Jump to content

Environmental Working Group: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→External links: rm pr post by astroturf group - health claims from non-MEDRS source
Rescuing 1 sources, flagging 0 as dead, and archiving 25 sources. #IABot
Line 81: Line 81:


===Involvement in reprimand of John Stossel by ABC===
===Involvement in reprimand of John Stossel by ABC===
A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on ''20/20'' included a comment by [[John Stossel]] that ABC News tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. The Environmental Working Group took exception to his report, mainly questioning his statements about bacteria, but also found that the produce had never been tested for pesticides. EWG communicated this to Stossel but the story was rebroadcast months later not only with the allegedly inaccurate statement uncorrected, but with a postscript in which Stossel reiterated his error. After the ''[[New York Times]]'' took note of the error, ABC News suspended the producer of the segment for a month and reprimanded Stossel, who issued an apology over the incident, saying that he had thought the tests had been conducted as reported, but that he had been wrong. He asserted, however, that the gist of his report had been accurate.<ref name="Rutenberg">{{cite news | last=Rutenberg | first=Jim | title=Report on Organic Foods Is Challenged | publisher=The New York Times | date=2000-07-31 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/073100abc-organic.html | accessdate=2007-09-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124196&page=1 | title=20/20: Stossel Apology for Organic Food Report | date=2000-08-11 | last=Stossel | first=John | publisher=ABC News | accessdate=2007-09-26}}</ref><ref name="Rutenberg2">{{cite news | last=Rutenberg | first=Jim |author2=Barringer, Felicity | title=MEDIA; Apology Highlights ABC Reporter's Contrarian Image | publisher=The New York Times | date=2000-08-14 | url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E3DA133FF937A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=health&pagewanted=print | accessdate=2007-09-05}}</ref><ref name=blasphemer>{{cite news | url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy21.html | title=Blaspheming Organic Food: The Persecution of John Stossel | last=McElroy | first=Wendy | date=2000-08-15 | publisher=LewRockwell.com | accessdate=2007-09-26}}{{deadlink|date=January 2016}}</ref><ref name="givemeafake">{{cite news| url=http://www.ewg.org/reports/givemeafake | title=Give Me a Fake: Stossel Under Fire| publisher=Environmental Working Group | date=2000-09-06 | accessdate=2007-09-26}}</ref>
A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on ''20/20'' included a comment by [[John Stossel]] that ABC News tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. The Environmental Working Group took exception to his report, mainly questioning his statements about bacteria, but also found that the produce had never been tested for pesticides. EWG communicated this to Stossel but the story was rebroadcast months later not only with the allegedly inaccurate statement uncorrected, but with a postscript in which Stossel reiterated his error. After the ''[[New York Times]]'' took note of the error, ABC News suspended the producer of the segment for a month and reprimanded Stossel, who issued an apology over the incident, saying that he had thought the tests had been conducted as reported, but that he had been wrong. He asserted, however, that the gist of his report had been accurate.<ref name="Rutenberg">{{cite news | last=Rutenberg | first=Jim | title=Report on Organic Foods Is Challenged | publisher=The New York Times | date=2000-07-31 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/073100abc-organic.html | accessdate=2007-09-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124196&page=1 | title=20/20: Stossel Apology for Organic Food Report | date=2000-08-11 | last=Stossel | first=John | publisher=ABC News | accessdate=2007-09-26}}</ref><ref name="Rutenberg2">{{cite news | last=Rutenberg | first=Jim |author2=Barringer, Felicity | title=MEDIA; Apology Highlights ABC Reporter's Contrarian Image | publisher=The New York Times | date=2000-08-14 | url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E3DA133FF937A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=health&pagewanted=print | accessdate=2007-09-05}}</ref><ref name=blasphemer>{{cite news|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy21.html |title=Blaspheming Organic Food: The Persecution of John Stossel |last=McElroy |first=Wendy |date=2000-08-15 |publisher=LewRockwell.com |accessdate=2007-09-26 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20070808152843/http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/mcelroy/mcelroy21.html |archivedate=August 8, 2007 }}</ref><ref name="givemeafake">{{cite news| url=http://www.ewg.org/reports/givemeafake | title=Give Me a Fake: Stossel Under Fire| publisher=Environmental Working Group | date=2000-09-06 | accessdate=2007-09-26}}</ref>


