Who is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)?
EWG is an environmental organization that specializes in environmental research and advocacy in the areas of toxic chemicals, agricultural subsidies, public lands, and corporate accountability.
EWG is a non-profit organization (501(c)(3)) whose mission, according to their website, is “to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment.” Their funding is from “private foundations, individuals and select corporations.”
EWG was founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles and is headquartered in Washington DC in the United States. They 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 is my personal opinion, based on our research here in D.C., that EWG is not just a humble “nonprofit research outfit,” as it is being described by the mainstream press. It is a savvy political animal funded by deep-pocketed foundations with a “big-government agenda”. And it is engaged in aggressive eco-lobbying that belies its image as an innocuous public charity dedicated to “educating” citizens. I am always suspicious of any organization whose major sources of funding are derived from special interest organizations in the form of grants. A consumer has to be very careful when evaluating the sources he or she uses to determine the efficacy of a product or a service. If an organization becomes too heavily vested in it’s grants to survive, it is also my opinion, misused as a vehicle to advance a perpetual message of gloom and doom in an effort to keep the grants rolling in rather than truly aiding the consumer.
For a comprehensive Report on EWG’s Political Activity, which was hand delivered to the IRS, please see this link at Undue Influence
EWG is formerly a project of the Tides Foundation and the Tides Center, operating with donor advised funds, which may be anonymous to hide the identity of the actual donor. EWG’s 1999 Form 990 Part IV shows a continuing relationship with the Tides Center as a “supported organization.” EWG uses huge foundation grants to spread anti-industry messages in an attempt to shape public opinion against corporations and capitalism. In 1992, EWG formed the Clearinghouse for Environmental Research and Advocacy to smear and destroy the wise use movement.
History: Although Ken Cook told the New York Times that EWG was started in 1993 (“Web Site Helped Change Farm Policy,” February 24, 2002, by Elizabeth Becker), in fact it began receiving foundation grants in 1989. At that time EWG was not incorporated and received grants through the IRS tax exemption of the Island Press, a small Washington, DC-based environmental book publisher created in 1979 by Mellon heiress Catherine Conover. In 1984, Island Press was reorganized as the Center for Resource Economics / Island Press.
From 1989 to 1993, Ken Cook was vice president for policy of the Center for Resource Economics, and operated EWG with $5 million in grants from 17 foundations variously directed to EWG, EWG/Island Press, and Tides Foundation/EWG. From 1991 to 1993, Richard Wiles was executive director of Environmental Exchange, a small ($350,000 annual budget) Washington, DC organization.
In 1993 EWG went under the umbrella of the Tides Foundation. Tides founder Drummond Pike was and remains a member of the Center for Resource Economics’ board of directors (treasurer), as well as a board member of EWG. Catherine Conover was and remains a director of the Center for Resource Economics and one of the largest donors to Pike’s Tides organizations. EWG was transferred to the newly-created Tides Center during a 1990s reorganization.
EWG emerged from the Tides umbrella in 1999 and incorporated in Washington, DC. They have received 93 Major Grants since 1989 totaling more than $20 million.
NOTE: The Environmental Working Group website and publications do not reveal their funding source amounts, nor do their IRS Form 990 annual reports. The data below were obtained from private subscription-only databases of the Foundation Center. THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED BY ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP.
As per federally filed lobbyist reports, EWG hires itself as its own lobbyist and has paid itself $309,514.00 in lobby fees since 2007. On the reports, Jason Rano, Bobbie Manning and Sandra Schubert are listed as the lobbyists per se, but we cannot locate any of these individuals as federally registered lobbyists in D.C. You are required to register by law if you lobby in D.C. for any organization. Of note is named EWG lobbyist Carolyn Brickey. She is only listed as serving as an uncompensated lobbyist for The Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent nonprofit, which is the sole beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.
Board of Directors for EWG:
- David Baker: Founder and executive director of Community Against Pollution (CAP). David is also a member of the NAACP and the Coalition for Black Trade Unionists.
- Rev. Sally Bingham: Environmental Minister at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. She is the founder and executive director of The Regeneration Project, a nonprofit ministry deepening the connection between faith and the environment.
- Sandy Buchanan: Executive director of Ohio Citizen Action
- Ken Cook: Co-founder and president of the Environmental Working Group.
- Steven Damato: H as been involved in the organic agriculture and food industry for the past thirty years. He is an active partner in Changing Seas, LLC, a seafood company dedicated to sustainable and organic seafood.
