The decaying 4×4 posts were located in an upscale residential subdivision in a suburb of Atlanta and in multiple subdivisions in the vicinity of Baton Rouge, La. Identification end tags still affixed to the posts in all locations confirmed that they were treated with MCQ, which Osmose??????oe produces and is used to treat lumber sold to builders and consumers in much of the United States through lumberyards and some leading national home center chains.

?EUR??,,????'??Viance is once again attempting to create unfounded concerns about consumer safety and product performance, using statistically insignificant and suspect data?EUR??,,????'??, said Paul Goydan, President of Osmose, Inc.

Extensive laboratory and extended field testing have confirmed the effectiveness of micronized preservatives. Several world renowned scientists have confirmed the strong performance of this technically advanced preservative technology and have published their comprehensive findings, which support the micronized technology?EUR??,,????'???s efficacy in providing wood protection for both above ground and ground contact applications.

So why this unfounded attack by a competitor? An attack based on an insignificant sample of a few posts selected by this competitor – out of the millions of posts in service? According to Osmose, one might conclude the competition has not been able to create a viable alternative product to compete with our patent pending technology and the ever-increasing market penetration of the micronized copper preservative systems.

TP has received inquiries from various parties regarding the nature of the tests and the implications of the results. A memorandum was sent to answer questions that have been posted to TP and to note certain limitations of the report.

TP tested only the posts that Viance directed TP to test. With respect to the posts that TP tested, TP was involved from the time the posts were extracted. However, TP was not directed to, and thus did not, identify a random sampling of posts treated with MCQ for testing.

There is a subjective element to the grading reflected on the report. It is possible that other colleagues would have assigned slightly different values to the tested samples. TP is not aware if a study exists that examines the effectiveness of preservatives other than MCQ after a period of time in the field.

As an independent inspection agency, TP is retained by various parties within the treated wood industry to perform tests in accordance with AWPA and ICC standards. In this case, TP was retained by Viance.

PhilbroWood shares the concerns raised by many in the wood treatment industry, including wood treaters and retail distributors of treated wood, regarding the continued of negative marketing efforts of Viance.

While the data referred to in the process release relates solely to MCQ and does not involve any products sold by PhibroWood. The company believes that this negative attack on the industry may cause a lack of confidence among retailers and consumers regarding the quality and performance of all treated wood products. With this in mind, PhibroWood joins others in encouraging Viance to remove this negative marketing material and to cease their attack on the treated wood industry.

?EUR??,,????'??We do not produce MCQ,?EUR??,,????'?? said Huck DeVenzio, Arch Treatment Technologies. ?EUR??,,????'??Our comparable preservative is copper azole, which we offer to our licensees in formulations using dissolved copper and dispersed copper (equivalent to micronized copper). The Viance release focuses on MCQ failures, so we are only indirectly involved. I do not know how scientific their study may be. Are the MCQ-treated wood failures common, or has Viance located some isolated cases? Did the wood samples have a lot of heartwood (which is not penetrated by preservative of any type)??EUR??,,????'??