EPA Fines Logitech, Inc. $206,000 for Advertising Antimicrobial Benefits of Nanosilver!
The EPA has given itself regulatory authority over the use of nanosilver in consumer products, and is now running completely out of control, fining companies hundreds of thousands of dollars for merely mentioning the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver in their advertising.
Hi, Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...
Once again, stupid is as stupid does.
There's not a shred of evidence of any harm -- human or ecological -- from the use of silver nanoparticles in commercial products.
Indeed, recent research has demonstrated that Mother Earth makes her own silver nanoparticles and may well be the most proficient manufacturer of silver nanoparticles, well...on earth.
Indeed, it turns out, according to the latest new study, nature even makes “daughter” silver nanoparticles from “parent” silver nanoparticles –
-- indicating that mankind and the environment itself has been exposed to nature-made silver nanoparticles for millennia, with apparently no harm whatsoever.
So much for the environmental concern.
So now the EPA has switched tactics. Rather than claiming a need to regulate nanosilver over potential environmental harm (which turns out to be largely non-existent)…
…the agency now claims the need to regulate all advertising produced by manufacturers and distributors of consumer products that incorporate nanosilver in their makeup.
Apparently, if the advertising for a product containing nanosilver makes claims for the antimicrobial benefits, the EPA says such claims are automatically “false and misleading” and therefore the company is subject to huge fines –
-- unless they’ve submitted to the EPA’s expensive product registration and testing procedures which can cost millions of dollars!
EPA on the Rampage
The EPA appears to be hell bent on regulating silver-based products out of the marketplace, by claiming their advertising is “false and misleading.”
Only recently, the EPA fined a company called IOGEAR a whopping $208,000.00 for advertising the antimicrobial properties of their silver-impregnated computer mouse and failing to properly register it as a “pesticide” with the agency.
Then the EPA fined a company called Kinetic Solutions, Inc., $82,400 for advertising the antimicrobial benefits of an air purifier they distributed, which contained a pre-filter incorporating nanosilver into its makeup.
The EPA also fined Samsung Corp. $205,000 for advertising the antimicrobial benefits of a computer keyboard infused with silver nanoparticles.
What’s more, according to news reports, when faced with up to $1 million in fines from the EPA, a retail company called The North Face was forced to stop making claims that its nanosilver footwear products protect against germs.
And now, the EPA has leveled a whopping $206,000 fine against the famous computer peripherals company, Logitech, Inc., for incorporating nanosilver into its computer keyboards and advertising the antimicrobial benefits.
Do you understand now why all of those wonderful consumer products infused with antimicrobial silver are slowly disappearing from the marketplace?
The EPA of course is merely flexing its regulatory muscle, reveling in the new authority it has conveyed upon itself to regulate nanosilver as a “pesticide.”
On the one hand, the EPA claims that nanosilver’s powerful antimicrobial qualities make it “pesticidal” in nature, and therefore bring it under the stringent regulatory authority of the agency.
On the other hand, they claim that advertising these very same antimicrobial qualities of nanosilver in consumer products is “false and misleading”!
The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
As usual, the agency is parsing terminology in order to justify its stupid (and I must emphasize, stupid) anti-business actions, which will negatively impact millions of consumers by denying them products that incorporate antimicrobial nanosilver into their makeup.
In this case, the EPA is essentially claiming that just because nanosilver conveys antimicrobial protection to a commercial product such as a computer mouse or keyboard, that protection doesn't automatically carry over to the consumer who uses the product.
Therefore, the EPA claims, if a company makes antimicrobial claims for its product, implying that the consumer will be protected, it constitutes “false and misleading” advertising.
Hmmm. So when people who get flu vaccines end up coming down with the flu afterwards, do they get to sue the Department of Health for hundreds of thousands of dollars for making “false and misleading claims” for the effectiveness of their widely touted flu vaccines?
Well, try it and see how far that gets you.
Or when the EPA regulates air pollution, and you still end up with lung cancer because you live in a particularly smoggy area, do you get to sue the EPA for hundreds of thousands of dollars for making “false and misleading” claims for the effectiveness of their air pollution regulations?
Again, try it and see how far that gets you.
The bottom line is that when companies advertise the antimicrobial benefits of a product that has nanosilver incorporated into its makeup, not one of these companies are promising the public total, 100% protection against infectious microbes.
After all, that would be impossible. Even prescription antibiotic drugs don’t convey 100% protection against microbes. People die of infections every day, even though they’ve been administered prescription antibiotic drugs by their doctors.
