Jump to content

Environmental Working Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gtoffoletto (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 2 June 2023 (Move better sources to the lead and focus on most common criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Environmental Working Group
Founded1992 (32 years ago) (1992)
Type501(c)(3)
FocusEnvironmentalism
Location
  • Washington, D.C., US
Websitewww.ewg.org

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is an American activist group that specializes in research and advocacy in the areas of agricultural subsidies, toxic chemicals, drinking water pollutants, and corporate accountability. EWG is a nonprofit organization (501(c)(3)).

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

EWG has been criticised for exaggerating the risks of chemicals.[2][3][4] Despite the criticism, EWG and its reports are influential among the public and companies have partnered with them to certify some of their products.[2]

Activities

The EWG issues various product safety warnings.

Dirty Dozen

EWG's "Dirty Dozen" list describes food additives that have been associated with adverse health impacts, including some additives that have been restricted in certain countries.[5]

Critics of the Dirty Dozen 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".[6]

A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.[7][6] A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data[8] by Steve Savage found that 99.33% of the detectable residues were below the EPA tolerance and half of the samples were more than 100 times below.[9]

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 due to the use of newer and untested chemicals.[10] It called on the FDA to require that manufacturers provide more detailed information about the level of sun protection provided for both the UVA and UVB radiation.[10] Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate.[10]

Commenting on the 2010 sunscreen report, Zoe Draelos, of Duke University and spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, said the group made unfair "sweeping generalizations" about newer chemicals (such as oxybenzone) in its report and that their recommended products were based only on "very old technology" such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.[11] In 2018 EWG found that nearly two-thirds of the chemical sunscreens in its report contain oxybenzone, often with varying mixtures of the other common chemicals.[12]

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed new rules for the sunscreen industry that requested additional safety and efficacy data for 12 substances commonly included in sunscreens such as: oxybenzone, avobenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate.[13] Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide would be given "generally regarded as safe and effective" (GRASE) status without additional data.[13] New studies have discovered that after a single application, chemicals commonly found in sunscreens can be absorbed into the bloodstream at levels that may exceed safety thresholds.[14] EWG welcomed the request by the FDA for additional testing stating that: “Sunscreen chemicals like oxybenzone pose significant health concerns, but the sunscreen industry continues to bury its head in the sand. We’re grateful the FDA continues to demand basic data on the health effects of these chemicals.”[13] As of 2023, oxybenzone has been banned in certain locations due to its negative effects on corals and its amount in sunscreens has been limited due to still inconclusive studies regarding its health effects.[15] According to EWG, based on the proposed FDA rules, 60% of sunscreens in its reports would not be considered safe and effective.[16]

Healthy Living App

EWG publishes a “Healthy Living App” showing ratings of products based on its online database of more than 120,000 food and personal care products.[17] In 2018 it had been downloaded 1.3 million times.[18] The app has become influential on the market leading to companies partnering with ESG to certify their product and ensure they achieve a high rating.[18] According to Nneka Leiba, leader of the group’s Healthy Living Science team: “Companies have told us that if they don’t score well, it will affect their bottom line.”[18] This effect has lead companies such as Procter & Gamble to partner with EWG to certify some of their products.[18]

Criticism

EWG reports and statements have been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals.[4][19][20] EWG warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading".[21][22][23]

According to a 2009 survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology conducted by George Mason University, 79% of respondents thought EWG overstated the risks of chemicals, while only 3% thought they underestimated the risks and 18% thought they were accurate.[3][24] Quackwatch has inclued EWG in its list of "questionable organisations."[25] They describes EWG as one of "[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products".[26]

Environmental historian James McWilliams has described EWG warnings as fear mongering and misleading, and wrote that there is little evidence to support the claims made by the EWG.[27] "The transparency of the USDA’s program in providing the detailed data is good because it reveals how insignificant these residues are from a health perspective. Unfortunately, the EWG misuses that transparency in a manipulative way to drive their fear-based, organic marketing agenda."[28]

According to Kavin Senapathy of Science Moms, the EWG "frightens consumers about chemicals and their safety, cloaking fear mongering in a clever disguise of caring and empowerment." Senapathy included two main areas of criticism for the organization including: methodologies used by the EWG for "food, cosmetics, children’s products and more are fundamentally flawed", and the EWG is largely funded by organic companies and does not assess or discuss pesticides from organic farming.[20]

