1. Introduction

In March 2022, investigators from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) conducted an unannounced inspection at the St. Louis Park, Minnesota facility of Underwater Creations, Inc.

At first glance, the operation seemed to be a typical aquatic-supplies producer, offering goods to help aquarium enthusiasts maintain pristine tanks. But according to the EPA’s complaint, the company’s popular product lines—marketed under names like Vibrant Aquarium Cleaner and sold in both saltwater and freshwater varieties—were allegedly far more than mere “cleaners.” The newly revealed “smoking gun” evidence pointed to these products containing an active ingredient from a registered algicide (GLB Algimycin 600), which Underwater Creations, Inc. had not disclosed or properly registered with the EPA as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The legal complaint details how Underwater Creations, Inc. allegedly sold and distributed five unregistered pesticides. The most damning aspect of the case is the scope: at least 169 separate instances of distributing a single product, Vibrant Reef, over just one year. Nor was this the company’s only product with potential compliance issues. Vibrant Saltwater, Vibrant Freshwater, Expel, and Purge are also alleged to have been sold dozens of times without proper registration, in direct contravention of FIFRA.

At face value, this might appear to be a “simple” regulatory breach—albeit with serious consequences for unsuspecting aquarium owners. Yet scratch the surface, and it highlights a deeper problem that touches on every facet of consumer and environmental protection. It hints at a broader dynamic: the interplay between corporate greed, the push for quick profits, and a regulatory system that often struggles to keep up. This dynamic is not exclusive to the aquarium-products sector. Similar patterns can be found across various industries, illustrating systemic failures that are characteristic of neoliberal capitalism’s emphasis on deregulation, self-reporting, and profit-maximization above all else.

Across industries, corporations sometimes see noncompliance or partial compliance as “the cost of doing business”—an expendable line item in the pursuit of higher margins. But for consumers and local communities, the consequences of these corporate ethics violations can be severe, from health risks (corporations’ dangers to public health) to the financial and emotional impact on small business owners who innocently purchase these products. The allegations in the Underwater Creations case, therefore, stand as an illuminating example of what can go wrong when profit incentives override corporate social responsibility.

In what follows, we will examine the allegations leveled against Underwater Creations in great detail—why the government contends that these are serious violations of federal law, how corporate accountability might be undermined by strategic loopholes, and how this is symptomatic of a larger neoliberal landscape that prioritizes minimal regulation. We will also delve into the real-world impacts on workers, small-scale aquatics retailers, local communities, and the environment. Finally, this investigation will look at global trends in corporate accountability and identify pathways for reform, urging greater transparency, consumer advocacy, and policy changes to safeguard public health and economic well-being.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The CAFO sets out a clear narrative: Underwater Creations, Inc., as a Minnesota-based corporation, allegedly produced and sold five unregistered pesticides—Vibrant Reef, Vibrant Saltwater, Vibrant Freshwater, Expel, and Purge. Each of these products is a “substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest,” which unequivocally qualifies it as a pesticide under FIFRA.

FIFRA mandates that any pesticide in the United States must be registered with the EPA. The registration process is not simply bureaucratic formalism; it exists to ensure that pesticides are effective for their intended uses and, crucially, that they do not pose undue harm to humans, animals, or the environment. The complaint outlines that Underwater Creations was using “GLB Algimycin 600,” a registered pesticide with the EPA, as part of its proprietary blends. This inclusion is central to the government’s argument. Once a company includes an EPA-registered pesticide as an active ingredient in its own product, that new product must then also be registered, labeled, and tested to meet federal standards.

The “smoking gun” portion is the explicit mention in the complaint that the CEO, Jeff Jacobson, admitted to investigators that Vibrant Reef (and its variants for saltwater and freshwater) contained GLB Algimycin 600, along with other ingredients like aspartic acid and “cultured bacteria.” Investigators retrieved bin labels describing how users could “say goodbye to algae” and touting the product’s ability to achieve an “algae free” aquarium. Such labeling, the complaint argues, constitutes a direct claim of pest (algae) mitigation and thus triggers FIFRA’s regulatory provisions.

