The Revealing Truth of the Money Trail of EWG

With every stand that you take there are those that will stand with you, those that will digest the information and think about it and others who will take a stand against you.  I know that is a risk that I took when I chose to publicly stand against the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their Skin Deep Database.

I debated posting what I found after I followed the money trail, since just my mention on social media that I was doing the research lost me a customer.  I’d prefer to remain neutral, but I fear that neutrality would result in continued damage to small businesses around the country by an organization that sadly lacks the science to back up their claims.  Being outspoken against the EWG may continue to cost me some customers, but I believe education is the key to fact based decisions and safe cosmetics.

In the past few months I have been terribly disturbed to see the Environmental Working Group send repeated emails requesting just another $10 donation.  Each letter sounds more dire than the next as if the world would literally end if the EWG didn’t meet their budget.

This inspired me to do a little digging to see just what Mr. Cook himself makes annually since he was making the earth shattering pleas for donations.  The only 990 I could get a hold of for the EWG was 2008.

According to BA Carrington with Empowerment Enterprises, LTD, “They (EWG) have not filed a tax return on the 501 c 3 since 2008, according to the 990 database Exempt World, which is a subscription service to track 990’s.  Even though EWG is categorized as a charitable organization, it is still required to file a return under IRS codes and submit their “list of activities” to the IRS on an annual basis, even if they file an extension.”  It could be that they have filed an extension and the deadline for the information has not yet passed based on their calender fiscal year.  For more details on this possibility click here.

The EWG has stepped up it’s fundraising to now include promoting the purchase of the very same sunscreens that they claim are bad for you through Amazon to raise money for the EWG.  Read more about that topic click here.

According to 2008 IRS Tax Filings

In 2008 Ken Cook was paid $219.401.00 plus another $21,295.00 estimated amount of other compensation from organization and related organizations.

Richard Wiles $179,218.00 plus $20,998.00 estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.

Jane Houlihan $150,226.00 plus $19,448.00 estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.

William Walker made $136,448.00 plus 19,743.00 estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.

Susan Comfort $115,752.00 plus $7932.00 estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.

Sandra Schubert $127,229.00 plus $4884.00 estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.

Alexander Formuzis $120.592.00 plus $10,920.00.  Christopher Campbell $136,909.00 plus $11,988.00 estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.

Breaking it all Down

In case you got sick of reading the pay that is a total of $1,185,775.00 being paid to the top 8 employees of the Environmental Working Group just in 2008.  The total estimated amount of other compensation from the organization or related organizations for the top 8 at EWG was $117,248.00.  The total reported 2008 salaries for EWG was $3,203,747.00 in 2008.  The 2008 total revenue at EWG was $6,242,570.00.  Over half of their total revenue went into paying the employees of EWG.

I am not opposed to making a profit.  I believe in Capitalism.  I also appreciate that it takes time, money and resources to pursue any public policy position. But still, more than half of the operating budget is a lot.  I am troubled when a non-profit that asks for $10 via email and $5 most of the time you click on their Skin Deep website as if they are on the verge of going out of business is spending so much of your money on their executives.

In 2006 Ken Cook was reported to have been paid $192,000.00.  If Ken Cook continued at the same rate of pay increase over the past two years as he did from 2006 to 2008 he may be making as much as $245,000.00 (only an estimate based on the pay rate of increase from 2006 to 2008).

No wonder I get so many requests for another $5 or $10 donation from the EWG. At 2008 pay rates they need at least 118,578 people to donate $10 just to cover their top 8 executives pay…who knows how much is needed to cover it in 2009 and 2010?!

You have to wonder if the EWG is really hurting for money or if they just like to keep their budget at a certain number.  In 2008 the net assest or fund balances were $5,171,374.00 at the end of the year.  They were given gifts, grants, contributions and memberships fees in 2004 of $4,975,899.00, 2005 of $3,539,214.00, 2006 of $3,478,044.00, 2007 of $4,004,846.00 and 2008 another $5,963,800.00.

A very revealing, carefully documented and thoroughly research of the history of and who is behind the EWG can be found here on Personal Care Truth click here.

