Environmental Working Group#Dirty Dozen

In 1993, the Environmental Working Group was founded by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles. EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C.. Its lobbying organization, the EWG Action Fund (a 501(c)(4) organization) was founded in 2002.{{cite web|url=http://www.ewg.org/about |title=About the Environmental Working Group |website=EWG.org |access-date=2011-03-30}}

EWG partners with companies to certify their products.{{Cite news |author=Kary |first=Tiffany |date=2018-12-12 |title= Revenge of the Chemistry Nerds: P&G Teams With Health Watchdog |work=Bloomberg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-12/revenge-of-the-chemistry-nerds-p-amp-g-teams-with-health-watchdog |access-date=2022-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529122452/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-12/revenge-of-the-chemistry-nerds-p-amp-g-teams-with-health-watchdog |archive-date=2019-05-29}} Its reports are influential with the public, but it has been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals.{{Cite web |last=Dunning |first=Brian |author-link=Brian Dunning (author) |date=2018-05-15 |title=Environmental Working Group and the Dirty Dozen |url=https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4623 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181218010658/https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4623 |archive-date=2018-12-18 |access-date=2022-06-07 |website=Skeptoid}}

According to its co-founder Ken Cook, the EWG advocates for organic food and farming.{{cite web |last1=Cook |first1=Ken |title=It's Time We Get Serious About Organic Farming |url=https://foodtank.com/news/2017/01/its-time-we-get-serious-about-organic-farming/ |website=Food Tank |access-date=20 July 2023 |date=17 January 2017}} EWG receives funding from organic food manufacturers, and that funding source and its product safety warnings of purported health hazards have drawn criticism,{{Cite news |last=Meyer |first=David |date=2018-10-25 |title= A New Study Found Weedkiller in 28 Cereals and Other Kids' Foods. Why Parents Shouldn't Freak Out Just Yet |language=en |website=Fortune |url=https://fortune.com/2018/10/25/glyphosate-weedkiller-kids-cereal-oats/ |access-date=2022-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181025125656/https://fortune.com/2018/10/25/glyphosate-weedkiller-kids-cereal-oats/ |archive-date=2018-10-25}}{{Cite news |last=Senapathy |first=Kavin |date=2016-07-12 |title= Would You Rather Buy Organic Or Poison Your Family? EWG Wants You To Pick One |language=en |website=Forbes |location=US |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would-you-rather-buy-organic-or-poison-your-family-ewg-wants-you-to-pick-one/ |url-status=live |access-date=2022-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160713101024/https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would-you-rather-buy-organic-or-poison-your-family-ewg-wants-you-to-pick-one/ |archive-date=2016-07-13}}{{cite web |title=An Apple A Day... |url=https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/controversial-science-environment-food-health-news/apple-day-dont-let-environmental-working-group-scare-you |website=Office for Science and Society |publisher=McGill University |access-date=7 June 2023 |language=en}}{{cite web |title=Fruit Leathers Have Detectable Pesticides: Report |url=https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20220915/fruit-leathers-pesticides-report |website=WebMD |access-date=20 July 2023 |language=en}} the warnings being labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading."{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Henry |date=2010-12-26 |title=Diluting the 'chromium-6 in water' panic |url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/25/pollution-chemistry |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130920203129/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/25/pollution-chemistry |archive-date=2013-09-20 |access-date=2022-03-29 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}{{Cite news |last=Corcoran |first=Terence |date=2011-06-13 |title= Junk Science Week: Lipstick, apples & sperm counts |language=en-CA |work=Financial Post |url=https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-lipstick-apples-sperm-counts |url-status=live |access-date=2022-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210109043733/https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-lipstick-apples-sperm-counts |archive-date=2021-01-09}}{{Cite news |last=Hogberg |first=David |date=2005-07-25 |title= Soaking in Chemical Stews |language=en |work=The American Spectator |url=https://spectator.org/48274_soaking-chemical-stews/ |url-status=live |access-date=2022-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820075056/https://spectator.org/48274_soaking-chemical-stews/ |archive-date=2019-08-20}} Brian Dunning of Skeptoid describes the EWG's activities as "a political lobbying group for the organic industry."