Beyond the labeling, the complaint specifically contends that Underwater Creations “had actual or constructive knowledge” that its products would be used for pesticidal purposes. That knowledge is gleaned from the company’s marketing—consumers were told that these products destroyed or prevented unwanted pests like algae and coral-damaging flatworms. This is a critical element of FIFRA liability: if a company knows that its product will be used to combat a pest (be it algae, insects, or microorganisms), it must register that product. By alleging that Underwater Creations sold Vibrant Reef alone at least 169 times without registration, the EPA frames a picture of repeated, willful misconduct.

Coupled with the enormous count of distribution events across all five products, these facts point to a systematic practice, rather than a mere paperwork oversight. If proven in an adjudicated forum, it would represent a significant breach of corporate ethics and a willingness to flout rules meant to ensure consumer and environmental safety. This, arguably, is where the corporate “intent” is exposed: the repeated sale and marketing of unregistered pesticides for maximum profit and market presence, in direct violation of FIFRA.

---

3. The Corporations Get Away With It

Underwater Creations effectively reached a settlement rather than face a protracted legal battle—an option open to many corporations under administrative processes. Under FIFRA, the EPA can seek civil penalties and injunctive relief when a company is found distributing unregistered pesticides. In the Underwater Creations case, the parties agreed on a civil penalty of $226,652. Some might see this number as substantial, but it is telling to place these penalties in the context of corporate finance. Large companies often absorb fines as part of their overhead—a relatively small cost compared to the potentially enormous profits reaped over time.

While Underwater Creations is not a multinational conglomerate, the principle still applies: businesses can weigh the odds, deciding whether noncompliance might be more lucrative than following regulations from the start. If the fine is smaller than the revenues gained, or if there is a perception that enforcement is rare, the financial calculus may favor skirting the rules. This phenomenon is by no means isolated to aquarium products—it is a recurring theme in the world of corporate accountability under neoliberal capitalism, where deregulation often invites opportunistic behavior.

Another element that can enable misconduct is the complexity of federal and state oversight. FIFRA enforcement is shared between the EPA and state agencies like the MDA. While these agencies have professional inspectors, limited resources can make it challenging to catch every violation. Smaller or newer product lines may fly under the radar for years. Even when regulators identify illegal products, legal action can sometimes take months or years, during which unregistered or improperly labeled products continue to reach the market.

Then there is the “confusion defense”—some corporations claim they misunderstood labeling rules, or that they believed they were selling only a bacterial supplement, not a pesticide. In the complaint, though, the EPA pointed to explicit statements on product bins and labeling, including phrases like “destroy algae” or “flush your corals of unwanted pests,” which are hard to interpret any other way. The question then becomes: could a profitable company fail to realize that touting pest-killing powers triggers federal registration requirements? Or was it a calculated risk?

The settlement—reached “without the filing of a complaint or the adjudication of any issue of fact or law”—speaks to a broader pattern across industries. High-profile settlement agreements let corporations avoid a full public trial and the damaging publicity that might come with a contentious hearing, especially if internal documents or emails come to light. For Underwater Creations, the final result is a penalty and a requirement to cease distributing unregistered products. But for consumers, the sense of closure can be less satisfying. Although the immediate threat of unregistered pesticides entering the market may be curtailed, broader systemic vulnerabilities remain.

---

4. The Cost of Doing Business

From a purely economic perspective, one could view the $226,652 penalty as a line item within a corporate ledger—“Regulatory Fine: Q4.” This phenomenon epitomizes how some companies in neoliberal capitalism approach regulation: fines become part of the cost of doing business, less a deterrent and more a predictable overhead. The CAFO indicates that the EPA weighed factors like the size of Underwater Creations’ business and the gravity of violations in calculating the penalty. The fact that multiple distribution events—well into the hundreds—occurred over a year or more underscores how profitable or widespread these sales might have been.

Consider the possible revenue from these products. Although the CAFO does not explicitly detail each product’s price, we can gather that Vibrant Reef was sold at least 169 times, Vibrant Saltwater 65 times, Vibrant Freshwater 63 times, Expel 22 times, and Purge 26 times—at minimum. This does not account for possible multiple units shipped per sale or distribution. If each bottle sold for $10, $20, or more, one can imagine that total revenue might have far exceeded the penalty. Hence the question arises: if the penalty is smaller or comparable to a year’s profit, is there a meaningful deterrent?

This is an age-old challenge in corporate accountability. When a firm sees that it can recoup noncompliance costs quickly, it has an incentive to sidestep regulations in pursuit of higher profit margins. Such a dynamic fosters a corporate culture that prioritizes immediate shareholder returns, frequently at the expense of consumer safety or environmental stewardship. The underlying structure of neoliberal capitalism, with its emphasis on market-based solutions and deregulation, often amplifies these problematic tendencies.

Within the aquarium industry, new product development can occur rapidly, and marketing claims can be the key differentiator that spurs consumer interest: “Get rid of stubborn algae—guaranteed!” or “Destroy invasive pests without harming your corals!” If full FIFRA compliance requires additional steps, testing, and time (thus delaying sales), certain companies might cut corners. Meanwhile, legitimate firms that follow the process correctly—registering each pesticide, paying the associated fees, and undergoing rigorous testing—bear higher compliance costs upfront. As a result, unscrupulous competitors who skirt the law can underprice them or flood the market with unregistered offerings, undermining honest businesses and harming consumer trust in the marketplace.

Ultimately, the “cost of doing business” approach can create a race to the bottom in terms of safety and ethics. Corporations that try to abide by best practices and corporate social responsibility find themselves at a disadvantage, while those that gamble on regulatory inaction or minimal fines may come out ahead in the short term. Over time, of course, these short-term gains can translate into widespread harm—health risks from toxins, ecological damage from untested chemicals, and an erosion of public confidence in regulatory institutions.

---

5. Systemic Failures

To understand how an alleged scheme like that of Underwater Creations can go on, often for months or years, one must explore the systemic failures underpinning these events. FIFRA enforcement is robust in principle: the law has clear definitions, registration pathways, and penalties for violations. Yet in practice, enforcement may lag, resources can be stretched thin, and corporations adept at manipulating loopholes can exploit the system’s weaknesses.

1. Deregulation Under Neoliberal Capitalism
Neoliberal capitalism, broadly speaking, emphasizes free markets, deregulation, and reduced government intervention. This economic system often relies on the notion that the “invisible hand” of the market will correct unethical or illegal behavior because consumers, theoretically, will eventually discover the better products and punish bad actors. However, as the Underwater Creations case suggests, the invisible hand typically moves slower than the quick commercial sale of a new product. By the time a complaint is lodged, and regulators investigate, thousands of units might already be sold, and profits collected.

2. Regulatory Capture and Industry Influence
Although not specifically alleged here, the presence of “regulatory capture” often looms large in any discussion of corporate accountability. In some industries, corporations gain outsized influence over the very bodies meant to regulate them—through lobbying, political donations, or a “revolving door” of industry professionals and agency staff. Even if no direct capture is occurring in the aquarium product space, the broader environment can still create a climate where enforcement is reactive rather than proactive, with agencies rushing to keep up with new product launches.

3. Limited Resources and Fragmented Oversight
FIFRA enforcement is shared among federal authorities (the EPA) and state agencies (in this case, the MDA). Where oversight is diffused, it sometimes becomes easier for companies to slip through the cracks. While the MDA does the vital on-the-ground inspections and data collection, the EPA might be the final arbiter for large-scale penalties. This multi-tier system can stall immediate enforcement actions, inadvertently allowing violations to persist.

4. Lack of Consumer Education
Because consumers often do not understand the difference between an unregistered pesticide and a harmless bacterial supplement, they rely on marketing claims and brand reputation. This vulnerability is why truth-in-labeling laws exist, but as shown in the complaint, such laws only work if corporations follow them or if regulators act quickly when they do not. In the interim, naive aquarium hobbyists might inadvertently introduce potentially harmful substances into their homes and water systems.

