Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate. 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. The report concluded that only 15% of the sunscreens met the group's criteria for safety and effectiveness. In July 2008, the EWG published an analysis of over 900 sunscreens. A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data 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. 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." A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all. The list cautions consumers to avoid conventional produce and promotes organic foods. 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. Unfortunately, the EWG misuses that transparency in a manipulative way to drive their fear-based, organic marketing agenda." Īccording 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. "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. Įnvironmental 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. They describes EWG as one of "he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products". Quackwatch has included EWG in its list of "questionable organisations". Brian Dunning of Skeptoid describes the EWG's activities as "a political lobbying group for the organic industry." Īccording 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. EWG warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading". 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. Activities Īccording to EWG co-founder Ken Cook, the EWG advocates for organic food and farming. Despite the criticism, EWG and its reports are influential among the public and companies have partnered with them to certify some of their products. EWG has been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals. A sister lobbying organization, the EWG Action Fund (a 501(c)(4) organization) was founded in 2002. EWG is a nonprofit organization ( 501(c)(3)).įounded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |