Re: Mold coating

More | Report Post

Dear Biosafe:

Your claim is conveniently misinterpreted. You need to go look up EPA
Lawsuits to see how companies like Sears, Zinnser, Moldwash and
countless others have been fined or shut-down for making claims and
misinterpreting the treated article exemption.

The subject article referred to in the exemption is YOUR COATING!
The "Treated article" refers to the product offered for sale, which
contains the pesticide - THIS IS YOUR PRODUCT - you are the regulated
party. The line you quote is applicable to the objects that you apply
your coating to ONLY if your treatment is the FUNGISTATIC AGENT. Clearly
you are not EPA registered as a fungicide therefore, you cannot make
this claim. You are in violation of FIFRA law for selling an
UNREGISTERED PESTICIDE.

So no, you can't claim to protect the object that the coating is applied
to unless you register your coating as the fungicide. You are making a
pesticide claim. Get an attorney. Get a clue. Do us a favor - Get out of
the business. You don't know what you're doing, and you don't belong
here. Stop spreading bad information.

On 12/29/06, HM4100 wrote:
> BIOSAFE is not in violation of any FIFRA or EPA regulation.
> The EPA gives a list of OK claims in section IV-B-1 and 2 here...
>
> http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr2000-1.pdf
>
> Such as- "This article has been treated with a fungistatic agent to
> protect the product from fungal growth"
>
> So yes, you can claim to protect the object the coating is applied to.
> Thank you for your interest, visit our website at www.biosafeinc.com
>
> On 11/29/06, WRONG wrote:
>> Bill Cook makes a lot of claims that he has "THE" antimicrobial
>> product and that it is EPA registered and that it is patented and
>> safe. I have researched his claims and have documented the
>> following:
>>
>> -BioSafe, not bill cook have two patents on the use of a known
>> antimicrobial. What good is either of these patents since they
>> require the use of someone else's product.
>>
>> -BioSafe claims to have a antimicrobial coating that contains EPA
>> registered antimicrobial. The antimicrobial that they claim is
>> Aegis 64881-1, -2, -3. This antimicrobial is owned by Aegis
>> Environmental not bill cook or biosafe.
>>
>> -Biosafe and bill cook make illegal claims that violate several
>> FIFRA regulations. A coating that contains EPA registered
>> antimicrobials can only make claims to protect the surface of the
>> coating, not the object that it is applied to, only to surface of
>> the coating.
>>
>> -The Aegis products that Bill Cook and BioSafe are claiming are not
>> EPA registered to Kill anything. Verify by calling Aegis or looking
>> on the aegis web site at www.microbeshield.com. The Aegis product
>> is registered to prevent and inhibit ONLY, not killOn 10/26/06, No
>> Dope wrote:
>>> Chris - Thanks for raising this question. I am a builder in North
>>> Carolina and I cannot tell you how many times a mold dude (as we
>>> call them) comes by to hawk some new product. When we ask for EPA
>>> registrations, they dance from one foot to another and hem and haw
>>> about they don’t need no stinking registration. We politely tell
>>> them that our insurer, lender, and mold inspector sure as hell
>>> does need the stinking registrations. We then bet on how quickly
>>> they can leave our construction site without hitting something.
>>>
>>> If you confront these guys, they quickly realize you are not some
>>> dope and find the door most ricky-tick. Mold prevention chemicals
>>> must be EPA registered no matter what stories you are told. Don’t
>>> be a dope...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/06, Chris wrote:
>>>> Henry - Thanks for the info. Since my post, I contacted a
>>>> pesticide consultant and he explained the exact same thing - If
>>>> a registered antimicrobial chemical is added to a sealer, then
>>>> the performance claim can only apply to the sealer in the can
>>>> and not to the surfaces the sealer is applied. Any product
>>>> making a mold prevention claim must be registered. The treated
>>>> article exemption cannot be legally twisted to avoid
>>>> registration.
>>>>
>>>> As you recommended, I will reported the company to our
>>>> department of agriculture and see what happens next. I am tired
>>>> of being lied to by these companies. If they want to sell
>>>> antimicrobial products, then have them registered. I am
>>>> certainly not going to jeopardize my company’s reputation or
>>>> face potential legal expenses because some sales rep tells me
>>>> their product doesn’t need EPA registration. I might be a little
>>>> slow, but I’m not stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On 10/21/06, Henry Z wrote:
>>>>>> The product as a whole does not need to be registered.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is a common and very expensive mistake made by
>>>>> companies selling surface protection products that contain an
>>>>> EPA registered antimicrobial from another company. If a product
>>>>> makes claims beyond protecting the product it has been
>>>>> incorporated into then YES it does have to be registered with
>>>>> the EPA.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, an EPA registed antimicrobial can be added to
>>>>> paint with the claim that it helps protect the paint but it
>>>>> cannot make the claim that it protects the surface from
>>>>> contamination unless the entire product is registered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do the EPA a favor and give them everything you have on the
>>>>> company that contacted you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/19/06, R Duso wrote:
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EPA registration,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is necessary for all individual products in the
>>>>>> formulation to be registered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The product as a whole does not need to be registered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick D.