Environmental Working Group: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m fix
Add paragraph per RfC consensus (see talk page)
Line 37: Line 37:


Scientists have stated that the list significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items, the methodology employed in constructing the list "lacks scientific credibility" and "may be intentionally misleading."<ref name="WinterKatz"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cato |first1=Sarah |last2=McWhirt |first2=Amanda |last3=Herrera |first3=Lizzy |title=Combating Horticultural Misinformation through Integrated Online Campaigns Using Social Media, Graphics Interchange Format, and Blogs |journal=HortTechnology |date=August 2022 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=342–347 |doi=10.21273/HORTTECH05009-22|s2cid=249901606 |doi-access=free }}</ref> A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.<ref name="dirty">{{cite web |date=2018-04-10 |title=How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies? |url=https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits-and-veggies/ |access-date=2022-03-29 |publisher=Center for Accountability in Science}}</ref><ref name="WinterKatz" /> A 2011 analysis of the [[USDA]]'s PDP data<ref name="USDA">{{cite web|title=PDP Databases and Annual Summaries|url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata|publisher=USDA|access-date=17 May 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref name="savage">{{cite web|last1=Savage|first1=S.|title=How Wrong Is The Latest "Dirty Dozen List?"|date=May 20, 2013|url=https://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/dirty-dozen/|publisher=Biology Fortified|access-date=17 May 2018}}</ref>
Scientists have stated that the list significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items, the methodology employed in constructing the list "lacks scientific credibility" and "may be intentionally misleading."<ref name="WinterKatz"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cato |first1=Sarah |last2=McWhirt |first2=Amanda |last3=Herrera |first3=Lizzy |title=Combating Horticultural Misinformation through Integrated Online Campaigns Using Social Media, Graphics Interchange Format, and Blogs |journal=HortTechnology |date=August 2022 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=342–347 |doi=10.21273/HORTTECH05009-22|s2cid=249901606 |doi-access=free }}</ref> A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.<ref name="dirty">{{cite web |date=2018-04-10 |title=How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies? |url=https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits-and-veggies/ |access-date=2022-03-29 |publisher=Center for Accountability in Science}}</ref><ref name="WinterKatz" /> A 2011 analysis of the [[USDA]]'s PDP data<ref name="USDA">{{cite web|title=PDP Databases and Annual Summaries|url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata|publisher=USDA|access-date=17 May 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref name="savage">{{cite web|last1=Savage|first1=S.|title=How Wrong Is The Latest "Dirty Dozen List?"|date=May 20, 2013|url=https://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/dirty-dozen/|publisher=Biology Fortified|access-date=17 May 2018}}</ref>

=== '''PFAS regulation advocacy''' ===
Since the early 2000s, EWG has been advocating for increasing regulations on the use of [[Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances]] (PFAS).<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Renfrew |first=Daniel |last2=Pearson |first2=Thomas W. |date=2021-09-01 |title=The Social Life of the “Forever Chemical”: PFAS Pollution Legacies and Toxic Events |url=https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/environment-and-society/12/1/ares120109.xml |journal=Environment and Society |language=en |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=146–163 |doi=10.3167/ares.2021.120109 |issn=2150-6779}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2019-05-07 |title=Drinking water may be contaminated with chemicals in 43 states according to new study by Environmental Working Group - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drinking-water-may-contain-pfas-chemicals-in-43-states-according-to-new-study-by-environmental-working-group/ |access-date=2023-11-02 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Zimmer |first=Carl |date=2022-08-18 |title=Forever Chemicals No More? PFAS Are Destroyed With New Technique |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/science/pfas-forever-chemicals.html |access-date=2023-11-02 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> EWG has collaborated with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at [[Northeastern University]] to publish a map showing detections of PFAS in water samples across the USA.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />


===Sunscreens===
===Sunscreens===

Revision as of 17:15, 2 November 2023

Environmental Working Group
Founded1993 (31 years ago) (1993)
FoundersKen Cook, Richard Wiles
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 criticized 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

According to EWG co-founder Ken Cook, the EWG advocates for organic food and farming.[5]

The EWG issues various product safety warnings; the accuracy of EWG reports and statements have been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals as has its funding by the organic food industry.[4][6][7][8][9] EWG warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading".[10][11][12] Brian Dunning of Skeptoid describes the EWG's activities as "a political lobbying group for the organic industry."[4]

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][13] Quackwatch has included EWG in its list of "questionable organisations".[14] They describes EWG as one of "[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products".[15]

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.[16] "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."[17]

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: the use of methodologies for food, cosmetics, children’s products and more that are "fundamentally flawed", and that EWG is "largely funded by organic companies" that its shopping recommendations help.[7]

Dirty Dozen

The EWG promotes an annual list ranking pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables called the "Dirty Dozen", though it does not give readers context on what amounts regulatory agencies consider safe. The list cautions consumers to avoid conventional produce and promotes organic foods.[18][19]

Scientists have stated that the list significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items, the methodology employed in constructing the list "lacks scientific credibility" and "may be intentionally misleading."[18][20] A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.[21][18] A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data[22] 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.[23]

PFAS regulation advocacy

Since the early 2000s, EWG has been advocating for increasing regulations on the use of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).[24][25][26] EWG has collaborated with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University to publish a map showing detections of PFAS in water samples across the USA.[24][25]