5. Barriers to Whistleblowing
One major check on corporate misconduct is internal whistleblowers—employees or insiders who notice unethical or unlawful behavior. Yet employees often fear retaliation, job loss, or blacklisting. The complaint against Underwater Creations does not mention any whistleblowers, suggesting investigators were led by external complaints or routine checks. Had there been robust whistleblower protections and incentives, the alleged wrongdoing could have come to light even sooner.

When these systemic failings converge, corporate operators skilled in navigating regulations can exploit the system with relative ease. For every Underwater Creations caught and penalized, many more might slip by, or settle with the EPA in ways that do not necessarily deter future misconduct. This is not just about the aquarium-products niche; the same pattern holds in pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, pesticides used in agriculture, and so forth. Each time a violator escapes with minimal repercussions, it fuels the sense that ignoring rules is simply part of the capitalistic hustle.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

From the vantage point of consumer protection and corporate ethics, it might appear baffling that unscrupulous practices can continue to thrive. But if we consider how neoliberal capitalism is structured—where the driving force is maximizing shareholder value and growth—then “predatory” or unethical strategies can be seen as logical adaptations within that ecosystem.

Companies that operate in a purely profit-driven model may rationally conclude that if short-term gains exceed potential penalties, it is a worthwhile gamble. With regulators often underfunded, and the legal process for penalizing wrongdoing lengthy and subject to negotiation, the risk-reward calculus can favor noncompliance. Indeed, these “bad actors” are not so much anomalies as they are the inevitable products of a profit-maximizing environment. Corporate greed, in this sense, is not a moral failing of one or two individuals, but rather a structural outcome of a system that prioritizes returns on investment above nearly all else.

1. Recurring Themes of Corporate Greed
In countless similar cases, from pharmaceutical manufacturers misrepresenting opioid risks to chemical companies concealing toxicity data, the central impetus for wrongdoing is the same: more revenue, more market share, more growth. The Underwater Creations example—marketing unregistered pesticides as mere cleaning products—differs in scale from multi-billion-dollar conglomerates, but follows the same script. The immediate impetus for skipping formal pesticide registration might be saving on costs associated with scientific studies, label reviews, or additional state-level fees.

2. Wealth Disparity and Economic Fallout
On a societal level, these repeated corporate violations deepen wealth disparity. Unchecked corporate misconduct can translate to windfall profits for owners or shareholders, while ordinary people shoulder the burdens of potential health risks and inflated consumer prices (because competition is stifled or consumer confidence plummets). In this particular case, small-scale aquarium retailers and hobbyists who rely on credible products might be left with defunct inventory or incur the cost of product returns.

3. Corporate Corruption and Public Mistrust
When corporations are seen to behave corruptly—and get away with little more than a wrist-slap fine—public mistrust in both industry and government escalates. Such cynicism has major ripple effects, contributing to skepticism about science, regulatory bodies, and even public-health initiatives. If companies consistently treat environmental regulations as optional obstacles, consumers begin to assume all corporations may be similarly untrustworthy. This skepticism, in turn, can hamper genuine innovators who produce safer, well-regulated products.

4. Environmental Ramifications
Though the immediate allegations revolve around tank-based algicides, the cumulative effect of untested or improperly labeled chemicals can harm aquatic life in home aquariums and potentially beyond, especially if water is discharged. Since algae, coral reefs, and marine ecosystems are sensitive to chemical imbalances, the introduction of potent algicides without proper guidelines can pose real ecological threats. Over time, such repeated exposures can degrade the environment. These are the “corporations’ dangers to public health” and the environment that consumer advocacy groups have been warning about for decades.