The EWG, Skin Deep and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have made many claims that cosmetic companies are financially driven to claim that ingredients are safe, I am simply wondering if EWG has a financial interest in saying that they are not safe.  I don’t know many small business cosmetic owners who are making as much money as the top 8 at EWG.

I’m just saying…in this economy do they really need your $10?  What do you think?  Does knowing the money trail color your impression of the EWG as a non-profit?

This post is a follow up to:  Who is the Environmental Working Group

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Kayla Fioravanti is the Vice President, Chief Formulator, ARC Registered & Certified Aromatherapist for Essential Wholesale and its lab division Essential Labs. Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. EWG: The Endlessly Wrong Group
  2. Who is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)?
  3. Statement by Farah Ahmed, Chair Personal Care Products Council Sunscreen Task Force, Response to the 2011 EWG Sunscreen Report
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Revealing Truth of the Money Trail of EWG | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Thank you for putting this post together. As a former compact signer, I'm disgusted by the salaries paid to the employees of EWG. I'm beginning to think you are right, that maybe the EWG has a financial interest in saying cosmetics are not safe.

    • Baylog7

      3 sides to the story is right. Do some research before assuming people are bad. This is a big organization that has been around from the 1990′s, of course the top people will make some good money, they are successful, you would be, too if you had invented it.Ken Cook was not a lawyer he studied soil science and married an environmental leader. 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Cook
      The company spends over 3 million on research and funding.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group 

      • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

        You do realize that Wikipedia is an open forum for anyone to create articles? 

        No matter the personal opinion, one of these pages was created for the sole purpose of further promotion of an organization that bases their agenda on fear.  The other article does not stipulate at all as to how the money is spent, research is clearly not one of them, otherwise they would have the science in relation to cosmetics being dangerous and they don’t. 

        It is certainly spent on salaries as proven in this article, and lobbying as Ken Cook is known for, for decades.  In fact their tax exempt status has been challenged in the past due to the politicking this group has done.  Using Wikipedia as a resource is great for overall information, but info on this site still may require vetting.  Not always factual to a fault and may leave out pertinent points requiring further investigation.

  • Sagescript

    Hmm, wonder what Ken Cook's background is, I'm guessing lawyer. If EWG actually hired scientists their budget would be alot lower and they would have alot better information!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RM6FYXYOF2F6DPIXTOEKXA3724 Bruce

    Kaylla
    In a effort to be fair, how much do you make? Where is the money coming from to pay for this site?

    I agree that the EWG could do a much better job at what they are doing. I just don't understand why waste so much time and energy trying to discredit them personally, why not go after the statements, and documents they make? Are we still in the times where we spend billions trying to remove a president because of his dalliances with an intern? I don't care how much they make, there are obviously people who support their cause ,and i'm sure know how much Ken makes, and will continue as long as their “science” remains relevant.

    Instead of attacks on the organization, work on their science. Just a suggestion

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Hey Bruce -

    Thanks for your comments. Even though you did not direct your comments to me, I can answer your first question very quickly. Kayla is not paid from Personal Care Truth. The money it took to create Personal Care Truth was paid by myself and my partner, Kristin Fraser Cotte because we are the co-founders.

    The experts on this site, including Kayla, donate their time to provide posts for the various topics, answer 'Ask the Experts' questions submitted by readers and respond to comments when they are left at their posts.

    As for the EWG, we do respond to the statements and documents they make. Part of telling the truth about the EWG was to highlight their money trail since it is a matter of public record as a non-profit. Kristin and I felt it was important to tell our readers, for those that may not know, who the EWG was that was mentioned in a variety of posts.

    Thanks again for your comments. Have a great day!

    Lisa

  • cathieg

    I guess my question is where did your information come from and how reliable is the source? As a former paralegal I believe in doing your due diligence before making any decision. Thanks for bringing this information to our attention!

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Hey cathieg -

    Thank you for your comments. The information is a matter of public record and came from their 2006 and 2008 tax returns.

    Thanks again and have a great day!