===Benzene in soft drinks===
===Benzene in soft drinks===

Revision as of 15:27, 10 January 2016

"EWG" redirects here. For other uses, see Eurowings.
Environmental Working Group
Founded1992
Type501(c)(3)
FocusEnvironmentalism
Location
  • Washington, D.C.
Websitewww.ewg.org

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is an American environmental organization that specializes in research and advocacy in the areas of toxic chemicals, agricultural subsidies, public lands, and corporate accountability. EWG is a non-profit organization (501(c)(3)) whose mission, according to their website, is "to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment."[1]

Founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C. in the United States. A sister organization, the EWG Action Fund, is the lobbying arm (501(c)(4)) of the organization and was founded in 2002.[1]

Issue areas and projects

EWG works on three main policy or issue areas: toxic chemicals and human health; farming and agricultural subsidies; and public lands and natural resources.

Toxic chemicals and human health

EWG has created a cosmetics safety database[2] which indexes and scores products based on their ingredients. Their Guide to Pesticides in Produce[3] lists 44 fruits and vegetables based on the number of pesticides that they were found to contain according to United States Department of Agriculture data. A series of studies testing for the presence of chemicals in people's bodies is known as body burden. The organization has also constructed a national database of tap water testing results from public water utilities.[4][5] Their work has extended to a variety of other chemicals, including bisphenol A, perchlorate, mercury, flame retardants, and arsenic in treated wood.

Agricultural policy

EWG publishes a database of agricultural subsidies and their recipients.[6] The EWG Action Fund advocates for farm bill reform in the form of decreased disaster payments and subsidies for commodity crops, and increased funding for nutrition programs, conservation, specialty crops (i.e. fruits and vegetables), and organic agriculture.

Natural resources

The organization investigates and publishes information regarding oil and gas drilling and mining projects that may pose a threat to human health and the environment.[7]

Healthy Child Healthy World

Healthy Child Healthy World (HCHW), a group that "empowers parents to take action and protect children from harmful chemicals", merged with EWG in October 2014.[8]

Current projects

Dirty Dozen

The EWG publishes a "Dirty Dozen" list of foods with the highest pesticide residue, and recommends that consumers look for organically produced varieties of these products; the annual release of this list attracts widespread media coverage, and is thought to have a significant effect on the produce choices of many Americans.[citation needed] Critics of the list have suggested that it significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items, and that the methodology employed in constructing the list "lacks scientific credibility".[9]

Cell phone radiation report

Main article: Mobile phone radiation and health

EWG launched a cell phone radiation report in September 2009 that stated while the long-term effects of cell phone radiation are still being studied, there is sufficient research that shows higher risk for brain and salivary gland tumors among heavy cell phone users. EWG encouraged consumers to look up their cell phone's radiation level, and to wear a headset when talking on the phone to limit their exposure.[10][medical citation needed] In August 2013, EWG released a web page ("Cell Phone Radiation Damages Sperm, Studies Show") which reviews and tabulates studies showing relationships between mobile phone use and low sperm count and sperm quality.[11][medical citation needed] Contradicting the alarmism of EWG on this issue are physicists who argue that the microwave radiation used by cell phones would merely warm your head slightly (less than a hat), in contrast to high frequency radiation (not used by cell phones), such as x-rays, which can ionize atoms and damage DNA.[12]

Skin Deep

Skin Deep is a cosmetics safety database which pairs ingredients in over 79,000 products against 50 toxicity and regulatory databases. The database is intended as a resource for consumers, who can search by ingredient or product when choosing personal care products. It has been criticized as being an inaccurate and unreliable resource for consumers.[13]

Sunscreens

In July 2008, the EWG first published an analysis of over 900 sunscreens. The report concluded that only 15% of the sunscreens met the group's criteria for safety and effectiveness.[14]

Industry representatives called the 2008 report inaccurate.[14] Personal Care Products Council general counsel Farah Ahmed said that "It is very clear to me that they have a very low level of understanding of the way sunscreens work and the way they are regulated by the FDA and tested by the industry." She expressed further concern saying "I would hate to think that there are parents out there not using sunscreen on their kids because of a report like this that is not based on real science." Representatives from Schering-Plough (Coppertone), Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena), and Sun Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Banana Boat) also reiterated their products' safety and efficacy.[15]

