UWC Reaches Settlement with EPA

[BeanAnimal]

-Vibrant already failed before any chem testing was done-
...for sure that implies to readers that it didn't work, bc I just thought that as well.

I was debating that part.

Nobody said that, Brandon.

It's merits, what it did in challenge tanks, was my accepted place for vibrant. Not on the trash heap, it's important to consider it's positives just the same.

None of that matters. The label was required to disclose the algaecide. It didn't and they lied about it. PERIOD.

I think it's important readers don't get confused thinking vibrant failed something that's more serious than red seas fails daily, and the coming months or seachems fails on the label. Vibrant wasn't killing tanks and causing thousands of dollars in flooring losses in pattern for three years

Your are conflating all kinds of other marketing and business ethics issues. They are not related. This is about labeling compliance in context to algaecides, herbicides, pesticides and similar chemicals design to kill living things using certain classes of chemicals or biological agents.

UWC is not the crowned prince of bad reefing, he is just positioned that way here as the initial thread direction.

I would argue differently. I don't give a hoot about how effective the product is. They lied about the safety of the product in context to aquatic life in and out of aquariums and in context to human and other animal safety. I would certainly award them the crowned prince of bad reefing title. Dirtbags that cared more about money than your safety or that of your reef or anything else and perpetuated lies to avoid being caught.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It's amazing to me the number of people who bemoan government regulation and then in the same breath say things like this could be avoided with "common sense" labeling ect. Companies don't do those things out of the goodness of their hearts, it's due to threat of regulatory consequences :face-with-rolling-eyes:

I think the issue is expectation vs reality when it comes to both government competence on one hand and business ethics on the other and the vast range that either side encompass on at any given time.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I don't give a hoot about how effective the product is. They lied about the safety of the product in context to aquatic life in and out of aquariums and in context to human and other animal safety. I would certainly award them the corned prince of reefing title. Dirtbags that cared more about money than your safety or that of your reef or anything else.

This. 1000%

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I generally try my best to stay out of the fray in debates like this, but we're not talking about someone who exaggerated claims or even just sold snake oil (which would have already been unethical). They intentionally mislabeled poison.

 

[DylanE]

I think the issue is expectation vs reality when it comes to both government competence on one hand and business ethics on the other and the vast range that either side encompass on at any given time.

True, but let’s not forget that the EPA was founded after unregulated pollutants literally lit the cuyahoga river on fire. Or the early 1900s meat packing industry of Sinclair’s The Jungle. American capitalism has shown time and time again that burdens of overly regulatory three letter agencies are the safer evil.

 

[rtparty]

Oh, the old BRS is horrible nonsense. They were literally the first to respond and pull it. I almost guarantee Ryan’s video was pulled due to a lawsuit threat. It wasn’t a plea to investigate. It was literally him calling them out for lying to everyone.

 

[rtparty]

@brandon429 it is pool algaecide. Go buy it in bulk and dose it. Just tell everyone what it is. Simple really

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

@brandon429 it is pool algaecide. Go buy it in bulk and dose it. Just tell everyone what it is. Simple really

I can see it now. Brandant the algae mutilator!

 

[rtparty]

I can see it now. Brandant the algae mutilator!

100% work thread and satisfaction guarantee!

 

[jda]

Oh, the old BRS is horrible nonsense. They were literally the first to respond and pull it. I almost guarantee Ryan’s video was pulled due to a lawsuit threat. It wasn’t a plea to investigate. It was literally him calling them out for lying to everyone.

I would really like to see that video if anybody has it. I have only heard about it. BRS could have kept the video up if they were stand-up organization. Who was possibly threatening to sue them? UWC? You cannot sue somebody for being right. Even if UWC did threaten, that is over and videos could go back up. Good companies do not kowtow to threats. BRS swept everything under the rug and scrubbed their social media of any involvement, albeit poorly since there are some videos that are still out there unlisted and with links broken. Stand up companies make mistakes, but admit their involvement, apologize, do not hide anything and then list out the steps that they are going to take to prevent similar things from happening in the future. ...so pulling the product is only a sign that they are looking out for their best interests, not that they care about the consumers or beyond.

 

[jda]

I will also say that if you put yourself out there as an authority with videos, video series, reviews, etc., then you need to be held to a higher standard than just disappearing if a swath of your videos and reviews prove to be false. You don't just go away and pretend that it did not happen. You should not be allowed the proceeds without any of the responsibility... anybody who gives BRS this is complicit too.

 

[taricha]

I wanted to address the question "But what if X thing that I like fails the Reef Baloney Detection Kit?"

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Have the claims been verified?
3. Does this fit with how reef aquariums are generally thought to work (is it too good to be true)?
4. Does the claim have an over complicated explanation?
5. Are the claims covered in ‘greenspeak’?
6. Too many claims?
7. What do people you trust think of the claim?

So let's say nobody from nowhere finds a way that you can rub one coral on another and get the desired color to transfer over, the deep biochemistry explanation is super complicated, and requires multi-step gene transfers back and forth from symbionts, hosts, and bacteria. It's obviously not how anyone thinks corals work, and nobody from nowhere explains that such mechanisms are totally natural and happen with storms fragmenting corals and causing them to rub and transfer that way. Nobody from Nowhere explains that in addition to color improvement, the resulting gene transfers also increases disease resistance and boost coral growth rate.
Most everyone with some expertise in coral biology thinks the idea is ridiculous.
(so for those keeping count: we are failing 1,3,4,5,6,and 7.)

Fine. That doesn't mean it's necessarily false.
It just means that number 2, the verification of the claims is going to need to be really strong evidence since the others weight so heavily against it.

Same for anything else, the more of the other factors against believing it, the better that the evidence in its favor needs to be.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would also emphasize that many product claims are so vague or ambiguously written that they sound great and would be impossible to prove wrong.

The nutraceutical industry is a master of this.

Claims like “supports brain function”.

Anything with calories or any amount of any element required by people could be argued to support brain function. Even water is critical for brain function.

The same is true for a great many reefing claims, especially those relating to colors.

 

[blecki]

If it doesn't actually kill the coral, then it promotes coral color, because dead coral have worse color.

 

[taricha]

Claims like “supports brain function”.

Right. Sounds like a strong claim. Literally almost meaningless.

 

[Garf]

It did kill valonia, it was the best, nothing currently can compete against it. It's not fair to characterize this as anything other than a chemistry witch hunt, while we all allow other products mislabeled (Prime) to exist free of charge, no pitchforking by an angry digital crowd to shut them down, the whole entire company, due to the mislabeling of ammonia control printed on its label

Making it seem like the product didn't work is incorrect, it worked great, and better than algaefix marine considering the search returns over the years. The two products claimed similar have unsimilar work thread outcomes, that's still on file


What we as hobbyists have blame for is simply for zeroing in on UWC, crying foul, while only targeting them and not the others. We're not going to attack other businesses with this much collective passion, personal funding etc. We got shown a bandwagon

We jumped, piled on, this thread is the result.

I bet i see an ad for a new red sea edition reef tank pretty soon, though. We are trained to look past the big $ ventures, and zero in on startups with a passion until they do not exist


I can't wait for UWC to come back again it'll be awesome. He can design a new label that is pleasing to everyone. I'll then make a bunch of valonia work threads with it and we'll get some fair balance back here, one day

Can you supply any relevant handling concerns for vibrant, such as these highlights from algae fix? Can you not think of any possible financial reasons that such information was withheld?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Right. Sounds like a strong claim. Literally almost meaningless.

Repairs damaged hair? Healthy hair?

 

[Thales]

Rich was on rc in 2001 as Thales. That's about when we all joined.

I was Lefty for 666 posts, then changed to Righty, then later changed to Thales when it became clear that people thought Righty was some kind of political statement.

Only Eric agreed the science was real, I didn't forget who were the permanent skeptics to any status quo change unless they deemed it valid.

It often should be like that because that helps us avoid lemming like running over cliffs because something is new.
I find the reference to lemmings really funny in this context.

Complete skepticism to the degree that we can't perceive evolution in the hobby is also damaging. We need a balancing article for how to spot truths without eschewing the inherent values of the uber-aloof reef skeptic.

There are currently something like 15 articles in the Skeptical Reefkeeper series, several of them cover what you mention. Also, from the section section of the article that @taricha linked (thank for that by the way, it makes me feel very good) "Skeptical thinking is a method, not a position. Officially, skepticism is defined as ‘a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment’. A skeptic is not closed minded to new ideas, but is cautious of ideas that are presented without supporting evidence."

 

[jda]

Right. Sounds like a strong claim. Literally almost meaningless.

Add step 0 to your baloney meter... does the claimant actually have support for their own claims? What a world it would be if consumers required companies to show their work. Doesn't it say too much that we all just skip over this like we have no expectation anymore?

 

[Wasabiroot]

Oh please. Let's not take this off track or political or it will end up being closed, but that statement shows a total lack of understanding of what is asked of pharma companies for approval and what is legally required to be on the package insert of an approved pharmaceutical, including an exact detailing of what is in the product.

Exactly. If anything, they are held to a higher standard. Years of trials, plus thousands of drug analogues that are dead in the water after years of research when a side effect is discovered.

Your expectations may be too high for this community...
This is the place where people who've never had reef tanks and don't currently have reef tanks think they are experts on reef tanks

Don't forget it's also a place where people who have never done science and don't currently do science think they are experts in the scientific method and how government grants, approval, and drug discovery goes, or that EPA bad by default, etc. Goes both ways. Like, Randy has several pharmaceutical patents. Pretty sure he is intimately familiar with how drug approval works.
Product costs will rise? Shouldn't they have been higher in the first place if they were following correct procedure and registering their products with the EPA instead of lying about it containing an algaecide that is known to cause mortality in molluscs?