- Laura Turner Seydel: A national environmental activist and eco-living expert.
- Drummond Pike: (Chair) is the founder and chief executive officer of Tides Network.
- Perry Wallace: Is a tenured Professor of Law at the Washington College of Law of the American University, where he teaches corporate, environmental and international law.
- Pete Myers: Is CEO and Chief Scientist of Environmental Health Sciences.
- Meredith Wingate: Is a Program Officer in the Power Utilities Program at the Energy Foundation since 2008. She co-manages the Foundation’s grants portfolio in the areas of utility energy efficiency and opposition to new unabated coal fired power plants.
- Alicia Wittink: Is a trustee with the Park Foundation based in Ithaca, NY. She is a co-founder of DC EcoWomen’s Hour.
EWG Management Team
- Ken Cook – President
- Chris Campbell – VP for Information Technology
- Craig Cox – Senior VP for Agriculture and Natural Resources
- Alex Formuzis – VP for Media Relations
- Jane Houlihan – Senior VP for Research
- Jocelyn Lyle – Director of Development
- Scott Mallan – VP, Finance & Chief Operating Officer
- Renee Sharp – Director, CA Office & Senior Scientist
- Heather White – Chief of Staff and General Counsel
- Richard Wiles – Senior VP for Policy and Communications
- Chuq Yang – Director of Technology
EWG Staff:
- Bill Allayaud – California Director of Governmental Affairs
- Dave Andrews, Ph.D. – Senior Scientist
- Claudia Arango – Development Associate
- Leeann Brown – Press Associate
- Nils Bruzelius – Executive Editor
- Don Peterson Carr – Senior Communications and Policy Advisor
- Dean Clark – Web Designer/Developer
- David Degennaro – Legislative and Policy Analyst
- Lisa Frack – Social Media Manager
- Sean Gray, M.S. – Senior Analyst
- Kari Hamerschlag – Senior Analyst
- Dusty Horwitt, J.D. – Senior Counsel
- Andrew Hug – Analyst
- Colleen Hutchings – Email Marketing Manager
- Anila Jacob, M.D. – Senior Scientist
- Nneka Leiba, M.Phil., MPH – Environmental Health Researcher
- Brett Lorenzen – Mississippi River Project Coordinator
- Sonya Lunder – Senior Analyst
- Bobbie Manning – Environmental Health Outreach Coordinator
- Morgan Maurer – Administrative Assistant
- Olga Naidenko, Ph. D. – Senior Scientist
- Jason Rano – Legislative Analyst
- Amy Rosenthal – Individual Donor Fundraising & Outreach Manager
- Elaine Shannon – Editor-in-chief
- Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D. – Senior Scientist
- Lindsay Talley – Administrative Assistant & Secretary
- Tolga Yalniz – Web Designer/Developer
EWG Lobbyists:
- Susanne Fleek (in-house)
- Anne Keys, (in-house), former Clinton Administration Deputy Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- Carolyn Brickley (consultant)
Organization Name/Address:
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
1436 U ST NW STE 100
WASHINGTON, DC 20009-3987
- Asset Amount: $5,413,190
- Income Amount: $8,652,806
- Form 990 Revenue Amount: $6,242,570
- Employer Identification Number: 52-2148600 (nine digit number assigned by the IRS to identify a company)
- Ruling Date: 06/1999 (the month and year of a ruling or determination letter recognizing the organization’s exempt status)
- In Care Of Name: N/R (the officer, director, etc. to whose attention any correspondence should be directed)
- Classification: Charitable Organization (category under which an organization may be tax exempt)
- Filing Requirement: Form 990 – (all other) or 990EZ return (the primary return(s) the organization is required to file)
- Taxonomy: Energy Resources Conservation and Development (classifies an exempt Internal Revenue Code 501 (c)(3) organization)
- Secondary Name: N/R (another name under which this nonprofit organization does business. Also used for trade names, chapter names, or local numbers for subordinate organizations of group rulings)
- Affiliation: (defines the organizational grouping). This organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
- Deductibility Status: Contributions are deductible
- Principal Activity 1 n/r
- Principal Activity 2 n/r
- Principal Activity 3 n/r
- Foundation Type: Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public
- Tax Period: 12/2008 (the date of the latest return filed)
A sister organization, the EWG Action Fund, is the lobbying arm (501(c)(4)) of the organization and was founded in 2002.