Dr. Zoe Draelos, a professor at Duke University and spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, said the group made unfair "sweeping generalizations" in its report and their recommendations were based on "very old technology."[16]


In 2009, EWG updated Skin Deep with a report on chemicals in sunscreen, lip balm and SPF lotions. The report states that 3 out of 5 sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. The report identifies only 17% of the products on the market as both safe and effective, blocking both UVA and UVB radiation, remaining stable in sunlight, and containing few if any ingredients with significant known or suspected health hazards.[17][18][medical citation needed] Oxybenzone is among the list that blocks both forms of radiation but has been deemed unsafe by the EWG due to controversy over its potential estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects.[19][20][medical citation needed]

In its fourth annual "Sunscreen Guide", issued in May 2010, Environmental Working Group gave generally low marks to currently available sunscreen products. EWG researchers recommended only 39 out of 500 sunscreens available at the time.[21]

2007 Farm Bill

EWG operates the farm subsidy database, an online searchable database of recipients of taxpayer funded agriculture subsidy payments. The information is obtained directly from the United States Department of Agriculture via Freedom of Information Act requests.

In the 2007 Farm Bill, EWG is advocating for:

  • Cutting wasteful spending to profitable large farm operations, absentee landlords, ‘hobby’ farmers.
  • Increased support for organic agriculture, the fastest growing sector of the agriculture industry. In August 2007, EWG president Ken Cook delivered a petition of 30,000 names gathered online to Congressman Ron Kind (D-WI).
  • Increasing funding for nutrition.
  • Increasing funding for conservation.

During the fall 2007 debate over the farm bill EWG produced computer generated Google maps of cities across the country identifying the number of federal farm subsidy checks sent to that area. Acting-Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner used the maps during speeches and with the media as he advocated for fundamental reforms to the farm subsidy programs. [citation needed]

Who owns the West?

EWG has used computer mapping tools[22] to demonstrate the surge in mining claims near the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and other national parks.[23] The House of Representatives passed the first update of the nation’s hardrock mining law since 1872 in 2007. The bill, which bans mining claims around national parks and wilderness and imposes the first-ever royalties on minerals taken from public lands, awaits action in the Senate.[24] EWG staff testified before both the House and Senate during consideration of mining reform.[25]

Involvement in reprimand of John Stossel by ABC

A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on 20/20 included a comment by John Stossel that ABC News tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. The Environmental Working Group took exception to his report, mainly questioning his statements about bacteria, but also found that the produce had never been tested for pesticides. EWG communicated this to Stossel but the story was rebroadcast months later not only with the allegedly inaccurate statement uncorrected, but with a postscript in which Stossel reiterated his error. After the New York Times took note of the error, ABC News suspended the producer of the segment for a month and reprimanded Stossel, who issued an apology over the incident, saying that he had thought the tests had been conducted as reported, but that he had been wrong. He asserted, however, that the gist of his report had been accurate.[26][27][28][29][30]

Benzene in soft drinks

Main article: Benzene in soft drinks

In 2006 EWG sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration contending that the agency knew about the presence of benzene in soft drinks and suppressed the information from the public.[31][medical citation needed] EWG described the finding of benzene in soft drinks as a "clear health threat." A second letter in April 2006 [32] reported that 80% of diet sodas tested from 1996 to 2001 in FDA's Total Diet Study[33] had benzene levels above the 5 ppb, including one at 55ppb and a regular cola at 138 ppb.

Other projects

The EWF issues various red alerts for products or other safety warnings. In 2014, the EWF warned that a new herbicide by Dow Chemical called Enlist Duo was about to be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and that children in schools nearby these fields would be at risk of exposure to the herbicide, which it said was toxic. Some scientists called the alert misleading and based in an unlikely scenario.[34]

Finances and funding

For Fiscal Year ending December 2006, EWG raised nearly $3.6 million and spent $3.2 million.[35] Over 84 cents out of every dollar go toward EWG's actual programs.[35] As of March 2008, EWG reports 30 staff members[36] with its president Ken Cook earning $192K per year in 2006.[35]

Most of the funding comes from foundations, and a partial list of major funders is available on the organization's website.[37] Another large portion of the budget comes from individuals, with the rest stemming from interest, small sales, and consulting for other organizations.

