Because after decades of treating chronically ill children, I’ve learned to follow the trail back to the source and it doesn’t lead to genetics, my uncanny brilliance at diagnosis, or just plain bad luck. It leads to policy.
These aren’t isolated issues; they’re government-sanctioned reruns of the same tired play: protect the poison, silence the public, and rebrand it as progress. This is a Broadway reject at best.
In this article, I compare two legislative low points: the DARK Act and the new pesticide liability shield to demonstrate how Congress keeps hitting repeat on policies that put corporate profit over children’s health. Same script, different packaging.
When you treat enough sick kids, you realize the diagnosis is written in policy.
The Pesticide Industry Liability Shield
The Pesticide Industry Liability Shield, found in Section 453 of the House Interior Appropriations Bill (FY2025), would grant sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers, effectively shielding over 57,000 products including those made by Bayer and Syngenta from state-level lawsuits, even when their products cause harm.
By preempting state product liability laws, this provision would block consumers, farmers, and families from suing for damages due to pesticide exposures unless the EPA explicitly updates the label which is something that can historically has taken decades. With the EPA’s risk assessments often outdated (e.g., glyphosate’s last full review was in 1993), this shield would ensure that harmful products remain on the market without updated warnings or accountability.
Currently, the bill has advanced out of the House Appropriations Committee and is under consideration by the full House. If passed, it would severely undermine public health protections and deny victims of pesticide-related illness their right to seek justice.
The pesticide liability shield in Section 453 of the FY2025 Interior Appropriations Bill and the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, passed in 2016) both serve as prime examples of federal preemption used to strip states of their authority to protect its denizens and ensure transparency in public health matters; one concerning pesticides, the other GMOs.
The DARK Act was a blatant maneuver by Congress in 2016 to block states from requiring clear, on-package labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. Passed under the guise of “uniform national standards,” it stripped away Vermont’s groundbreaking GMO labeling law and replaced it with a watered-down federal scheme that allowed companies to hide GMO information behind QR codes and 1-800 numbers.
Instead of transparency, the DARK Act delivered confusion, serving biotech and Big Food while leaving consumers in the dark. It marked a turning point in how federal policy could be weaponized to override state-level public health protections in favor of corporate secrecy.
Here’s how they compare:
1. Federal Preemption of State Laws
DARK Act: Prevented individual states from requiring GMO labeling, even when voters or legislatures passed such laws (e.g., Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law).
Section 453: Prevents states from holding pesticide manufacturers legally accountable under product liability or failure-to-warn laws, even if the pesticide causes harm.
Impact: Both override state efforts to protect consumers, and concentrate control at the federal level, where industry influence is strongest.
IN MEMORIUM
Why is a physician writing about
pesticide industry liability shields
and the failure to label GMOs?
Dr. Michelle Perro, MD, Pediatrician
She has worked as both Emergency Room Director and Attending Physician from New York’s Metropolitan Hospital/New York Medical college to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, Oakland, CA. Dr. Perro has co-authored the highly acclaimed book, What’s Making our Children Sick. Stay tuned for her upcoming book, Making our Children Well, an instructional guidebook for parents on nutrition and homeopathy.
Dr. Michelle Perro, MD