Sunscreens

In July 2008, the EWG 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.[27] 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.[27] Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate.[27] 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.[28]

Vaccines

In 2004, the EWG authored a report titled "Overloaded? New science, new insights about mercury and autism in children" promoting an unfounded link between mercury preservatives in vaccines and autism.[4]

Genetically modified food

The EWG has made statements opposing the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food claiming long-term safety has not been proven.[29][30] The group started a campaign supported by funding from the organic industry to require labeling of GM food and promote organic food.[31][32]

Tap water

In 2005, the EWG released its Tap Water Database that contains data collected from approximately 48,500 water utilities across the US.[33][34][35] The City of Everett, described by the report as exceeding public health guidelines for drinking water, has criticized the report, contending that the EWG selectively chose the guidelines used to assess water quality.[36]

Finances and funding

For the fiscal year ending December 2015, EWG raised nearly $13.7 million and spent $12.5 million.[37][38] Over 84 cents out of every dollar go toward EWG's program expenses.[38] President Ken Cook earned $289,022 in reportable income in 2015.[38]

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 c d Dunning, Brian (May 15, 2018). "Environmental Working Group and the Dirty Dozen". Skeptoid. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
  5. ^ Cook, Ken (January 17, 2017). "It's Time We Get Serious About Organic Farming". Food Tank. Retrieved July 20, 2023.
  6. ^ 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)
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ "An Apple A Day..." Office for Science and Society. McGill University. Retrieved June 7, 2023.
  9. ^ "Fruit Leathers Have Detectable Pesticides: Report". WebMD. Retrieved July 20, 2023.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ Hogberg, David (July 25, 2005). "Soaking in Chemical Stews". The American Spectator. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  13. ^ "Table 3: RATING RISK PORTRAYALS". stats.org. Archived from the original on May 5, 2012. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  14. ^ "Questionable Organizations: An Overview | Quackwatch". February 5, 2022. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
  15. ^ "Scientific Activism for Cosmetic Chemists (and Others)". Quackwatch. May 17, 2015. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ Savage, Steven (April 10, 2018). "The Truth About Pesticide Residues On Produce: All Encouraging, Some Inconvenient". Forbes. Retrieved October 19, 2019.
  18. ^ a b c 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.
  19. ^ "Understanding Pesticide Residues on Fruit and Vegetables: Fact vs. Fiction" (PDF). University of Arkansas Extension. Retrieved June 6, 2023.
  20. ^ Cato, Sarah; McWhirt, Amanda; Herrera, Lizzy (August 2022). "Combating Horticultural Misinformation through Integrated Online Campaigns Using Social Media, Graphics Interchange Format, and Blogs". HortTechnology. 32 (4): 342–347. doi:10.21273/HORTTECH05009-22. S2CID 249901606.
  21. ^ "How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies?". Center for Accountability in Science. April 10, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  22. ^ "PDP Databases and Annual Summaries". USDA. Retrieved May 17, 2018.
  23. ^ Savage, S. (May 20, 2013). "How Wrong Is The Latest "Dirty Dozen List?"". Biology Fortified. Retrieved May 17, 2018.
  24. ^ a b Renfrew, Daniel; Pearson, Thomas W. (September 1, 2021). "The Social Life of the "Forever Chemical": PFAS Pollution Legacies and Toxic Events". Environment and Society. 12 (1): 146–163. doi:10.3167/ares.2021.120109. ISSN 2150-6779.
  25. ^ a b "Drinking water may be contaminated with chemicals in 43 states according to new study by Environmental Working Group - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. May 7, 2019. Retrieved November 2, 2023.
  26. ^ Zimmer, Carl (August 18, 2022). "Forever Chemicals No More? PFAS Are Destroyed With New Technique". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved November 2, 2023.
  27. ^ a b c Boyles, Salynn (July 2, 2008). "Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says". WebMD. CBS News. Retrieved June 21, 2015.
  28. ^ CafeMom (May 27, 2010). "EWG Sunscreen Report Misleading, Skin Expert Says (Go Ahead, Slather It On)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
  29. ^ Resnik, David B. (August 2015). "Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28 (4): 621–633. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9546-y. PMC 4524344. PMID 26251636.
  30. ^ "Five things you should know about GMOs | Environmental Working Group". www.ewg.org. August 21, 2012. Retrieved June 7, 2023.
  31. ^ It, Just Label. "About Just Label It | Just Label It". www.justlabelit.org. Retrieved June 7, 2023.
  32. ^ "Congress Just Passed A GMO Labeling Bill. Nobody's Super Happy About It". NPR News. Retrieved June 7, 2023.
  33. ^ "Tap Water Database". www.awwa.org. Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  34. ^ "How safe is your tap water? This database can tell you". Yahoo Life. October 23, 2019. Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  35. ^ "EWG tap water database shows arsenic and chromium in all 50 states". Business Insider. 2019. Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  36. ^ "Everett statement on Environmental Working Group (EWG)". www.everettwa.gov. Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  37. ^ "EWG 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). ewg.org. December 31, 2015. p. 12. Retrieved October 12, 2017.
  38. ^ a b c "Charity Navigator Rating – Environmental Working Group". Charitynavigator.org. Retrieved March 30, 2011.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_Working_Group&oldid=1183176518"