I presented at the Truth in Beauty E-Summit organized by Jen Novakovich of The Eco Well … and it struck me how the topics I frequently speak about share the same underlying themes (watch the entire conference here, by the way).
- Whether it is the recent “heavy metals in tampons” headlines, discussed here
- Myths about vaccines containing mercury, discussed here
- Claims that your Cheerios are contaminated with toxic pesticides, discussed here
- The Dirty Dozen list and the purported harms of “synthetic pesticides”, here and here
- Or fluoridated dental products being “toxic,” discussed here
- Fallacies that aluminum salt-containing antiperspirants cause breast cancer and Alzheimer’s discussed here
- Non-nutritive sweeteners like aspartame being harmful, here
- The decades-old myth that the herbicide glyphosate causes cancer, here
(I have a section of my newsletter tagged as chemophobia, so head here to see all the topics I’ve written about.)
But these pieces of misinformation become entrenched in our society when well-funded anti-science organizations with profit motives get ahold of them. One of the most notorious is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). You’ve probably come across their “Dirty Dozen” list or their “Skin Deep” database.
The … “American Roundtable on Health and Nutrition” propped up by Congress parroted many false claims that have been circulated by this well-funded activist group. And they aren’t the only ones. Chemophobic legislation in California, New York, and elsewhere are driven in large by through EWG lobbying efforts. All of it harms our society.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is an anti-science activist organization that exploits health anxiety and chemophobia.
EWG claims to “advocate for public health,” but in reality, does the opposite. It was founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, with a purported mission on policy and research on agriculture and chemicals.
As you’ll learn, this mission is wildly distorted. Instead of focusing on rigorous science and evidence-based policies, EWG exploits low science literacy to fearmonger. In fact, since its inception, the EWG is notorious for anti-science rhetoric and activist activity that exploits the risk perception gap.
EWG currently brings in between $12 and $20 million in revenue every year through funding from large organizations and individual donors. As you might expect, their donors have vested interests in the information EWG puts out.
While they don’t disclose all of their donors, several include large organic farm organizations such as Earthbound, Stony Field, Organic Valley, and Applegate Farms who also voice opposition to biotechnology. EWG has financial motives to continue to retain their primary donors. EWG is listed as a 501(c)(3), which merely means that it is run as a charitable organization for tax purposes, but that does not mean that the information it provides is accurate. And indeed, the information isn’t.
The central tenet of EWG’s methods is to ignore science fundamentals in order to scare people. They scare people about “chemicals” while ignoring any context about dosage. While the dose makes the poison for everything, the EWG ignores that with all of their content. EWG is notorious for spreading fear about chemicals and exploiting chemophobia, the appeal to nature fallacy, and low chemistry literacy.
They oppose science and technological progress, including modern agriculture, biotechnology, and have even spread unfounded claims about vaccine safety. Their content is not accurate nor does it present realistic risks to people. Their reports, statements, and positions are criticized by nearly all credible scientific experts. Their warnings about chemicals are “alarmist,” “scaremongering,” and “misleading”.
EWG routinely exaggerates risks to consumers, promotes products backed by their donors, and uses flawed methodology to make claims not backed by legitimate data. They create warnings about the harm of products that lack any credible evidence. They create lists of products to avoid and ones to buy, where they claim to be providing transparency to consumers, but in reality, they are cherry-picking data to scare people about things that are demonstrably safe.
Toxicologists and other scientific experts have detailed their flawed science and faulty research methodologies which they base their claims on.
- They routinely make claims that are in direct opposition to credible scientific and regulatory agencies. Their methods are not supported by any legitimate scientific organization, and frequently cite studies that are not peer-reviewed.
- They exaggerate toxicological risks of chemicals, overstate potential impacts to human health, and take findings wildly out of context.
- Their methods routinely implement chemophobic messaging and appeal to nature fallacies and utilizes fear-based marketing to scare consumers away from products that are demonstrably safe.
- They frequently cherry-pick data that are favorable to their donor corporations, particularly claims related to unsubstantiated benefits of organic products and harms of gene technology, while simultaneously omitting more robust and relevant data.
The “science” EWG uses lacks credibility, but preys on emotions of consumers, leverages fear-based marketing, and coerces people into buying specific products, most of which their donors profit off of.
Lobbyists are professional advocates that work to influence political decisions on behalf of individuals and organizations. The EWG Action Fund lobbyists work to push their petitions through to public officials. Through this, they impact policy and laws.
The problem? EWG influences politicians to make decisions that are not based on factual information or the body of evidence, and these beliefs erode trust in science and public health.
I wrote about some examples here, and I bet you won’t be surprised that many of these anti-science laws and policies were influenced by EWG lobbying.
Proposition 65? While EWG did not exist until 1993 (and Prop 65 was passed in 1986), they have been active and vocal influencers to expand the list of substances added to this list. They work hand-in-hand with government officials, because chemicals can get added simply if a California government employee wants to add one. Unfortunately, this means powerful anti-science lobbyist groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) ensure the list continues to grow based on personal opinions and financial motivations instead of science.