    Lisa

  • Mari5310

    I am so glad I found this site. EWG had been asking me for money, too, which I never gave. Today I received an email from Fran Drescher with subject line TRUTH. Afraid to open since I wasn’t sure if it was a hoax or not, so reported it as JUNK after which I could see that it came from EWG. Still did not open. Now I am just curious to know what was in that email which supposedly came from her.

    • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

      It was a timeline countdown to the end of the year trying to meet a final goal which I believe was about $20,000.00 shy of last years. It has now become a shameless solicitation attempt at raising money using the face of a celebrity, who also makes her own skincare line btw. So if you have been unwilling to contribute to their cause up to this point, then you didn’t miss out on anything of importance.

    • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

      Mari5310 -

      Many thanks for your comments and we are happy you found us! I have been told by various people who received the email you mentioned above that is was another request for donations to reach their end of year goal of $50k.

      Thanks again and Happy New Year!

      Lisa

  • Dene62

    Great post, Kayla! It is always useful to highlight the real story behind the facade, and it is interesting to note that, despite your publication of the salaries relative to income based on the EWG public declaration, the EWG claim (on their web site) that they pay 11% of their total income back out in salaries – quite a difference from the 50% exposed by the official figures. Unless I have very much misinterpreted the data, that is a blatant lie, but I don’t suppose their pie chart would look very good showing 50% in salaries!

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    CrunchyMomInAZ -

    Thanks so much for your comments and taking the time to read the many scientific based posts on PCT. Our main objective is to provide truthful information for consumers to make an informed decision. We believe truth and facts are more powerful than misinformation and fear, even though it feels like the latter is all we read on the information highway.

    I hope you continue to return for more posts. We have 2 ways to receive our updates, via email subscription or RSS feed. The links to both appear in the top right of every page.

    Thanks again and Happy New Year!

    Lisa

  • Sarah

    Kind of reviving a very old post, but I was interested when I found this charity review by the Better Business Bureau. http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/environment/environmental-working-group-in-washington-dc-18694

    Also, this is completely off topic and of little consequence, but I thought it was interesting to read what reviewers were saying on yelp. People were more skeptical than I would have predicted. Can you tell who’s been spending her evening randomly googling? http://www.yelp.com/biz/environmental-working-group-skin-deep-cosmetics-database-oakland

  • Pingback: The Buzz from Bella Luccè

  • Knuckledragger42

    money trail site link for head honchos :
    http://www.undueinfluence.com/ewg.htm

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=545382232 Shannon Turley

    So I stumbled across this site when researching lotion, which led me to EWG, so then I had to research EWG (lol) and here I am.  What made me skeptical about EWG was the hyperlinks of various products to purchase via amazon.  It’s a little close to peeing in the company pool for my taste, especially in light of people realizing how our government has been bought and sold in many ways, along with the FDA, et al.  It’s hard to wade through the inundation of sources, and sources for their sources…

    Is there an impartial group that can show me research findings, not money-driven propaganda?

    Also, I have read the Tea Tree Oil and Lavender can be hormone disruptors in young boys, causing a rare and temporary condition called gynocomastia (breasts!).  I was a little off-put that EWG had no data on this, despite its claims about safety.  Many natural and organic products contain this, along with soy.

    I just need all the answers!

    Anyway, glad to find this site.

    Shannon

    • http://personalcaretruth.com Lisa M. Rodgers

      Hey Shannon -

      Welcome to PCT! Thanks so much for your comments. At the top of the page, we have a “resources” tab that leads to all of the outside sources that provide credible information based on scientific facts. You will also find links to current legislation and regulations.

      In regards to your Tea Tree Oil and Lavender comment, Robert Tisserand wrote 2 great posts that would interest you http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/12/lavender-oil-and-negative-innuendo/

      ‘Neither lavender oil nor tea tree oil can be linked to breast growth in young boys’
      http://roberttisserand.com/articles/TeaTreeAndLavenderNotLinkedToGynecomastia.pdf

      We look forward to you continuing to participate in the dialogue.

      Have a great day!

      Lisa