Issue areas and projects:
EWG works on three main policy or issue areas: toxic chemicals and human health; farming and agricultural subsidies; and public lands and natural resources. EWG’s largest focus is reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). When the act passed it declared safe some 62,000 chemicals already on the market, even though there were little or no data to support this policy. Since that time another 20,000 chemicals have been put into commerce in the United States, also with little or no data to support their safety. EWG is working to pass the Kid-Safe Chemical Act which would requires that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups. 52% of EWG’s resources go to toxic chemicals and human health.
Toxic chemicals and human health
EWG has created a cosmetics safety database which indexes and scores products based on their ingredients. Their Guide to Pesticides in Produce lists 44 fruits and vegetables based on the number of pesticides they were found to contain according to USDA data. A series of studies testing for the presence of chemicals in people’s bodies is known as body burden. The organization has also constructed a national database of tap water testing results from public water utilities. Their work has extended to a variety of other chemicals, including bisphenol A, perchlorate, mercury, flame retardants, and arsenic in treated wood.
Agricultural policy
EWG publishes a database of agricultural subsidies and their recipients [9]. The EWG Action Fund advocates for farm bill reform in the form of decreased disaster payments and subsidies for commodity crops, and increased funding for nutrition programs, conservation, specialty crops (i.e. fruits and vegetables), and organic agriculture.
Natural resources
The organization investigates and publishes information regarding oil and gas drilling and mining projects that may pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Current Projects:
Cell Phone Radiation Report
EWG launched a cell phone radiation report in September that stated while the long term effects of cell phone radiation are still being studied, there is sufficient research that shows higher risk for brain and salivary gland tumors among heavy cell phone users. EWG encouraged consumers to look up their cell phone’s radiation level, and to wear a headset when talking on the phone to limit their exposure.
Skin Deep
Skin Deep is a cosmetics safety database which pairs ingredients in over 41,000 products against 50 toxicity and regulatory databases. The database is intended as a resource for consumers, who can search by ingredient or product when choosing personal care products.
In June 2009, EWG updated Skin Deep with a report on chemicals in sunscreen, lip balm and SFP lotions. The report states that 3 out of 5 sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. The report identifies only 17% of the products on the market as both safe and effective, blocking both UVA and UVB radiation, remaining stable in sunlight, and containing few if any ingredients with significant known or suspected health hazards.
In its fourth annual “Sunscreen Guide”, issued in May 2010, Environmental Working Group gives generally low marks to currently available sunscreen products. EWG researchers recommend only 39 out of 500 sunscreens available at the time.
Industry representatives call these claims “highly inaccurate.” Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), Associate General Council, Farah Ahmed stated, “It is very clear to me that they have a very low level of understanding of the way sunscreens work and the way they are regulated by the FDA and tested by the industry.” She expressed further concern saying “I would hate to think that there are parents out there not using sunscreen on their kids because of a report like this that is not based on real science.” Representatives from Schering-Plough (Coppertone), Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena), and Banana Boat also reiterated their products’ safety and efficacy.
2007 Farm Bill
EWG operates the farm subsidy database, an online searchable database of recipients of taxpayer funded agriculture subsidy payments. The information is obtained directly from the United States Department of Agriculture via Freedom of Information Act requests.
In the 2007 Farm Bill, EWG is advocating for:
Cutting wasteful spending to profitable large farm operations, absentee landlords, ‘hobby’ farmers.
Increased support for organic agriculture, the fastest growing sector of the agriculture industry. In August 2007, EWG president Ken Cook delivered a petition of 30,000 names gathered online to Congressman Ron Kind (D-WI).
Increasing funding for nutrition.
Increasing funding for conservation.
During the fall 2007 debate over the farm bill EWG produced computer generated Google maps of cities across the country identifying the number of federal farm subsidy checks sent to that area. Acting-Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner used the maps during speeches and with the media as he advocated for fundamental reforms to the farm subsidy programs. [citation needed]
For Fiscal Year Ending December 2006, EWG raised nearly $3.6 million and spent $3.2 million. Over 84 cents out of every dollar go towards EWG’s actual programs. EWG’s IRS Form 990 is available on GuideStar. As of March 2008, EWG reports 30 staff members with its president Ken Cook earning $192K per year in 2006.
Most (78%) of the funding comes from foundations, and a partial list of 25 major funders is available on the organization’s website. 18% of the budget comes from individuals, with the rest stemming from interest, small sales, and consulting for other organizations.
