 | |
| Founded | 1993 |
|---|---|
| Founders | Ken Cook, Richard Wiles[1] |
| Type | 501(c)(3) |
| Focus | Environmentalism |
| Location | |
| Website | www |
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)).
In 1993, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) was founded by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles.[1] EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States.[2]
In 2002, a lobbying organization, the EWG Action Fund (a 501(c)(4) organization) was founded.[3]
EWG has been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals.[4][5][6]
EWG partners with companies to certify their products, and its reports are influential with the public.[4]
According to EWG co-founder Ken Cook, the EWG advocates for organic food and farming.[7]
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.[8][9]
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."[8][10] A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.[11][8] A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data[12] 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.[13]
As You Sow publishes a similar report on pesticides in agriculture.[14]
Since the early 2000s, EWG has been advocating for increasing regulations on the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).[15][16][17] 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.[15][16]
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.[18] 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.[18] Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate.[18] 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.[19]
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.[6]
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.[20][21] The group started a campaign supported by funding from the organic industry to require labeling of GM food and promote organic food.[22][23]
In 2005, from data compiled by "state environment and health agencies",[24][25] the EWG released its Tap Water Database[26] that contains data collected from approximately 48,500 water utilities across the US.[27][28][29] 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.[30]
For the fiscal year ending December 2021, ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer Form 990 archive reported that, EWG raised circa $16.1 million and spent circa $12.6 million.[31]
Activist Facts reported that, from ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer[32] Form 990 archive,[31] for the fiscal year ending December 2017, EWG raised more than $10.4 million and spent more than $9.3 million.[2]
For the fiscal year ending December 2021, EWG raised nearly $16.1 million and spent $12.6 million.[33] 84 cents out of every dollar go toward EWG's program expenses.[33] President Ken Cook earned $317,423 in reportable income in 2021.[33]
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.[6][34][35][36][37]
EWG warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading".[38][39][40] Brian Dunning of Skeptoid describes the EWG's activities as "a political lobbying group for the organic industry."[6]
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.[5][41] Quackwatch has included EWG in its list of "questionable organisations".[42] They describes EWG as one of "[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products".[43]
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.[44] "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."[45]
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.[35]
