Re: No need for EPA registration?

More | Report Post

Just Checking –
Thank you for your response. We really do appreciate it!

Everything you posted reinforces everything we already know about FIFRA and
labeling with the EPA. We are heavily involved in the agriculture industry and we
deal with the FDA as well as the EPA. We are very familiar with the EPA & FIFRA
laws and intend to abide by them in every respect.

We already have consultants that assist us in the different industries we work in –
but we do not have anyone that is competent and qualified to help us in the mold
remediation or prevention industry and that is what we are looking for – maybe you
could?

As I mentioned before, we have EPA approval, we have independent lab tests to prove
our product’s effectiveness, but we need to have the people in the field to
actually use the product and tell us how it compares to any other remedy or
prevention product on the market.

In the interim, people are bulldozing down houses because of mold and WE KNOW it is
unnecessary. We just can’t help them without help from the industry professionals.

If you are interested in working with us, please call me at 800/806-6727 ext 8. We
will have the product registered in your state, send you free samples, and work
with you to make sure it meets the industry’s needs.

On 3/17/07, Just Checking wrote:
> While I applaud your efforts to at least secure an EPA registered product for
> your business, you certainly need the guidance of a pesticide consultant before
> you move forward. The fact that most in your industry don’t even bother with EPA
> registration for their products means that you will be head and shoulders above
> them just getting out of the gate. However, by using an EPA registered product,
> you must follow the regulations imposed by FIFRA and the state environmental
> protection department.
>
> Here are the basics:
>
> 1. If you put a chemical in a bottle and claim that its ingredients prevents,
> kills, or otherwise stops bacteria, virus, or fungi from growing on a surface,
> your product is a pesticide and therefore MUST be registered with the EPA. You
> cannot hide behind treated articles exemption, you cannot hide behind “my
> product contains EPA approved chemcials” claim, and you cannot hide behind “my
> product has been used forever and is totally safe” claim.
>
> 2. You must follow the language on the master label to the letter. You cannot
> take a pesticide registered for use on concrete in zoos and begin spraying it in
> homes calling it a “registered” mold inhibitor. Further, you cannot take a
> registered pesticide that is approved for hard surfaces and begin spraying it on
> building materials. The master label clearly states the range of approved
> surfaces that you can apply the pesticide to. (Sorry to end in a preposition)
> The EPA does not assume that just because your product is safe in one
> environment it is therefore safe in all environments. There is no universal
> application language at the EPA.
>
> 3. You cannot exceed the claims on the master label. If the master label says
> that you must reapply the pesticide every 12 hours or every 3 months, then you
> cannot make any claim of performance beyond this period - period. Unless it says
> 6 months on your label, you cannot say it protects surfaces for 6 months.
>
> 4. You cannot take a registered pesticide and re-label the bottle with your
> name. You MUST use the label approved by the EPA. You cannot alter the label or
> the formulation in any way. If the label says the concentration of active
> ingredient is 20&37;, you cannot dilute the product to 1&37; and sell it unless
the
> master label approves such dilution. Make any alterations to the label, and it’s
> a new label in the eyes of the EPA.
>
> 5. You cannot take the product and add additional ingredients to it and legally
> sell it as a registered pesticide. The EPA only approves the product in its
> original form and concentration. If you make a chemical alteration, it is a new
> product and therefore must be registered.
>
> 6. You must register your product with the environmental protection department
> in EVERY state that your product will be used. If you intend to sell your
> product for use in all 50 states, then you must FIRST register your product with
> the EPD in every state.
>
> So for review - It is illegal to apply a non-registered pesticide and just as
> illegal to mis-apply a registered pesticide. You must follow the master label to
> the letter and cannot make claims exceeding the master label. You must register
> your pesticide with every state prior to use in the state.
>
> What most in your industry seem to forget is the EPA is designed to protect both
> the health of the environment and the health of the public. A lot of the
> chemistry being applied today to prevent and inhibit mold is not registered,
> therefore, no one knows the safety or efficacy of the product. There are folks
> out there trying to make a quick buck at the expense of people’s health - both
> physically and financially. While they may actually believe their product is
> safe and effective, unless the EPA says so, it should not be used.
>
> As I stated, you (and everyone else in your industry) need the guidance of a
> pesticide/registration consultant. FIFRA violations are real, and the states do
> a good job of investigating violations. Your industry is rife with cowboys
> making all sorts of wild claims and preforming all sorts of crazy voodoo. Do
> yourself and the industry a real favor and play the game legally and ethically.
> It will be like a fresh spring breeze blowing through a moldy house.
>
>
> On 3/15/07, JMBrowne wrote:
>> Thanks for bringing these issues up. I would hope that in an industry such as
>> this, professionals should be as skeptical as possible and find out as much as
>> possible about the products they are using before they offer them to the
>> general public and put their business name on the line. With that said, we're
>> pretty new at this and we obviously need to learn a lot in order to provide a