Finances and funding

For the fiscal year ending December 2015, EWG raised nearly $13.7 million and spent $12.5 million.[29][30] Over 84 cents out of every dollar go toward EWG's program expenses.[30] President Ken Cook earned $289,022 in reportable income in 2015.[30]

References

  1. ^ "About the Environmental Working Group". EWG.org. Retrieved March 30, 2011.
  2. ^ a b Kary, Tiffany (December 12, 2018). "Revenge of the Chemistry Nerds: P&G Teams With Health Watchdog". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  3. ^ a b "The Media and Chemical Risk: Toxicologists' Opinions on Chemical Risk and Media Coverage" (PDF). 2009. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  4. ^ a b Dunning, Brian (May 15, 2018). "Environmental Working Group and the Dirty Dozen". Skeptoid. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  5. ^ "EWG's Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives". EWG. November 12, 2014.
  6. ^ a b Winter, C. K.; Katz, J. M. (2011). "Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels". Journal of Toxicology. 2011: 589674. doi:10.1155/2011/589674. PMC 3135239. PMID 21776262.
  7. ^ "How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies?". Center for Accountability in Science. April 10, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ "PDP Databases and Annual Summaries". USDA. Retrieved May 17, 2018.
  9. ^ Savage, S. (May 20, 2013). "How Wrong Is The Latest "Dirty Dozen List?"". Biology Fortified. Retrieved May 17, 2018.
  10. ^ a b c Boyles, Salynn (July 2, 2008). "Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says". WebMD. CBS News. Retrieved June 21, 2015.
  11. ^ CafeMom (May 27, 2010). "EWG Sunscreen Report Misleading, Skin Expert Says (Go Ahead, Slather It On)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  12. ^ LaMotte, Sandee (May 15, 2019). "Majority of sunscreens could flunk proposed FDA standards for safety and efficacy, report to say". CNN. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  13. ^ a b c "US FDA questions safety of sunscreens, again". Chemical and Engineering News. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  14. ^ LaMotte, Sandee (January 21, 2020). "Seven sunscreen chemicals enter bloodstream after one use, FDA says, but don't abandon sun protection". CNN. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  15. ^ "Almost Every Doctor Recommends Sunscreen. So Why Don't We Know More About Its Safety?". Time. August 2, 2021. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  16. ^ LaMotte, Sandee (May 15, 2019). "Majority of sunscreens could flunk proposed FDA standards for safety and efficacy, report to say". CNN. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  17. ^ Group, Environmental Working. "EWG's Healthy Living App". www.ewg.org. Retrieved June 2, 2023. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  18. ^ a b c d Kary, Tiffany (December 12, 2018). "Revenge of the Chemistry Nerds: P&G Teams With Health Watchdog". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  19. ^ Meyer, David (October 25, 2018). "A New Study Found Weedkiller in 28 Cereals and Other Kids' Foods. Why Parents Shouldn't Freak Out Just Yet". Fortune. Archived from the original on October 25, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  20. ^ a b Senapathy, Kavin (July 12, 2016). "Would You Rather Buy Organic Or Poison Your Family? EWG Wants You To Pick One". Forbes. US. Archived from the original on July 13, 2016. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  21. ^ Miller, Henry (December 26, 2010). "Diluting the 'chromium-6 in water' panic". The Guardian. Archived from the original on September 20, 2013. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  22. ^ Corcoran, Terence (June 13, 2011). "Junk Science Week: Lipstick, apples & sperm counts". Financial Post. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  23. ^ Hogberg, David (July 25, 2005). "Soaking in Chemical Stews". The American Spectator. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  24. ^ "Table 3: RATING RISK PORTRAYALS". stats.org. Archived from the original on May 5, 2012. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  25. ^ "Questionable Organizations: An Overview | Quackwatch". February 5, 2022. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  26. ^ "Scientific Activism for Cosmetic Chemists (and Others)". Quackwatch. May 17, 2015. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  27. ^ McWilliams, James (September 3, 2014). "How the Environmental Working Group Sells Its Message Short". Pacific Standard. Archived from the original on April 5, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  28. ^ Savage, Steven (April 10, 2018). "The Truth About Pesticide Residues On Produce: All Encouraging, Some Inconvenient". Forbes. Retrieved October 19, 2019.
  29. ^ "EWG 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). ewg.org. December 31, 2015. p. 12. Retrieved October 12, 2017.
  30. ^ a b c "Charity Navigator Rating – Environmental Working Group". Charitynavigator.org. Retrieved March 30, 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_Working_Group&oldid=1158234967"