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 it underestimated them and 18% thought they were accurate.{{Cite web |year=2009 |title=The Media and Chemical Risk: Toxicologists' Opinions on Chemical Risk and Media Coverage |url=https://cmpa.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2009-1.pdf |access-date=2 June 2023}}{{Cite web |title=Table 3: RATING RISK PORTRAYALS |url=http://stats.org/stories/2009/images_stories/tables/Table3.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120505153706/http://stats.org/stories/2009/images_stories/tables/Table3.htm |archive-date=May 5, 2012 |access-date=2023-06-02 |website=stats.org}} Quackwatch has included EWG in its list of "questionable organisations,"{{Cite web |date=2022-02-05 |title=Questionable Organizations: An Overview {{!}} Quackwatch |url=https://quackwatch.org/consumer-education/nonrecorg/ |access-date=2023-06-02 |language=en-US}} calling it as one of "[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products".{{Cite web |date=May 17, 2015 |title=Scientific Activism for Cosmetic Chemists (and Others) |url=https://quackwatch.org/consumer-protection/activism/ |access-date=2020-09-07 |work=Quackwatch |language=en-US}}

Environmental historian James McWilliams has described EWG warnings as fearmongering and misleading, and writes that there is little evidence to support its claims:{{Cite web |last=McWilliams |first=James |date=2014-09-03 |title=How the Environmental Working Group Sells Its Message Short |url=https://psmag.com/social-justice/hidden-cost-fear-mongering-environmental-working-group-sells-message-short-90037 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405024959/https://psmag.com/social-justice/hidden-cost-fear-mongering-environmental-working-group-sells-message-short-90037 |archive-date=2018-04-05 |access-date=2022-03-29 |website=Pacific Standard}} "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."{{Cite web |last1=Savage |first1=Steven |date=10 April 2018 |title=The Truth About Pesticide Residues On Produce: All Encouraging, Some Inconvenient |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inconvenient-truth-about-the-environmental-working-groups-dirty-dozen-list/#3e6af89562a8 |access-date=19 October 2019 |work=Forbes}}

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." Her main criticisms are its use of "fundamentally flawed" methodologies for evaluating food, cosmetics, children’s products, and more, and that it is "largely funded by organic companies" that its shopping recommendations benefit.

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.{{cite journal|last1=Winter|first1=C. K.|last2=Katz|first2=J. M.|title=Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels|journal=Journal of Toxicology|volume=2011|pages=589674|date=2011|doi=10.1155/2011/589674|pmid=21776262|pmc=3135239|doi-access=free}}{{cite web |title=Understanding Pesticide Residues on Fruit and Vegetables: Fact vs. Fiction |url=https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/FSA6155.pdf |publisher=University of Arkansas Extension |access-date=6 June 2023}}

Scientists have stated that the list significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items and that the methodology employed in constructing it "lacks scientific credibility" and "may be intentionally misleading."{{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 }} A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.{{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}} A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data{{cite web|title=PDP Databases and Annual Summaries|url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata|publisher=USDA|access-date=17 May 2018}} by Steve Savage found that 99.33% of the detectable residues were below EPA tolerance and half of the samples contained less than a hundredth those levels.{{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}}

Since the early 2000s, EWG has been advocating for increasing regulations on the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).{{Cite journal |last1=Renfrew |first1=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|doi-access=free }}{{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}}{{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}} 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.

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.{{cite news |last1=Boyles |first1=Salynn |date=2 July 2008 |title= Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says |work=WebMD |publisher=CBS News |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-sunscreens-ineffective-group-says/ |access-date=21 June 2015}} It called on the FDA to require that manufacturers provide more detailed information about the level of sun protection provided for both UVA and UVB radiation. Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate. Commenting on the 2010 sunscreen report, Zoe Draelos, a consulting professor at Duke University and Fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology,{{cite web |url= https://www.zoedraelos.com/patients/#main |title=Meet Dr. Draelos |last=Draelos |first=Zoe |website= Zoe Diana Draelos, MD |access-date=20 March 2024}} said the group had made unfair "sweeping generalizations" about newer chemicals (such as oxybenzone) in its report and that its recommended products were based only on "very old technology" such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.{{cite news |last=CafeMom |first= |date=2010-05-27 |title= EWG Sunscreen Report Misleading, Skin Expert Says (Go Ahead, Slather It On) |work=The Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-stir/sunscreen-ewg-sunscreen-r_b_589119.html |access-date=2022-03-29}}

In 2004, the EWG authored a report titled "Overloaded? New science, new insights about mercury and autism in children," {{cite web |title=Overloaded? New science, new insights about mercury and autism in susceptible children |work=Environmental Working Group |date=December 13, 2004 |url=http://www.ewg.org/reports/autism/printerfriendly.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060204232657/http://www.ewg.org/reports/autism/printerfriendly.php |archive-date=February 4, 2006 }} promoting an unfounded link between mercury preservatives in vaccines and autism, a purported link that had elicited much controversy, especially among anti-vaccination activists,{{cite web |publisher=Science-Based Medicine |title=Vaccines Still Don't Cause Autism |author=Novella S |date=22 August 2018 |url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-still-dont-cause-autism/}} but which no evidence supported.{{cite journal |journal=Pediatrics |date=2004 |volume=114 |title=Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data |vauthors=Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK |doi=10.1542/peds.2004-0434 |pmid=15342856|issue=3 |pages=793–804 |citeseerx=10.1.1.327.363 |s2cid=1752023}}
Erratum: {{cite journal |pmid=15630018 |doi=10.1542/peds.2004-2402 |volume=115 |title=Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data |date=January 2005 |journal=Pediatrics |page=200 |vauthors=Parker SK, Todd J, Schwartz B, Pickering LK| issue=1 |s2cid=26700143}}

