Home

About Us

About Kristin

About Lisa

Mission Statement

About Experts

Dene Godfrey

Cindy Jones

Katherine Corkill

Kayla Fioravanti

Robert Tisserand

Paula Begoun

Amanda Foxon-Hill

Doug Schoon

Perry Romanowski

Colin Sanders

Contact

Submit Feedback

Submit Article

Press

Advertising

Resources

EPA Resources

California Resources

Canada Resources

European Union Resources

FDA Resources

Natural and Organic Resources

Other Resources

US Department of Health Resources

We Like

Support Us

Forum

Ask the Experts

Information

Ingredients

Legislation

Personal Care News

Regulations

Science

Search:

Topics:
Select category
Ask the Experts
Information
Ingredients
Legislation
Personal Care News
Regulations
Science

Subscribe to PostsSubscribe to Comments

You are here: Home / Information / Who is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)?

Who is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)?

Posted by Guest on July 8, 2010 · 19 Comments and 21 Reactions 

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

Health18

“…too much is spent on awareness campaigns — walks, races, rallies — at the expense of research.”

Breast Cancer Industry Scams – Marie Claire http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/breast-cancer-business-scams?click=main_sr

And on what to watch out for “How clear is the charity about its long and short term goals? Be skeptical of breast cancer charities whose mission statement includes “awareness”. What exactly does that mean? How does it plan to make people more aware? At what point will it have satisfied its mission?”

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/breast-cancer-business-scams-4

I learned that Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is not actually a non-profit organization itself.  I never realized that before.  I thought the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was a registred with our government as a non-profit organization – not so!

When you try to make a donation to the CSC, you are taken to another non-profit organization: Breast Cancer Action.

“Your secure, tax-deductible online gift to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will be made via the Breast Cancer Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a project of the Breast Cancer Fund.”

It’s a little confusing because when you try to view the 2010 returns, half way through the forms turn into the 2009 forms.  So, some of the figures may actually be from 2009 even though the link states that they are the 2010 990′s!

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/about/financial-information/

The total revenue was $3,109,154 in 2009 with a total over the past 5 years of $16,378,945.
Jeanne Rizzo was paid $152,060; Janet Nudelman was paid $110,627; There are 29 employees of Breast Cancer Action.

Their Federal Policy Consultant is an Independent Contractor, Raben Group out of Washington, DC.  They were paid $136,000 in 2010.

They also spend $55,400 on Lobbying.

Here is where things are a bit inbred: BCA gave $33,658 to Clean Water Action and $8,034 to Commonweal; specifically to support the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics organizing of “Safe Cosmetics Legislation” in the Northeast, California and Nationally.
 
(They also gave $7,457 to the National Council of Churches, and $14,668 to the Mercy Foundation North, a nonprofit corporation sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy – food for thought if you have feelings about religion being mixed with stuff like this. Although the tax documents state that the money to the National Council of Churches is to “Support the NCC’s work on Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’ Grassroots organizing of Safe Cosmetics Legislation in the Northeast and Nationally.”)

I am curious why Nuns on the west coast are being given donations to support CSC Safe Cosmetics legislation in the Northeast?  That seems really strange to me.

They also gave to the $7,500 Coming Clean Collaborative: “Support CC’s Leadership and Participation in the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and to support CC’s ability to devise media strategies and conduct outreach to media.”

And they gave $9.605 to Women’s Voices for the Earth to support their work on the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’ grassroots organizing for Safe Cosmetics Legislation in Idaho and Montana and nationally.

“The Breast Cancer Fund’s current legislative initiatives include …bpa; a legislative campaign to ensure that all cosmetics sold in this country are safe and non-toxic; and support for a federal bill that will reform our broken chemical management system so that public health is protected.”
The campaign referred to above is the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics – identified in Schedule O by http://www.safecosmetics.org

So it really is not in any way transparent how much money gets funneled through the Breast Cancer Action organization to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics organization, because the Campaign operates under the name of many, many different organizations.
http://safecosmetics.org/article.php?list=type&type=34

“Key nonprofit coalition partners in the Campaign include the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow (represented by Clean Water Action and Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition), the Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth and Women’s Voices for the Earth.”

These partners represent millions and millions of dollars.  Maybe that’s what is meant by “grassroots”…but I don’t know…put it all together and you have quite a substantial forest!

On Monday, I was honored to engage Congressional officials in a discussion abut the impact of the H.R. 5786 on small beauty companies. I was joined in DC by Donna Maria Coles Johnson of the Indie Beauty Network, Leigh O’Donnell……