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. IMHOPlease 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.
they used the defined definition - and said - ok we're a pesticide. HOWEVER - this does not differentiate between a governmental definition - vs another