The fundamental point is that none of this is random. Under the current system, unethical conduct can prove to be profitable—especially if government oversight is inconsistent. We are not witnessing isolated incidents but rather the manifestation of a system that leaves open profitable avenues for unscrupulous operators. In such an environment, brand image can be burnished with clever marketing, while the real hazards remain hidden until an investigation forces them into the open.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When allegations like these surface, there is a well-trodden public relations playbook that corporations frequently follow. While the CAFO does not present any direct quotes from Underwater Creations on this matter, industry-wide experience suggests common tactics:

1. Minimize the Problem
   Companies often stress the limited scope of sales or claim that only a “small batch” was affected. They may argue that the regulatory definitions are overly technical and that the violations amount to a labeling oversight rather than purposeful wrongdoing. If a brand can position the issue as a trivial mix-up, it might mitigate consumer backlash.
2. Rebrand or Relaunch
   If the brand has strong name recognition, public statements might shift the spotlight to a new product line that is “completely compliant.” This strategy allows the company to move on without fully addressing deeper systemic issues or the mindset that led to the violations in the first place.
3. Blame a Rogue Employee or Supplier
   Another time-tested strategy is to attribute the wrongdoing to a misunderstanding or miscommunication with a supplier—“We were told this ingredient did not require registration.” Casting blame externally deflects attention from top-level decision-makers and corporate culture.
4. Settle Without Admitting Liability
   Settlements like the one in this CAFO often include language stating the respondent “neither admits nor denies” the factual allegations, effectively limiting admissions of guilt. Companies can publicly assert that they are paying the fine solely to avoid litigation costs, not because they concede to wrongdoing.
5. Promise to Do Better
   Finally, many corporations vow to bolster internal compliance measures and vow to champion corporate social responsibility. However, skeptical observers note that without transparency about how such compliance is enforced, these assurances can prove hollow.

These PR tactics can be quite effective. The average consumer might see a short burst of negative headlines, followed by a brand statement downplaying the seriousness. Over time, as the news cycle moves on, many prospective customers either forget the specifics or are unaware that any misconduct ever took place. That ephemeral nature of public attention can be exploited to minimize reputational damage.

In industries with higher stakes—like pharmaceuticals or heavy chemicals—public outcry and intense media coverage might push a stronger reaction, including Congressional inquiries or class-action lawsuits. In more niche markets like aquarium products, the outcry is often localized to hobbyist forums and social media groups. Thus, the impetus for genuine transparency may be weaker if the corporation believes it can contain the damage.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

At the heart of this story lies a familiar struggle: how do we ensure that corporations balance profit motives with public safety and environmental protection? The tension between corporate power and public interest runs through the entire Underwater Creations case. On one side, you have a company that claims to serve aquarium owners, helping them “create a pristine home for aquatic life.” On the other side, the EPA argues that, by failing to register these pesticides, the company put unwitting customers at risk and broke fundamental laws designed to safeguard health.

This broader tug-of-war is emblematic of neoliberal capitalism, wherein market forces are often presumed to self-correct. But the facts in the Underwater Creations complaint suggest that consumers or retailers had little way of verifying the safety or registration status of these products without specialized regulatory knowledge. The statement that the products included a powerful algicide (GLB Algimycin 600) was not front-and-center. Instead, marketing emphasized the “cultured bacteria blend” or the “amino acids,” overshadowing the presence of an EPA-registered chemical.

Impact on Public Health
Though the immediate public-health risk might be limited to aquarium owners or those who handle the solution, the principle remains the same for any unregistered pesticide. Unregistered chemicals can harm aquatic ecosystems, human health, and pets if misused or mislabeled. FIFRA’s registration requirement is there precisely to mitigate these dangers. When corporations circumvent that process, the public is left vulnerable.

Corporate Ethics and Responsibility
Calls for enhanced corporate social responsibility ring hollow if a company’s business model encourages circumventing regulations to maximize profits. The Underwater Creations allegations exemplify how a corporation might tout its commitment to the aquarium hobby community while, simultaneously, ignoring the federal rules that protect that very community. It is not just a matter of being “pro-business” or “pro-consumer”—a properly functioning marketplace requires honest labeling and safe products.

Balancing Profit with Accountability
Neoliberal capitalism is not universally negative, of course. The system fosters competition, spurring innovation and potentially driving down consumer prices. Yet these benefits only emerge if accountability structures function properly—if regulators have the resources to detect violations, if fines actually deter misconduct, and if corporate leaders prioritize ethical practices. When those mechanisms falter, the marketplace can become a Wild West of unsubstantiated claims, with consumers left to bear the risks and costs.

