..
Follow the Money: The EWG is largely funded by organic companies and does not assess or discuss pesticides from organic farming.
The accuracy of EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic food industry. Its warnings have been labeled “alarmist”, “scaremongering” and “misleading”. Despite the criticism, EWG has been influential.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group
..
A scientific study of pesticide levels in fruits and vegetables targeted as a “dirty dozen” by EWG found the Group’s methodology “lacks scientific credibility.”5 Additionally, a survey of members of the professional association of toxicologists found that most who expressed an opinion on EWG believed it overstated…
Environmental Working Group (EWG)
.
Influence WATCH: Environmental Working Group (EWG)
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a major player in the environmentalist movement, focusing on issues related to regulating chemicals, promoting organic food, and opposing modern agricultural practices. EWG aggressively opposes the use of certain common plastics and farming techniques and has reportedly aligned with trial attorneys involved in major class-action cases.1
EWG has a long association with Tides Foundation founder and left-wing philanthropist Drummond Pike, who sits on EWG’s board of directors.2 Environmental Working Group began as a project of the Center for Resource Economics/Island Press, but was later taken under the wing of the Tides Foundation itself.3 EWG receives substantial funding from progressive foundations including the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the JPB Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.4
Environmental Working Group has faced substantial criticism for its sloppy scientific methods and exaggerations of toxicological risks. A scientific study of pesticide levels in fruits and vegetables targeted as a “dirty dozen” by EWG found the Group’s methodology “lacks scientific credibility.”5 Additionally, a survey of members of the professional association of toxicologists found that most who expressed an opinion on EWG believed it overstated chemical risks.6
EWG published a report calling into question the safety of vaccines in the mid-2000s.7 The group has entertained the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, which has been debunked by legitimate medical authorities.8
.
Scientific Criticism
Mainstream scientists have criticized Environmental Working Group for some of its campaigns. A poll of experts in toxicology—the study of the effects of potentially damaging chemicals—found that those familiar with EWG believe it overstates the risks of chemical uses.14 In numerous areas, scientific authorities have taken stances opposite those of EWG or criticized EWG’s actions.
Antivaccine Activity
Environmental Working Group was certainly willing to entertain the widely debunked view, most prominently espoused by disbarred British ex-physician and alleged fraudster Andrew Wakefield, that vaccines produced before 1999 caused autism. In 2004, EWG published a report titled “Overloaded” that explored an alleged link between vaccines and autism and attacked the Institute of Medicine for concluding that no such link exists.15 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention categorically rejects the claim EWG entertained, asserting, “There is no link between vaccines and autism.”16
“Dirty Dozen” Produce Reports
Each year, EWG releases a report based on U.S. Department of Agriculture testing results on the twelve fruits or vegetables with the highest pesticide residues; EWG presents the results as a reason to switch to organic food.17
However, reputable scientific examination of EWG’s hyperbolic claims has found them scientifically lacking. A scientific study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Toxicology found the Group’s methodology “lacks scientific credibility.”18 The same study additionally concluded that “substitution of organic forms of the twelve commodities for conventional forms does not result in any appreciable reduction of consumer risks,” refuting EWG’s pro-organic implication.19
Others have criticized EWG’s emphasis on pesticides as out of proportion to the benefits of eating a balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables. Science writer James McWilliams criticized EWG’s report, noting that EWG itself wrote, “[…] the EWG’s shopping guide is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks.”20
Commentators have also criticized the EWG “dirty dozen” list for needlessly spooking mothers.21 Others have concluded that EWG’s list discourages people from eating any fresh produce.22
.
Funding
Environmental Working Group does not fully disclose its donors. The organization provides a partial breakdown of its support on its website with a list of some foundation supporters and a pie chart showing support from individuals, foundations, and corporations and revenue from consulting and investments.27
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/environmental-working-grou
..
The Environmental Working Group (Wikipedia)
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]
The accuracy of EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic food industry.[2][3][4] Its warnings have been labeled “alarmist”, “scaremongering” and “misleading”.[5][6][7] Despite the criticism, EWG has been influential.[8]
Activities
The EWG issues various product safety warnings. Environmental historian James McWilliams has described these warnings as fear mongering and misleading, and wrote that there is little evidence to support the claims made by the EWG.[9]
“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.”[10]
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.[3]
Quackwatch describes EWG as one of “[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products”.[11]
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.[12]
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”.[13]
A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all.[14][13] A 2011 analysis of the USDA‘s PDP data[15] 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.[16]
.
Finances and funding
For the fiscal year ending December 2015, EWG raised nearly $13.7 million and spent $12.5 million.[19][20] Over 84 cents out of every dollar go toward EWG’s program expenses.[20] President Ken Cook earned $289,022 in reportable income in 2015.[20]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group
..
Correction: The EWG is a non-profit organization.
..
Forbes
Would You Rather Buy Organic Or Poison Your Family? EWG Wants You To Pick One
Kavin Senapathy Contributor
Jul 12, 2016,11:37am EDT
This article is more than 6 years old.
In reality, the EWG, which has been dubbed the Environmental Worry Group, frightens consumers about chemicals and their safety, cloaking fear mongering in a clever disguise of caring and empowerment. Criticism of the organization, whose rhetoric is dirtier than any fruit or veggie on its list, boils down to two main points: 1) The methodologies EWG uses in analysis on food, cosmetics, children’s products and more are fundamentally flawed and 2) The EWG is largely funded by the very companies its shopping recommendations help.
Take again, for example, the annual Dirty Dozen list. A 2011 paper published in the Journal of Toxicology concludes that “consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ commodity list are at negligible levels” and “the EWG methodology is insufficient to allow any meaningful rankings among commodities.” (Note: Their methodology hasn’t really changed in the last five years.)
Largely funded by organic industry sponsors like Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farms, the EWG doesn’t evaluate or discuss pesticides used in organic farming, let alone explicitly tell consumers that organic farming uses pesticides too. That fits with the organic industry trend of intentionally misleading the public to increase market share, as this 2014 analysis at Academics Review explains. Consumer misconceptions about pesticides have a significant influence on purchasing behavior, and the organic industry does little to clear them up, often deliberately adding misinformation fuel to the confusion fire.
Activist Facts, which provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of think tanks, activist groups and foundations, along with information about funding sources, sums it up:
“[T]he Environmental Working Group is a cauldron where many of the worst pseudoscience smear campaigns are cooked up. It preys on the public’s distrust of polysyllabic scientific jargon—and reporters’ ignorance of the same—to make it sound as if everyday items with complicated names are, in fact, deadly dangerous.”
.
Again, Activist Facts says it well:
“[T]he EWG has a history of passing shady “science” off as solid facts. Its main talent isn’t research, it’s duping reporters into credulously transcribing their “findings.” A nonprofit organization that has learned how to turn public panic into a stream of hefty donations, the Environmental Working Group has no problem ginning up outrage that causes families needless worry and does incalculable damage to honest industries. Hyperbole, it seems, is big business – last year the EWG raised more than $6 million.”
With that much money, you’d think they could afford to be honest.
Kavin Senapathy is a science communicator and mom of two living in Madison, Wisconsin. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
I am an author and public speaker covering science, health, medicine, agriculture, food, parenting and their intersection. I’m a proud Science Mom, and am featured in the new documentary (sciencemomsdoc.com) about moms seeking to raise their children with facts rather than the fear and hype so common in the parenting world today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would-you-rather-buy-organic-or-poison-your-family-ewg-wants-you-to-pick-one/?sh=51fccf4d63ac
..
weehingthong 