The EWG has made statements opposing the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food alleging its long-term safety has not been proven.{{cite journal |last1=Resnik |first1=David B. |title=Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study |journal=Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics |date=August 2015 |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=621–633 |doi=10.1007/s10806-015-9546-y|pmid=26251636 |pmc=4524344 }}{{cite web |title=Five things you should know about GMOs {{!}} Environmental Working Group |url=https://www.ewg.org/consumer-guides/five-things-you-should-know-about-gmos |website=www.ewg.org |access-date=7 June 2023 |language=en |date=21 August 2012}} The group started a campaign supported by funding from the organic food industry to require labeling of GM food and promote organic food.{{cite web |last1=It |first1=Just Label |title=About Just Label It {{!}} Just Label It |url=https://www.justlabelit.org/about-just-label-it/ |website=www.justlabelit.org |access-date=7 June 2023}}{{cite web |title=Congress Just Passed A GMO Labeling Bill. Nobody's Super Happy About It |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/14/486060866/congress-just-passed-a-gmo-labeling-bill-nobodys-super-happy-about-it |publisher=NPR News |access-date=7 June 2023}}

In 2005, from data compiled by "state environment and health agencies",{{cite web |title=Data Sources |url=https://mytapwater.org/data-sources/ |website=mytapwater.org |access-date=15 November 2023 |quote=The short answer is that the United States government mandates that vast amounts of water data is made publicly available. MyTapWater.org downloads that data, warehouses it, and finally makes it available on this website.}}{{cite web |title=AWWA Comments On EWG's Online Database Of Tap Water Quality Testing And Violations |url=https://www.wateronline.com/doc/awwa-comments-on-ewgs-online-database-of-tap-0001 |website=wateronline.com |access-date=15 November 2023}} the EWG released its Tap Water Database,{{cite web |title=EWG's Tap Water Database 2021 Update |url=https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/ |website=ewg.org |publisher=Environmental Working Group |access-date=15 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114025104/https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/ |archive-date=2023-11-14 |language=en}} which contains data collected from approximately 48,500 water utilities across the US.{{Cite web |title=Tap Water Database |url=https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/tap-water-database |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=awwa.org |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2019-10-23 |title=How safe is your tap water? This database can tell you |url=https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/how-safe-is-your-tap-water-this-database-can-tell-you-133712033.html |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=Yahoo Life |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=EWG tap water database shows arsenic and chromium in all 50 states |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/environmental-working-group-tap-water-database-contaminants-2019-10 |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US |publication-date=2019}} The city of Everett, Washington, 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.{{Cite web |title=Everett statement on Environmental Working Group (EWG) |url=https://www.everettwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16234/Everett-statement-on-Environmental-Working-Group-PDF |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=www.everettwa.gov}}

For the fiscal year ending December 2021, ProPublica{{'}}s Nonprofit Explorer Form 990 archive and Charity Navigator each reported that EWG had raised some $16.1 million and spent some $12.6 million.{{cite web |title=Charity Navigator Rating – Environmental Working Group |url=http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8564 |access-date=2023-12-29 |website=Charitynavigator.org}} 84 cents out of every dollar EWG takes in go toward its program expenses. President Ken Cook earned $317,423 in reportable income in 2021.

Activist Facts reported, from ProPublica{{'}}s Nonprofit Explorer{{cite web |last1=Suozzo |first1=Andrea |last2=Glassford |first2=Alec |last3=Ngu |first3=Ash |last4=Roberts |first4=Brandon |title=Nonprofit Explorer |url=https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ |website=ProPublica |access-date=15 November 2023 |language=en |date=9 May 2013}} Form 990 archive,{{cite web |last1=Suozzo |first1=Andrea |last2=Glassford |first2=Alec |last3=Ngu |first3=Ash |last4=Roberts |first4=Brandon |title=Environmental Working Group |url=https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/522148600 |website=Nonprofit Explorer |publisher=ProPublica |access-date=15 November 2023 |language=en |date=9 May 2013}} for the fiscal year ending December 2017, that EWG had raised more than $10.4 million and spent more than $9.3 million.

{{Reflist}}

• [https://www.ewg.org Environmental Working Group]

{{Authority control}}

Category:Environmental organizations based in Washington, D.C.

Category:Charities based in Washington, D.C.