>> product that people will have confidence in and we’re looking for help from
>> professionals in the field.
>>
>> I get the impression (from reading other comments posted by Just Checking)
> that
>> you are selling a product and you’re trying to discredit any other products
>> that are being mentioned. I hope I’m wrong. If I am, I apologize and if you
>> have some insight into the industry that you would like to share, we would be
>> very interested in talking with you. If I am right, eventually people will see
>> through it.
>>
>> We have a product that we know works, the EPA has approved it, and we would
>> like to work with true industry professionals to make sure the product meets
>> their needs before we start actively marketing it. At this point we’re not
>> trying to sell anyone anything.
>>
>> If you're reading this and you’re an industry professional that would like to
>> try the product, give us a call and we will be happy to send you free samples,
>> EPA documentation, lab results, MSDS sheets, etc. in exchange for your honest
>> evaluation. Don’t use it on paying customer’s homes, but put it through as
>> rigorous a testing process as you would do if it were being used on your home.
>> Tell us what testing criteria you consider to be most valid and credible and
>> we’ll go that route to give you the back up you need to confidently promote
>> this to your customers. If it doesn’t meet your expectations or requirements,
>> we won’t sell it.
>>
>> “Just Checking”, I have addressed your specific comments below and would
>> appreciate any constructive feedback:
>>
>> 1) Copper Sulphate products have been around for a while for good reason. Do
>> you think that they're all the same if they have the same base ingredient? If
>> so, you are wrong.
>>
>> We are in several industries such as Roof Cleaning, Agriculture, Property
>> Maintenance, and Aquatics among others and we regularly compete against other
>> copper, copper sulphate, quat, and peroxide products – and the way each is
>> formulated, combined with other ingredients, and diluted makes them radically
>> different from each other in terms of their safety, effectiveness, and
>> suitability for any given purpose. If you are looking at one ingredient and
>> making a blanket determination based on that, you’re probably selling yourself
>> short.
>>
>> 2) While they are different companies, Magna-Bon and Roof-A-Cide are owned by
>> the same people. If we need to sub-register, we will. Since we're not selling
>> it yet, that's not much of an issue. When the time comes, we’ll do what we
> need
>> to in order to be in compliance with the EPA and any states we distribute to.
>> For right now, the EPA has given us approval for Mold Treatment and we’re
>> evaluating the market potential. If the product meets the needs of the market,
>> is profitable, and we plan to sell it - we’ll cross that bridge when we come
> to
>> it.
>>
>> 3) Our Pro-Tek product has many uses and different dilutions and application,
>> but you're mistaken about having to reapply it every 3-6 months in the case of
>> construction materials – we only reapply every 6 months on Tennis Courts and
>> Orange Trees. For construction materials it is a one-time application. We
> don't
>> have 5 to 10 year testing data; we just have independent lab reports and EPA
>> approval right now and we will build the rest if the market justifies the time
>> and expense.
>>
>> 4) None right now. What would you recommend as an industry standard that has
>> the most credibility with professionals in the field?
>>
>> 5) Please explain why preventing any of these would be necessary.
>>
>> If the product is safe enough too be used in swimming pools, water
>> purification, feed additives for farm animals, etc – in addition to being
>> approved by the EPA for construction materials, why should anyone be concerned
>> about any of these as it relates to our product?
>>
>> 6) It seems you are insinuating that the product is somehow unsafe. Please
>> correct me if I am wrong or explain why we might have to protect a builder if
> a
>> homeowner found out the product had been used as a pretreatment of the studs,
>> trusses, foundation, & plywood. If the product is safe enough too be used in
>> swimming pools, water purification, feed additives for farm animals, fruit,
>> etc – in addition to being approved by the EPA for construction materials, why
>> in the world would a builder need protection?
>>
>> If your statement is asking if we will be able to protect builders that create
>> a structure that allows water intrusion, then obviously the answer is “No”. I
>> don’t know of any product that will. If you do, please educate us on it.
>>
>>
>> John Browne
>> Roof-A-Cide
>> Professional Roof Cleaning & Stain Prevention
>> "The Treatment is the Cure"
>> http://www.Roof-A-Cide.com/
>> Toll Free Tel: 800/806-6727
>> Toll Free Fax: 866/237-5855
>>
>>
>> On 3/12/07, Just Checking wrote:
>>> 1. Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate (CAS 7758-99-8) is a run-of-the-mill biocide
>>> and fungicide with many EPA registrations. It has been around for quite some
>>> time.
>>>
>>> 2. This registration is for Magna-Bon Pro-Tek not Roof-a-Cide Rid-A-Mold.
>>> You must have a subregistration if you intend selling under your trade name.
>>>
>>> 3. The product is for use in lakes, on plants, roofing material and building
>>> materials. Must be reapplied every 3 to 6 months. Where is your 5 to 10 year
>>> performance data?
>>>
>>> 4. What ASTM testing have you completed?
>>>
>>> 5. How do you prevent leaching, oxidation, human exposure, & potential
>>> indoor air quality pollution?
>>>
>>> 6. How do you legally protect the builders who agree to use the product from
>>> being sued by homeowners once they find out what’s in their house?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/11/07, John Browne wrote:
>>>> 66675-4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/11/07, Jim wrote:
>>>>> What is your EPA number?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>