Companies that incorporate antimicrobial silver into their consumer products are simply saying there will be a reduction of microbes on the surfaces of those products, thanks to the silver.
In other words, the spread of microbes will be limited due to the presence of antimicrobial nanosilver – which of course, is a very good thing, and people are willing to pay for it.
Yet the EPA acts as if companies that advertise the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver are purposely misleading consumers, essentially insinuating their customers will never again have to worry about infectious microorganisms.
That’s ludicrous, of course. The EPA is simply re-defining the term “false and misleading claims” in such a way as to include ANY claim about the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver…
...when those benefits have been widely known and well accepted by science and medicine for millenia.
Out of Control
In short, the EPA is totally out of control.
They’re simply using their new regulatory authority over nanosilver to generate a nice, fat new revenue stream, while working to destroy the market for consumer products that have antimicrobial nanosilver incorporated into their makeup.
The EPA thereby shows itself to be completely self-serving, and not at all acting in the interest of the general public which has clamored for protection against the spread of infectious microorganisms…
…and which business has responded to by providing products that incorporate antimicrobial silver.
The Worst Part…
The worst part is this: Genuinely needed innovations such as nanosilver-impregnated butcher paper, which was developed months ago by researchers in Israel, and which would help limit food poisoning caused by bacterially contaminated meats –
-- will now likely never see the light of day due to the EPA's egregious actions against companies utilizing silver nanoparticles in their products.
With MRSA contamination of our nation’s meat supply now reaching levels as high as 50% in some instances, innovations such as nanosilver-impregnated butcher paper, or nanosilver impregnated food containers are desperately needed.
But thanks to the EPA and their cronies in the anti-silver environmental groups, the likelihood of such innovations making it to the market are just about slim to none. And as the old saying goes, “Slim just left town.”
Much more needs to be done to expose the incestuous relationship between the EPA and the environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth, Centers for Technology Assessment, and others that use sensationalistic scare tactics regarding nanosilver to frighten the bejabbers out of the general public –
-- in order to help the EPA seize the regulatory authority needed to criminalize the use of this tremendously beneficial and protective substance that could help save many thousands if not millions of lives each year if it were allowed to be more widely used in consumer products.
While the EPA and its cohorts in anti-silver environmental groups (which have taken millions of dollars in funding from charitable foundations associated with Big Pharma) continue to claim that nanosilver is being added to consumer products faster than they can keep up with it…
…the reality is, such products are actually disappearing from store shelves far faster than any new ones are appearing.
That’s because companies are now refusing to bring nanosilver products to market out of fear of being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by the EPA…
…and, more importantly, out of fear of losing their investments in such products which can run into the tens of millions of dollars just to get a new product off the ground.
(See my related article, “Gloom in the Trend Toward Silver-Based Antimicrobial Products?”)
The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that products containing antimicrobial silver are slowly being regulated off the market, thanks to the EPA’s heavy handed actions.
The EPA originally sold the public on its new regulatory authority over antimicrobial silver by claiming they needed to “protect the environment” against harm from nanosilver to tiny, ecologically sensitive microorganisms and other lower life forms.
But when claims of environmental catastrophe due to nanosilver proved to be sensationalistic at best...
…the EPA simply switched gears and seized the authority to regulate all advertising of silver-based products.
They claim it is “false and misleading” to inform the public of the very same antimicrobial qualities the EPA claims makes it a potent “pesticide.”
By regulating advertising, the EPA can make it almost impossible for companies to recoup their investment in developing and bringing to market products that incorporate antimicrobial silver.
After all, if the companies can’t tell the public about the antimicrobial benefits of the silver, what’s the point of investing millions of dollars to bring the products to market?
The whole charade is nothing more than a revenue generating scam for the EPA, being conducted at the expense of the American public.
Thankfully, those of you who have the means to make your own colloidal silver can use it for all of the antimicrobial purposes you want, i.e., everything from disinfecting kitchen cutting boards to adding antimicrobial protection to bathroom toilet seats, faucets and other contact surfaces.
All you have to do is put it into a pump spray bottle and use it as you would any household germicidal disinfectant – the only difference being it is both safe and natural, as well as extremely powerful!
In case you missed it, here’s an article on “20 Top Ways to Use Colloidal Silver Around the House.”
And here’s another article on the “12 Top Ways to Use Colloidal Silver On (and In) Your Body.”
Until the next time, I remain…
Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,
Important Note and Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and reliability thereof. The author, Steve Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical advice. Nothing reported herein is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with caution. Readers should verify for themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas, conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and experienced health care professional. Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.