Hawaii’s sunscreen ban? You betcha. EWG has a “Guide to Sunscreens” where they manipulate scientific evidence to scare people about chemicals that are not harmful at levels we (or the environment) would be exposed to.
The American Academy of Pediatrics policy on GMOs and organic food? Yes. In fact, the paper published in Pediatrics cites EWG as a “source,” which is honestly, pretty egregious considering all credible toxicologists, chemists, biomedical scientists, and regulatory experts conclude that EWG is notorious for manipulating information.
This isn’t the only instance of a medical professional organization citing EWG as a source, either. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists even use them as a source to “find products free of toxic chemicals” during pregnancy.
And I couldn’t even tell you the number of times I see a media story where they cite EWG or someone that works at EWG as a source, usually when writing something scaring people about “chemicals,” pesticides, agriculture, or more.
Most recently? California Assembly Bill (AB) 2316, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on Saturday, September 28, 2024.
Guess who co-sponsored the bill and lobbied politicians to push this? You got it: The EWG, and their partner-in-disinformation-crime, Consumer Reports (wrote about them here). This law bans the inclusion of food colorings, that already happen to be regulated by the FDA (and other global regulatory agencies):
- Blue 1
- Blue 2
- Green 3
- Red 40
- Yellow 5
- Yellow 6
Newsom banned Red 3 in California AB418 [in 2023]. And the headlines were more of the same “California the first US state to ban things already banned in Europe!”
But legislators, media outlets, people online… don’t even bother to do simple fact checks. The FDA calls food colorings by the color name. The entity that regulates food additives in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority, uses a different naming convention. Both have regulations in place for them.
- Red 3? Called E127 in Europe. Not banned.
- Red 40? Called E129 in Europe. Not banned.
- Blue 1? Called E133 in Europe. Not banned.
- Blue 2? Called E132 in Europe. Not banned.
and so on…
and they’re not banned in other countries either.
So why did Newsom and other legislators not even bother to check this? Or consult with legitimate scientific experts? Honestly, I couldn’t tell you.
These laws distract from actual factors that impact our health, waste time, money, and affect our economy and food stability, but most concerning: it interferes with the autonomy of scientific professionals to do what they are expert in. [It] allows people (usually unqualified) to influence and fabricate policy that doesn’t actually benefit society.
The fact that EWG talking points are so frequently repeated and that they are used as a reference by so many underscores their reach and influence, the broad lack of awareness of their history and tactics, and that we need scientific experts to stand up and correct it, even when a medical professional group spreads EWG falsehoods.
The EWG has even made statements that promoted misinformation about vaccines causing autism.
Their Dirty Dozen list (more here) is the epitome of misleading information that omits context to scare people away from perfectly safe, nutritious, and affordable produce. Not only does EWG omit the fact that they recommend organic produce as “swaps” that also use pesticides (more here), but they also omit the fact that these residues they use to create their list of “dirty” conventional produce are well below thresholds set by regulatory and safety experts.
They utilize a similar approach with their “Skin Deep” skincare guide. They claim they are collating a list for consumers that supposedly are free from harmful chemicals. Their scoring system is completely arbitrary, and they do not disclose their methodology. They frequently extrapolate in vitro or animal data to make conclusions about purported harms of chemicals, even while those studies used dosages that were far greater than a person would ever encounter and those findings were not replicated among people. They tout organic and “sustainable” products that don’t have evidence to support these claims, but by driving people to purchase these products, they are able to financial benefit their major funders.
They also sell an “EWG Verified” label that companies can pay to append to their products, which also comes with a bump in what they charge customers. They leverage their misleading claims, exaggerated toxicological risks, and outright lies to scare people about products that don’t bear their logo. Jen Novakovich has a great breakdown of this, here.
EWG was created under the guise of advocating for health, but operates in opposition to science-based medicine and public health.
Derek Beres and the Conspirituality team did a really fantastic episode about the EWG, including the history of the organization and their founders. I joined them to discuss their Dirty Dozen list, including their cherry-picking and chemophobic rhetoric. Dr. Michelle Wong spoke about the tactics they employ with skincare products and their EWG Skin Deep cosmetic rating system. I definitely recommend tuning in:
EWG creates fear about conventional food, manmade and synthetic substances, and demonstrably safe products without evidence. Their fear-laden claims of chemicals, whether it is food ingredients, pesticides herbicides, etc., are exaggerated far beyond what these trace levels of substances would ever pose to us. They promote the notion that chemicals are “toxic” without any context about dosage, exposure, or mechanism of action.
EWG’s actions undermine global regulatory agencies that actually do the work day in and day out to ensure our foods, medicines, agriculture practices have oversight, data, and benefit. By insinuating themselves and impacting what laws are implemented, they legitimize misinformation, exploit the risk perception gap, and harm public health.
We need concerted cooperation and participation in helping to combat science and health misinformation, wherever we see it. That includes holding our lawmakers accountable and expecting that they use the best available evidence to make decisions, not the unfounded claims of activists that don’t actually want to improve health for all.
Dr. Andrea Love, a microbiologist and immunologist, provides the facts (and the data!) on science and health topics. Follow Andrea on Twitter @dr_andrealove
A version of this article was originally posted at Immunologic and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article.