References

  1. ^ a b "About the Environmental Working Group". EWG.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  2. ^ "Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Reviews". Cosmeticsdatabase.com. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  3. ^ http://foodnews.org
  4. ^ November 2009. "EWG's Drinking Water Quality Analysis and Tap Water Database | Environmental Working Group". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Mosko, Sarah. "Drinker Beware". E Magazine. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  6. ^ "EWG || Farm Subsidy Database". Farm.ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  7. ^ "Natural Resources: Mining | Environmental Working Group". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  8. ^ "Healthy Child Healthy World's Mission". Healthy Child Healthy World. Retrieved July 11, 2015.
  9. ^ Winter, Carl K., and Josh M. Katz (2011). "Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels". Journal of Toxicology, 2011:589674. 2011-05-15. Accessed 2014-06-26.
  10. ^ September 2009. "Limit Your Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation Report". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ http://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-damages-sperm-studies-find
  12. ^ Swanson, Eric (3 August 2008). "Stop freaking out about cell phones!". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
  13. ^ http://chemistscorner.com/why-the-ewg-skin-deep-database-is-still-a-dubious-source/
  14. ^ a b Boyles, Salynn (2 July 2008). "Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says". WebMD. CBS News. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
  15. ^ [1] WebMD article "Advocacy Group Says Many Popular Sunscreens Offer Inadequate Sun Protection"
  16. ^ "EWG Sunscreen Report Misleading, Skin Expert Says (Go Ahead, Slather It On)". The Huffington Post. 27 May 2010. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
  17. ^ "2009 Sunscreen Guide". EWG. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  18. ^ Miller, Michelle (2007-08-07). "Sunscreen: Don't Get Burned - Couric & Co". Cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  19. ^ Centers for Disease Control. CDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical. Environmental Working Group. EWG, 25 Mar. 2008. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
  20. ^ Ma R, et al. UV filters with antagonistic action at androgen receptors in the MDA-kb2 cell transcriptional-activation assay. Toxicol Sci 2003; 74: 43–50.
  21. ^ Report: Only 8 Percent of Sunscreens Recommended accessed 5 January 2016
  22. ^ "EWG, US Mining Database". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  23. ^ January 2008. "Report: Grand Canyon Threatened by Approval of Uranium Mining Activities | Environmental Working Group". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ Mulkern, Anne C. (2008-03-18). "136 Years Later, Mine Law May Get Update". Denver Post.
  25. ^ September 2007 (2007-09-27). "Statement of Dusty Horwitt, JD at Oversight Hearing on Hardrock Mining on Federal Land | Environmental Working Group". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ Rutenberg, Jim (2000-07-31). "Report on Organic Foods Is Challenged". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-01.
  27. ^ Stossel, John (2000-08-11). "20/20: Stossel Apology for Organic Food Report". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-09-26.
  28. ^ Rutenberg, Jim; Barringer, Felicity (2000-08-14). "MEDIA; Apology Highlights ABC Reporter's Contrarian Image". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
  29. ^ McElroy, Wendy (2000-08-15). "Blaspheming Organic Food: The Persecution of John Stossel". LewRockwell.com. Archived from the original on August 8, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-26. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ "Give Me a Fake: Stossel Under Fire". Environmental Working Group. 2000-09-06. Retrieved 2007-09-26.
  31. ^ EWG Letter to the FDA Re: Benzene, February 28, 2006, [2].
  32. ^ FDA Data Undercut Public Safety Assurances by Top Agency Official, April 4th, 2006 [3]
  33. ^ Total Diet Study, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Created June 1991, Updated July 2008, available at: [4].
  34. ^ McWilliams, James (3 September 2014). "The Hidden Cost of Fear Mongering: How the Environmental Working Group Sells Its Message Short". Pacific Standard. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
  35. ^ a b c "Charity Navigator Rating - Environmental Working Group". Charitynavigator.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  36. ^ "EWG Staff | Environmental Working Group". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  37. ^ "About Our Funding | Environmental Working Group". Ewg.org. Retrieved 2014-08-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_Working_Group&oldid=699146205"