NB : Red Sea Calcium Reagent B Re-Call

Status
Not open for further replies.
WarrenElvis

WarrenElvis

Joined
31 May 2011
Posts
607
Reaction score
11
Location
Durban
Hey everyone not sure if the South African stock of Red Sea Test Kits have been effected, but there has been a re-call. The Red Sea Group Technical support manager has made this statement:


"Due to contamination of one batch of a raw material used in the production of Reagent B in our Calcium Test, we found out that the kit accuracy has been compromised, and can read 40 to 75ppm higher than the actual reading.
This deviation should have been picked by our strict QC procedures and we have taken immediate action to ensure this mistake cannot be repeated.

The affected reagent (Reagent B) is included in our Foundation Pro kit, Calcium Pro test kit & Calcium Pro Refill and therefore we would kindly ask you to check the batch number (which is stamped on the label of Calcium Reagent B), and compare it to the list of faulty batches: 1993, 2003, 2013, 2023, 2033, 2043, 2053, 2063, 2073, 2083, 2093, 2103, 2113, 2123, 2133.

In order to receive a replacement Reagent B bottle please go to http://www.redseafish.com/calcium-B and register your claim online so we can dispatch a replacement reagent to you.

We are fully committed to offering the highest level of quality product and customer service and truly apologise for the inconvenience associated with this recall.
We can assure you that we have already taken the necessary measures to avoid a future repeat of such a failure."


Have checked mine and its all clear, but the only recourse in SA will be to have to return it back to the LFS that you got it from. Not the greatest of news, knowing how Red Sea have put a lot of R&D into developing their newer test kits versions. Have heard someone having to return theirs, so it has managed to get into our market.
 
I just check my CA reagent b the powder and my batch number is 2003. Looks like i need to get hold of the pet shop and ask what i do from here and i brought mine about 4 months ago
 
Why would they only replace reagent B, surely they have to replace the entire product as it works as a package, one default component of the test kit would render all the tests done inaccurate, meaning you wasted reagent a and c too, not just the faulty B.

Just a thought!
 
my batch number is 2003 as well.. no wonder why my calcium levels never go down
 
JackSplat said:
Mine is 690, seems to be very old, wonder if these chemicals have an expiry date
Click to expand...

look on the box next to the bar code... should be a number there for example 1113. that means November 2013
 
For anyone battling to find the numbers have attached pic of where to look
both2_zpsc7e7f593.png
 
HOT SAUCE said:
look on the box next to the bar code... should be a number there for example 1113. that means November 2013
Click to expand...

I recon the box ended up in a landfill and the expiry date is not on any other bottle :( , also, the lot number is a bit warn, so I can be mistaken...

Anyway, I got another box from the LFS, also Red Sea but I checked the batch before I bought it. I just measured the Calcium and it is 380, did the test with the old kit, 480, replaced only re-agent b in the old kit, 380. It is definitely re-agent b.

Thank you @WarrenElvis, you saved me a lot of headaches :thumbup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JackSplat said:
I recon the box ended up in a landfill and the expiry date is not on any other bottle , also, the lot number is a bit warn, so I can be mistaken...

Anyway, I got another box from the LFS, also Red Sea but I checked the batch before I bought it. I just measured the Calcium and it is 380, did the test with the old kit, 480, replaced only re-agent b in the old kit, 380. It is definitely re-agent b.

Thank you @WarrenElvis, you saved me a lot of headaches
Click to expand...

You welcome bud, just again hoping it has not effected too many people.
 
Hi All

Just bought the Calcium Pro test kit with the expiry date 0815 and the re-agent is batch 2003. So am I right in saying that this is part of the contaminated batch? If so do I take it back to the LFS I bought it from today or do I need to get hold of Red Sea?

Thanks
Paul
 
This thread seems old, yet lfs is still selling it..... Recalll..... Agents... I would be ever so slightly annoyed...
Take it back to lfs and let them sort it out with agent or let agent sort them out.
 
Yeah, LFS definately still selling it. I baught my foundation not even two months ago. Makes me think now - propably going to be a mission to exchange it, as they obviously don't know about the recall. And that makes me think even more, who's irrisponsible?

The LFS for not removing the stock from the shelves, or the distributor/red sea, for not informing everyone about the issues? Going to be a interesting conversation at the LFS tomorrow, that's for sure.
 
Kudus to red sea for publisizing the problem. A recall means....
Recall, pull off shelves, withdraw from market place and replace stock with correct stock when available.
Its a few phonecalls and a bit of admin....
Too much work...
Service... Not open to interpretation
Neither is apathy
 
Last edited:
Uhm. There's nothing kudus about this...

Where exactly did red sea publish this? Searching on google only returns a couple (four) results on various forums. The link provided to the red sea web site, does not exist. Except for a couple of forums, there is nothing -formal- from red sea?

Sorry for hammering on this, but PROOVING that there was a official recall from Red Sea, is going to be troublesome without any kind of formal statement from red sea, which as far as I can find, is non existant?

Considering what a premium red sea charges for their products, this is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth, especially given the removal of the URL provided in the statement, the apparent removal of the statement stating that there was a recall, and for not for communicating this all the way down the chain to LFS level (provided that is what happened, can definately find out tomorrow).
 
Yeah, was also worried about explaining this to LFS as the link no longer exists. My reading is over 500 which does not sound right.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom