This industry needs an independent certification body

[TankYouVeryMuch]

I’m tired of reading about products that are misrepresented and products which poison tanks. With the amount of money in this industry, someone should start a non-profit certification organization which has standards that have to be met to allow products to be a certification mark. Kind of like UL listing, but for marine aquarium products. It could include:
- Requiring manufacturers to submit periodic third party chemical or biological assays which validate their products contain what they claim and don’t contain known toxic contaminants.
- Independent panel review of marketing claims to ensure that the manufacturer is making legitimate product claims (in other words, is the product capable of doing what they say it will or does it mislead the customer and offer false security)?
- Certified products could be subject to ongoing review based on consumer reports, so if patterns of adverse effects or inconsistencies arise in hobbyist reviews the product may be re-examined.
- Assay reports and other certifications should be publicly searchable, excluding information which might violate proprietary IP.

There could be advanced certifications for things like “long term safe for reef biome” or “ethical and sustainably produced” or whatever.

Consumers would know immediately if they pick up a product that bears the mark that it meets some minimum standard for safety and efficacy. Manufacturers would not have to submit every product for certification (so if a company knows some of their products are nothing more than marketing hype they can just submit the ones that aren’t).

 

[JeffB418]

Good idea, but who's gonna pay for this? The general consumer wants things cheap.

 

[Troylee]

@telegraham is pretty much doing just this on his ig lol..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Costs aside, I think there are many issues that make it unworkable.

1. Many products would work in some scenarios and not in others. That makes testing and communicating what the tests mean very complicated.

2. If a product or method says it does many things (as many do), would one need to evaluate every claim?

3. How does one even evaluate claims like “boosting red colors in corals”?

4. What if a product does something useful, but not via the mechanism claimed? Vibrant is an example.

5. The testing entity would open itself
Up to constant bickering and maybe worse from companies failing.

6. The worst offenders, and those who believe they have more to loose than gain, just won’t submit.

 

[Fish Fan]

What products are you having trouble with?

 

[TankYouVeryMuch]

I personally had a crash from Petco carbon, but this wasn’t about me as much as all the posts I read on here about how different products are of dubious benefit, misrepresented, or just outright snake oil.

Organizations similar to this idea exist for various fields. For example, nutritional supplements are largely unregulated in North America, but many manufacturers willingly submit their products for certification:

https://www.usp.org/verification-services/dietary-supplements-verification-program
https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/supplement-vitamin-certification
https://isura.ca
Obviously manufacturers won’t be required to do it, but let’s face it, if you have two competing products available claiming to do the same thing, chances are you’ll choose the one that’s certified. As long as it’s set up fairly, it behooves manufacturers to do it unless they have something to hide.

 

[rtparty]

Never going to happen. There is not nearly enough money to make this feasible on any level in this already monetary strained hobby.

 

[topjimmy]

I’m tired of reading about products that are misrepresented and products which poison tanks. With the amount of money in this industry, someone should start a non-profit certification organization which has standards that have to be met to allow products to be a certification mark. Kind of like UL listing, but for marine aquarium products. It could include:
- Requiring manufacturers to submit periodic third party chemical or biological assays which validate their products contain what they claim and don’t contain known toxic contaminants.
- Independent panel review of marketing claims to ensure that the manufacturer is making legitimate product claims (in other words, is the product capable of doing what they say it will or does it mislead the customer and offer false security)?
- Certified products could be subject to ongoing review based on consumer reports, so if patterns of adverse effects or inconsistencies arise in hobbyist reviews the product may be re-examined.
- Assay reports and other certifications should be publicly searchable, excluding information which might violate proprietary IP.

There could be advanced certifications for things like “long term safe for reef biome” or “ethical and sustainably produced” or whatever.

Consumers would know immediately if they pick up a product that bears the mark that it meets some minimum standard for safety and efficacy. Manufacturers would not have to submit every product for certification (so if a company knows some of their products are nothing more than marketing hype they can just submit the ones that aren’t).

I don't see why it needs to be non profit. Vendors can pay for the test and the endorsement, like UL.

 

[areefer01]

Vitamins.
Men's health.
Weight loss.
Muscle / body building.

The hobby needs education and common sense more than it needs regulation and/or standards. Nuclear option it would be interesting to require hobbyist owning a license to keep corals and some fish.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I personally had a crash from Petco carbon, but this wasn’t about me as much as all the posts I read on here about how different products are of dubious benefit, misrepresented, or just outright snake oil.

Organizations similar to this idea exist for various fields. For example, nutritional supplements are largely unregulated in North America, but many manufacturers willingly submit their products for certification:

https://www.usp.org/verification-services/dietary-supplements-verification-program
https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/supplement-vitamin-certification
https://isura.ca
Obviously manufacturers won’t be required to do it, but let’s face it, if you have two competing products available claiming to do the same thing, chances are you’ll choose the one that’s certified. As long as it’s set up fairly, it behooves manufacturers to do it unless they have something to hide.

Dietary supplements are a huge and exceedingly poorly regulated industry. I would hate for reefers to think that is useful regulation.

Just look at the claims any herb makes, backed by nothing but random claims with no evidence to cure everything from toothaches to cancer.

 

[mjw011689]

Ever heard of a little company called bulk reef supply? They pretty much review anything you could want from the industry.

Yeah, I get it, they’re a retailer and the items they’re demonstrating are for sale on their website, but I think in terms of retailers, they do a good job of keeping the bias out and allowing the customer to make the decision about which item is the correct one for them when given the pertinent information.

