelevant question of mine.
The concentration of the vibrant bottles I looked at was soo similar to the concentration of the algaefix bottles, that I always wondered if it was possible that they literally just poured Algaefix into other bottles.
It turns out that they told the inspectors they diluted a 60% concentration pool algaecide down to the final concentration (which ends up matching Algaefix, whose label is 4.5%)

 

[SDchris]

@Lasse - you are right for this part. EPA wants products labeled correctly and instructions to handle, use and dispose of safely.

Does this only apply to products that specifically state they are or act like an algaecide or similar? Would a product that advertises as a "flocculant" draw the same attention from the EPA , even if it behaves in a similar way to the previously mentioned.

 

[jda]

Does this only apply to products that specifically state they are or act like an algaecide or similar? Would a product that advertises as a "flocculant" draw the same attention from the EPA , even if it behaves in a similar way to the previously mentioned.

I do not know. If you have a product on the edge, then I would get help and contact the EPA. The scientists at the EPA are probably more like the smartest on this board and not the regular folks or even the idiots who cannot comprehend why this is happening - if they see even a side effect that acts on, or near, a pest, then a registration is likely required. In short, I would not take any chances.

Keep in mind that it was the fraud and lying that brought this one to this level. Probably would have been handled differently if it was an honest mistake. There are examples online from invitations to register to demands to register with no/small/moderate fines depending on the situation. I don't believe that the EPA is looking to punish honest people or put them out of business... but you cannot also let them off free or else there is nothing to stop the next person from ignoring FIFRA.

If you are "asking for a friend," there is a consultant that helped UWC file their paperwork for Vibrant after they got caught.

 

[SDchris]

If you are "asking for a friend,"

Nope. Just reiterating what Lasse said.

it seems to me that the crime is not that these products content a registered pesticid but instead was the crime that the products was sold with the intention to eradicate a pest without being registered as a pesticid

My guess is that you will just see products reinvented with some creative labelling/marketing. Maybe "DOC exploder".

 

[jda]

Seems to me that getting more creative and less transparent will just bring on more punishment and fines.