Challenge to 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status
On February 8, 2002, the Bellevue, WA based Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise filed a complaint with IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, claiming that the EWG’s “excessive lobbying and politicking” activities are “clearly illegal and should (at a minimum) result in revocation of the organization’s tax-exempt status.”
The complaint charges that the group hid its political-lobbying expenditures, failed to register as a lobbyist in California, submitted false or misleading reports with the IRS and acted as a political-action organization in violation of Section 501(c)(3) rules. Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, stated that “The Environmental Working Group is not what it seems. Its goal is not protecting the environment. Its goal is power–political power.”
Guest post provided by BA Carrington with Empowerment Enterprises, Ltd
More about the author: Guest posts are provided through article submissions. Read more from this author
Related posts:
Finally the “Voice” of truth rings out! Personally, I am extremely grateful to this person for taking the time in bringing this very pertinent information to the forefront of the reasoning and truth behind EWG's actual agenda. This is probably the most important single piece ever written about them next to Dene Godfreys' article on the “Skin Deep Data Base”.
We are also dealing with similar funding in terms of the presidents cancer panel when looking closely at the multi million dollar grants going to scientists who study and support the working agenda of the EPA. Although I do believe the EPA has solved many environmental issues in our nation, it is also clear that sometimes they go looking under rocks for anything to keep the tax payer money flowing. Without this, they would become obsolete, and no longer needed.
And with all of the evidence finally laid out on the financial truth behind these entities, it only further supports the reasoning behind why it was so necessary to create the “Personal Care Truth” site. Excellent work “guest” poster. Thank you for this in depth report!
No wonder EWG is asking for $5 here and $10 there. They have a great many employees that get a paycheck. I wonder how much is left over to spend on research?
Well if you think about it Lisa, all the research they deliver is from other data bases and others showing their unique findings….
For instance, can you locate an actual study performed by the EWG? I can't! It appears they rely solely on others work….which means when it comes to my articles linking back to the scientific studies I represent in my findings and conclusions, then I am extremely underpaid compared to EWG! In fact I think we all are!
Kind of puts a wrinkle in the whole vested interest accusations on the reasons behind providing this website to consumers and others in the industry, since I know for a fact that I don't get paid to divulge research as do any of us on Personal Care Truth providing the answers as best we can!
Brilliant! This writer did a great job giving us the facts all in one well organized article. I will be linking back to this in a blog today.
Thank you so much for this information. We cosmetic chemists (and others) often feel like we're facing a huge uphill battle when it comes to educating the public who seem only to look at Skin Deep for their information (or misinformation, as it were). It's hard for them to realize that the EWG isn't just looking out for your children's best interests, but the interests of many huge foundations that control the purse strings and have their own agenda as well. While this is true almost everywhere these days, the more we know, the better off we will be when trying to determine the “truth.” Thanks so much for this post and for PersonalCareTruth.com! What a wealth of science-based information!
thanks for this great article!
That's a great point Lisa. They ask for $5 or $10 every week. They're employees are VERY well compensated…where are these donations being spent, research or salaries?!
First, I will say that I know people here are not going to like this post and that I know this post will be responded to with a certain amount of defensiveness. If this is truly an open forum discussion, then I should feel free to express my point of view and/or opinion without being attacked. Based on reading responses to other posts opposing common views here, I know what to expect but I'll go ahead anyhow.
While I enjoy reading the info on Personal Care Truth, I at the same time do not believe that opinions here are entirely unbiased. You are scientists and product line developers/owners with money and careers at stake; not neutral parties. While I do recognize the political influence behind EWG, I believe there is also an underlying influence behind this website as well. While you may have certain scientific studies to reference, the outcome of scientific studies can also be influenced by who is performing and funding them. I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, just that it's possible and it has and does happen.
Bottom line for me – the PCT would have more influence and credibility if you all would stop outright attacking the EWG. While I understand that you are trying to raise the question of EWGs credibility, I believe that by doing it they way you are puts the PCTs credibility at risk. Time to grow up and stop throwing fuel on the fire. When one group objects too strongly/loudly against another group, it can actually give the opposing group more credibility. Pretty soon when someone cries wolf too many times, people will stop listening to them.
As for published scientific studies being harvested from all sources by the EWG and the authors not being compensated for it, try copyrighting your work before you publish it and that problem will disappear. As scientists, you well know that for every question/problem there is a solution.