---

9. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

In the wake of these revelations, it can be easy to focus on the abstract “corporation” while forgetting that real people—employees, small retailers, local communities—are often deeply affected by corporate misconduct.

1. Employees on the Front Lines
   If workers at Underwater Creations handled these pesticide-laced products without adequate training or protective equipment, they could face immediate health risks, even if the substances seem minor compared to large-scale agricultural chemicals. Though the CAFO does not detail workplace safety protocols, violations of FIFRA often raise concerns about whether staff were properly informed of the product’s true nature.
2. Local Retailers and Hobbyist Businesses
   Aquarium stores that stocked Vibrant Reef or Vibrant Saltwater likely did so believing they were legitimate cleaning or bacterial products. These small retailers now stand to lose credibility with their customers and might face leftover inventory they cannot sell. In a niche market, even modest setbacks can disrupt business viability. Thus, the alleged wrongdoing of the manufacturer has direct economic fallout on smaller retailers who unwittingly became distributors.
3. Aquarium Hobbyists and Pet Owners
   On the consumer side, individuals who used these products might worry about harming their fish, corals, or other marine life. Aquariums can be substantial financial investments, and emotional attachments to aquatic pets run deep. If the unregistered pesticide caused fish die-offs or coral bleaching, hobbyists may have lost hundreds or even thousands of dollars’ worth of livestock. Emotional distress can also result when one’s personal ecosystem collapses unexpectedly.
4. Environmental and Public Health Concerns
   Although the complaint centers on aquariums, it is worth noting that these chemicals, if poured down drains or disposed of improperly, could make their way into broader water systems. The cumulative effect—when multiplied by thousands of households—can have real impacts on aquatic habitats and municipal water treatment processes. Residents near a manufacturing site might worry about local water sources, even if the official stance is that any environmental risk is minimal when used as directed.
5. Heightened Distrust
   Cases like this feed a public narrative that big business cannot be trusted—further eroding faith in regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect consumers. That erosion of trust can lead to increased suspicion of science, labeling claims, and even well-intentioned corporate initiatives in other domains like sustainability or philanthropic efforts.

In sum, the human cost goes well beyond fines or any potential slump in the stock price (if the company were publicly traded). It extends to employees working under possibly misleading instructions, small retailers stuck with unsellable stock, hobbyists whose prized aquatic pets may be endangered, and entire communities subjected to yet another instance of corporate wrongdoing. Each layer of this toll underscores the urgent need for robust corporate accountability structures that protect people—and the environment—from preventable harm.

---

10. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

As we broaden our lens beyond the Underwater Creations case, we can see similar patterns and dilemmas playing out worldwide. Even though FIFRA is specific to the United States, the phenomenon of unregistered or improperly labeled products extends across borders. Many countries rely on their own pesticide registration protocols or adopt international guidelines, yet enforcement levels vary dramatically. In countries with weaker regulatory frameworks, corporate misconduct can be even more rampant—algae-killing chemicals might be sold with no meaningful labeling at all.

1. The Patchwork of International Regulations
Companies operating globally can sometimes exploit jurisdictional differences. What might be labeled “pesticide” in one country could be considered a lesser “cleaning aid” elsewhere. A manufacturer could, in theory, produce a chemical in a lax regulatory environment and market it differently in more stringent jurisdictions. Such practices highlight the need for international cooperation to close loopholes.

2. The Role of Trade Agreements and Deregulatory Pressures
Under neoliberal capitalism, trade agreements often emphasize reducing “barriers” to commerce. While this can facilitate economic growth, it can also pressure governments to roll back or weaken regulations if they are deemed to impede market access. This dynamic can conflict directly with the precautionary principle—where regulators err on the side of caution to protect health and the environment.