Can’t tell you how many brstv episodes are out there that in the video itself, they explain that a certain product probably wouldn’t be a good idea for my needs.

Comparing to other retailers, this is about as honest as anyone could ask for, and they present legitimate numbers in a lot of cases.

That being said, there absolutely are “certification” or “review” companies that have 100% been paid to misrepresent a certain product as beneficial when in fact it could be harmful. The dental industry comes to mind with this.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I really like the idea, but I don’t think the reef aquarium industry is large enough to warrant the cost of an independent agency. Reefing is a sub niche of a sub niche. At best, we get “trusted” reviews from respected outlets. Maybe Reef2Reef can take up the charge?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Ever heard of a little company called bulk reef supply? They pretty much review anything you could want from the industry.

Yeah, I get it, they’re a retailer and the items they’re demonstrating are for sale on their website, but I think in terms of retailers, they do a good job of keeping the bias out and allowing the customer to make the decision about which item is the correct one for them when given the pertinent information.

Can’t tell you how many brstv episodes are out there that in the video itself, they explain that a certain product probably wouldn’t be a good idea for my needs.

Comparing to other retailers, this is about as honest as anyone could ask for, and they present legitimate numbers in a lot of cases.

That being said, there absolutely are “certification” or “review” companies that have 100% been paid to misrepresent a certain product as beneficial when in fact it could be harmful. The dental industry comes to mind with this.

BRS has in the past (Vibrant) and continues to sell products with claims that have been demonstrated by independent testing to be untrue.

 

[areefer01]

BRS has in the past (Vibrant) and continues to sell products with claims that have been demonstrated by independent testing to be untrue.

I would hope you hold similar vendors accountable.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I would hope you hold similar vendors accountable.

Do you think I have a bias against them? I would have actually thought people might assume I had a positive bias.

I believe I do hold vendors and especially manufacturers responsible for what they do , and I mentioned BRS here only because someone wanted to see them do “studies”, not because I am suggesting folks avoid them. I buy stuff from them. But they would not have been able to determine the Vibrant problems. That took much more than a test in a reef tank.

 

[areefer01]

Do you think I have a bias against them? I would have actually thought people might assume I had a positive bias.

In my opinion you are neutral although I believe I know why you mentioned some thinking a positive slant.

I believe I do hold vendors and especially manufacturers responsible for what they do , and I mentioned BRS here only because someone wanted to see them do “studies”, not because I am suggesting folks avoid them. I buy stuff from them. But they would not have been able to determine the Vibrant problems. That took much more than a test in a reef tank.

As I read the post the first thing that came to my mind is what does the selling of Vibrant have to do with BRS creating content on the various brands of salt they sale vs storage time and water chemistry? Or power head flow patterns, or any other content (they have plenty to choose from) for that matter. I agree with your follow up reply as it clarified it in more detail and removed any ambiguity. At least to me. The one liner above not so much.

But of course I must admit it very well could just be me reading more into it.

 

[Doctor Derp]

I personally had a crash from Petco carbon, but this wasn’t about me as much as all the posts I read on here about how different products are of dubious benefit, misrepresented, or just outright snake oil.

Organizations similar to this idea exist for various fields. For example, nutritional supplements are largely unregulated in North America, but many manufacturers willingly submit their products for certification:

https://www.usp.org/verification-services/dietary-supplements-verification-program
https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/supplement-vitamin-certification
https://isura.ca
Obviously manufacturers won’t be required to do it, but let’s face it, if you have two competing products available claiming to do the same thing, chances are you’ll choose the one that’s certified. As long as it’s set up fairly, it behooves manufacturers to do it unless they have something to hide.

Please explain to me how you know Petco carbon killed your tank? You can keep the anecdotal evidence to yourself. Proof if you don't mind.
I have used it for years and continue to use it on thriving systems with zero ill effects.

 

[dvgyfresh]

How else would LFS be able to support themselves? I kid but also partly true, there simply isn’t enough money for someone to conduct those tests with no bias/side goal. At the same time it challenges all of us because we must do our own research / learning

 

[kboogie]

Ever heard of a little company called bulk reef supply? They pretty much review anything you could want from the industry.

Yeah, I get it, they’re a retailer and the items they’re demonstrating are for sale on their website, but I think in terms of retailers, they do a good job of keeping the bias out and allowing the customer to make the decision about which item is the correct one for them when given the pertinent information.

Can’t tell you how many brstv episodes are out there that in the video itself, they explain that a certain product probably wouldn’t be a good idea for my needs.

Comparing to other retailers, this is about as honest as anyone could ask for, and they present legitimate numbers in a lot of cases.

That being said, there absolutely are “certification” or “review” companies that have 100% been paid to misrepresent a certain product as beneficial when in fact it could be harmful. The dental industry comes to mind with this.

BRS made a huge leap in my opinion of their reviews when they said in a video about things reefers should start and stop doing, to not buy the expensive ozone generator and instead by a cheap one of Amazon and replace it every two to three years. I’m not saying their reviewed are completely independent but they are not blatant product pushes either. There is good info in their reviews.

 

[DCR]

BRS made a huge leap in my opinion of their reviews when they said in a video about things reefers should start and stop doing, to not buy the expensive ozone generator and instead by a cheap one of Amazon and replace it every two to three years. I’m not saying their reviewed are completely independent but they are not blatant product pushes either. There is good info in their reviews.

I think you are confusing BRS with Ryan's current venture. I don't think BRS has ever or would ever tell customers not to purchase products they sell and instead purchase other products provided by other suppliers.