Dear “anonymous”
Thanks for your comments. You are most definitely entitled to your own opinion and thank you for taking the time to comment. To better understand where we are coming from, I would like to direct you to 2 posts that may explain in a bit more detail why we are raising awareness.
Ask The Experts http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/ask-the-ex...
The Revealing Truth of the EWG Money Trail http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/07/the-reveal...
For the record: no one at PCT is paid, nor do we constantly solicit donations to fund our salaries (as I mentioned they are non-existent from PCT) or research. This strong group of experts and leaders in different facets of the beauty industry volunteer their time, resources and information to make better sense to the public of what is going on in the industry to educate everyone: consumers and peers alike.
I'd also like to remind you that your money is at stake here… with the lobbying currently going on in the political scene, you may see extreme hikes in pricing of personal care products- here's another post I'd like to direct you to with more info: http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/the-real-c...
Hey Anonymous -
Thank you for taking the time to leave your comments when you had thoughts they would not be well received.
You would be correct by assuming there is an underlying influence behind this website. Kristin and I were both Campaign for Safe Cosmetics signers. We followed all that was required of us to maintain on the compact. When decisions were made that altered our feelings of being a signer, we both, at different times, simply asked to be removed.
We both feel strongly that consumers deserve truthful information, bottom line. As manufacturers, we follow all the guidelines set forth to make sure we are producing safe personal care products. The stand we take on PCT is very personal, simply because we are part of an industry the EWG and CFSC are attacking.
Kristin and I both manufacture safe personal care products without adding “hidden chemicals” as the alarmists would have you believe. We take our stand because the actions of alarmists peddling their 'junk science' and 'precautionary principles' have no merit. You can't change regulations that have been in place for many many years based on a “what if or educated guess”.
We also feel it is reckless for EWG to tell its consumer base that “if you can't pronounce it, it can't be safe”. If you haven't had the opportunity, take time to read 'Are We Being Duped?' http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/are-we-bei... to see how scaremongering can change the minds of free thinking consumers.
And, if you haven't listened to actual testimony from the Colorado legislative session back in March, please take a moment to read and listen to audio on 'Straight From the Horse's Mouth' http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/straight-f...
Personal Care Truth is not attacking EWG with false information. We are providing the truth. If there is anything on this site that you know to be false, please bring it to my attention. Our goal is to provide the truth and nothing but the truth.
Again, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinion. I too feel very strongly and do not make apologies for my position.
Have a great weekend!
Lisa
I also support the truth – and I never said that PCT was publishing false information! (Those are your words, Lisa, not mine.) It has been proven time and again that the outcome of scientific studies can be swayed by who's performing and funding them – this is evidenced over and over by drugs being approved as “safe” based on the scientific studies (performed by the companies who will make millions off of the sale of those drugs), only later to be recalled because they turned out to be harmful. I didn't say that's what anyone on this site is doing, just that it does happen.
I'm not defending EWG in any way, but simply pointing out that the info here is not necessarily unbiased, just as EWGs info is not unbiased. Scientists participating on this website may all be volunteers, but as product line creators and owners there is a financial investment at stake. You want to sell your product lines and make money, therefore there is bias. (I know once again you will disagree with this point, but that's okay.)
I'm glad that the PCT website is telling the other side of the story – but the constant attack campaign against EWG, in my opinion, hurts the PCTs credibility. If your goal is telling the truth about personal care products and ingredients, then continue on that mission by providing the scientific info you have been. If your goal is to tear down the EWG then continue on that mission as well, but you might be better served by making that mission a separate one in order to maintain PCTs credibility.
Hey Anonymous -
Thanks for your reply. I was simply making a statement that PCT was providing truthful information about EWG. I never made mention that you were stating we were publishing false information. I also did not state in any way that you did not support the truth.
You commented that PCT was constantly attacking the EWG and I gave you the reasons why we publish information on this site about them. Out of the 83 published posts to date, 3 are entirely about EWG and 7 are of the Skin Deep database. That amounts to 12% that we have dedicated to informing consumers about an organization that is out to change the cosmetic industry based on the lack of science.
I did not co-found PCT to increase sales in my company. We do not promote any product on this site, just information. Kristin and I do not take a salary and we have used personal, not business money to create this site. Not once do we ask for PCT readers to stroll on over to our business sites to make a purchase.
