Re: Mold coating

More | Report Post

You might want to seek the advice of the EPA or a qualified pesticide
attorney/consultant before rendering your opinion.

ALL antimicrobial products making an efficacy claim must be registered -
no exceptions. You appear to be making the typical “treated article”
argument. However, the treated article exemption can only be used if the
underlying antimicrobial is registered. If the antimicrobial is properly
registered, then the treated article can be exempt from registration.
You cannot legally circumvent EPA pesticide registration even with a
lose interpretation of the treated article exemption.

If you are attempting to use someone else’s EPA registered product with
your trade name on the label, then you need a sub-registration or a new
registration. If you are reformulating or diluting an EPA registered
product under your trade name, then you need a new EPA registration. You
cannot alter an EPA registered product and still call it "registered".

You can be in violation of FIFRA if you are relying on the treated
article argument as an excuse not to have your product registered. The
EPA is quite clear in this regard.

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.