3. Rising Consumer Activism
Globally, there is a growing movement of activist groups, consumer-advocacy organizations, and non-governmental organizations fighting for more transparency in the marketplace. From Europe’s stricter approach to labeling genetically modified organisms to certain Asian nations imposing heavy fines for mislabeled products, a patchwork of local standards can impose real consequences on unethical operators. However, large corporations with substantial legal and lobbying budgets can still find ways to skirt or dilute these efforts.

4. Parallel Cases in Other Sectors

• Pharmaceuticals: The opioid crisis in the United States had many parallels in Europe and elsewhere, with producers downplaying addictive risks for profit.
• Agrochemicals: Multinational firms that produce herbicides or insecticides have faced repeated accusations of hiding toxicity data or aggressively lobbying to minimize safety tests.
• Personal Care: Unregulated or falsely labeled skin-whitening creams, hair treatments, or dietary supplements frequently contain hidden active ingredients.

In each scenario, the core mechanism is the same as that alleged in the Underwater Creations CAFO: the company markets a product with an active, potent ingredient while sidestepping or ignoring the relevant registration and safety protocols.

The Bigger Picture
This global context underscores that such behaviors are neither outliers nor random. They fit into a global neoliberal market environment where corporations are strongly incentivized to push regulatory boundaries if it means capturing greater market share. Whether it is aquarium cleaners, opioids, or pesticides, the logic remains consistent: if the penalty is not commensurate with the gains, some corporations will choose to violate the law. The crucial question becomes how to realign corporate incentives so that compliance and ethics become the profitable choice.

---

11. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

Given the repeated patterns of corporate greed and regulatory failures laid bare by the Underwater Creations case, what can be done to prevent future misconduct and protect consumers? While there is no single silver bullet, a combination of stronger enforcement, consumer advocacy, and systemic reforms can shift the balance of power.

1. Strengthen FIFRA Enforcement Mechanisms

• Increased Funding for Inspections: Regulatory bodies like the EPA and state agencies like the MDA should have ample resources to conduct more frequent, unannounced inspections.
• Higher Penalties: If fines become truly punitive—outweighing potential profits from illegal sales—they can deter future violations.
• Quicker Enforcement: Accelerating the timeframe from complaint to action reduces the window during which unregistered products can flood the market.

2. Enhance Transparency and Labeling Requirements

• Digital Tracking: Implement barcodes or QR codes on pesticide products that link directly to an EPA database, enabling retailers and consumers to verify registration status in real time.
• Clear Disclosure of Active Ingredients: Mandate that any product containing registered pesticides highlight this fact on the main product label, not hidden in fine print.

3. Protect and Incentivize Whistleblowers

• Legal Safeguards: Strengthen whistleblower protection laws so employees can report misconduct without fear of retaliation.
• Reward Mechanisms: Offer financial rewards or other incentives for employees who report substantial violations that lead to enforcement actions, mirroring policies in certain financial-sector regulations.

4. Foster Consumer Awareness and Advocacy

• Hobbyist Forums and Coalitions: Aquarium enthusiasts can form online communities to verify the legitimacy of new products. Retailers and hobbyist societies can share knowledge about recent enforcement actions, thereby pressuring companies to maintain honesty in marketing.
• Media Spotlights: Investigative journalism and consumer watchdogs play a crucial role in exposing shady practices. Sustained coverage can hold corporations accountable and push for policy changes.
• Purchasing Power: Consumers can “vote with their wallets,” supporting manufacturers who demonstrate consistent adherence to corporate social responsibility.

5. Broader Systemic Changes

• Rethinking Neoliberal Assumptions: Advocates argue for a measured approach to regulation, one that recognizes the critical role of government oversight in sectors like pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and industrial chemicals. Policymakers could re-examine trade deals and deregulation measures to ensure they do not undermine public-health protections.
• Corporate Governance Reform: Encouraging or mandating that firms adopt stakeholder-centric models—instead of pure shareholder primacy—could shift corporate decision-making processes. Companies might be required to consider the welfare of employees, customers, and the environment alongside quarterly earnings.

---

A brief EPA press release on this story: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-reaches-settlement-underwater-creations-inc-st-louis-park-minnesota-alleged