Again, you do have your opinion and for every 1 like yours, there is 1 like mine. We knew we would ruffle feathers when we started talking about EWG. I'm not going to exclude information about a non-profit organization, that pulls in millions of dollars each year to wage a scaremongering campaign to change the cosmetic industry, just because some people will have concerns.
Our goal is not to tear down the EWG. We simply are providing information about who they are and what their agenda is. The EWG has everything to do with the personal care products industry, so therefore, we will continue to publish information about them. As long as they are spreading misinformation to consumers, we will write about why their information is incorrect.
It's as simple as that.
I am a visitor here like you. In fact, this is my first time visiting this site. I wanted to make a couple of points. First of all, vigorous disagreement is not the same as “attacking.” If you aren't called a name or harassed, your intelligence or good name aren't impugned, and you aren't told where to go just for having a different opinion, you aren't being attacked; rather, you are being disagreed with. Which isn't fun if you're the only one arguing a particular side, but it can be tolerated as long as you remember it's about the issue and not about you personally. This is a bit of a side track, but I wanted to comment on your ideas about research bias. I am not now involved in research, but I have been in the past (not concerning cosmetic ingredients or safety). You say that the fact that some drugs are recalled after they are initially approved proves that a bias was introduced into the original clinical trials. This interpretation of drug recalls is not accurate. What happens is that data on safety (adverse events) is collected during the pre-marketing clinical trials. The data is examined and a decision is made as to whether there are any risks apparent from that data. New data can emerge after a drug is approved and on the market that the scientists, the manufacturer and the FDA (who do not have crystal balls) could not have predicted based on the pre-marketing safety data. That does not mean they are dishonest or biased scientists; it just means no participant in the studies had that side effect during the course of the studies, so the researchers, the manufacturer and the FDA didn't know it was a possible side effect. By the way, this does not happen very often, which to my mind is a testament to the scrupulosity of researchers and the entire clinical research and approval process. No pharmaceutical company wants to market an unsafe product, not only because their own family and friends might take the drug once it's on the market, but also because it could financially ruin them. I can tell you from first-hand experience that researchers take their ethical responsibilities very seriously. Many times they do not know, and cannot find out, who is getting the drug and who is getting placebo. I thought it important to address what you said, even though it wasn't your major point, because I am concerned about a growing anti-science bias in our society.
Great post, Anonymous – it's good to get views that don't always totally coincide with your own, partly because it enables you to hone your arguments, but it's also good to prove that Lisa and Kristin don't do what many other sites and blogs do, ie remove any posts that conflict with the view of the site/blog owners.
As, presumably, you consider me one of the “guilty” parties “attacking” (I prefer to think of it as “exposing”) Skin Deep, I feel obliged to make some form of response.
Firstly, I totallly agree with Sarah's position in reply to you regarding the “bias” of testing pharmaceuticals, but also, you need to accept that you are talking about two very different areas when you compare pharma and cosmetics. Cosmetics is not a “pure” science, and very few toxicity studies are carried out purely to enable the use of any specific ingredient in cosmetics. In pharma, the converse is usually true. Additonally, the pharma studies are carried out for two different reasons:
1) To establish the efficacy of the drug
2) To test the toxicity of the drug
It is (arguably) easier to manipulate the efficacy studies, whereas a straighforward toxicity study gives a result of varying degrees of usefulness, but usually based on a standard protocol, often internationally accepted.
In these standard toxicity studies (that also may be applied to cosmetic ingredients), there is no room for bias, irrespective of who provides the funds for the research, so your comment regarding this is a little wide of the mark. The only bias may be in the interpretation of the results, for example when organisations such as EWG focus solely on the hazard identified in the study, and totally ignore the concentrations required to cause health problems. (There I go again!)
With respect to my own “vested interest”, I have no commercial, nor career interest or advantage in exposing the sham that is Skin Deep – I could quite happily live out the rest of my life never mentioning either SD or EWG again, and it would not make a jot of difference to me or ,my career. My only real vested interest is the purely personal satisfaction I get from digging into the workings of Skin Deep and determining the logic of the argument (for OR against). There is also the great boost to my underfed ego when people contact me and tell me that I have done a great job (which doesn't happen anywhere near often enough, incidentally! lol).
Long may you contribute to this site, Anonymous – you seem like a reasonable person, and it is good to have reasonable discussion on here. If we all agreed all the time, it would be totally boring!
Thanks for your comments Dene. And yes, if we all agreed all the time, life would be very boring!