Environmental “Worry” Group

Environmental Working Group
Also known as a “project” of the Tides Center
1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009,
Phone 202-667-6982 | Fax 202-232-2592 | Email info@ewg.org

Overview

Environmental “Worry” Group

EWG has overseen a Reign of Error lasting more than two decades

If you’ve picked up a newspaper during the last twenty years, odds are you’ve come across a breathlessly written news report warning against some item that is secretly poisoning you. “Sunscreen is causing cancer” the headlines might scream. “Why your baby’s bottle is poison,” says the local newscaster. “Non-organic vegetables are covered in toxins,” another report might ominously warn. If you actually read the story that accompanies these attention-grabbing headlines, you’ll notice that many of them come from the same source: the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and related organizations like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

There’s really only one thing you need to know about the Environmental Working Group when it comes to their studies of toxins: 79 percent of members of the Society of Toxicology (scientists who know a little something about toxins) say that the Environmental Working Group overstates the health risk of chemicals.

That’s because the EWG has a history of passing shady “science” off as solid facts. Their 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.

The EWG issues press releases and studies on a wide range of topics, from sunscreen to cosmetics to drinking water to plastics to vaccines. They have become a go-to resource for the mainstream media, earning mentions in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. Even some conservative outlets, like the National Review, uncritically cite the EWG’s online farm subsidy database that tracks government payments to “Fortune 500 companies.”

In reality, the Environmental Working Group is a cauldron where many of the worst pseudoscience smear campaigns are cooked up. They prey 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.

The EWG’s game plan is simple. It releases “scientific” analyses designed to make the public (especially parents) worry about extremely tiny amounts of “toxins” in everyday items. It throws around scary phrases like “cancer risk” and “nervous system toxicity” that is catnip for environmental reporters, many of whom uncritically pass along the EWG reports without scrutiny or fact-checking. If the EWG had its way, America would turn its back on the scientific advances make our crops more productive, prevent cancer, and keep our food fresh and safe.

What readers are rarely told is that these studies are often based on extremely thin evidence and have a tendency to jump to conclusions unsupported by the science. Before taking anything this ridiculous group has to say seriously, it’s important to understand their pattern of peddling falsehoods. Here’s a sampling of some of the EWG’s greatest misses from the last 20 years:

  • In July 2010, the Environmental Working Group released a sunscreen guide; in it, they argued that certain chemicals that are commonly used within sunscreen solutions are dangerous carcinogens and should be avoided. Their bad guy du jour was retinyl palmitate. As Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society pointed out in the Montreal Gazette, “better known as vitamin A, retinol plays an important role in maintaining normal skin function. When added to creams or lotions, it can reduce the appearance of fine lines, giving the skin a more youthful appearance.” Since it’s not stable, it is turned into retinyl palmitate, which enhances collagen formation and increases cell division.The EWG based its report on laboratory experiments showing that mice exposed to ultraviolet light while having retinyl palmitate applied to their skin developed tumors more quickly than mice that didn’t. The only problem, as Dr. Schwarcz points out, is that the study has not been peer reviewed, no sunscreen lotion consists solely (or even primarily) of retinyl palmitate, and another study from 2009 on hamsters concluded the exact opposite of what the new study shows. (Make that “the only three problems.”) Indeed, the New York-based Skin Cancer Foundation disputed the report’s findings and, according to the Palm Beach Post, is worried that “consumers confused about the report might stop using sunscreens.” This is a legitimate concern, since over-exposure to sunlight is a well-known cause of skin cancer.The Skin Cancer Foundation and Dr. Schwarcz weren’t the only ones to express concern. The Orange County Register reported that “Dr. Matt Goodman, a dermatologist in the melanoma program at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, says the Environmental Working Group’s claims on retinyl palmitate are suspect because they rely on research done on mice. … ‘This leads me to conclude that risk is extremely low, if nonexistent.’”
  • An offshoot of the Environmental Working Group, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, released a report in 2007 decrying dangerous levels of lead in lipstick. Thirty-three red lipsticks were tested, and, using the standard for lead in candy of .01 parts per million, they concluded that more than half had “dangerous” amounts of lead. The only problem with the study is that it is total nonsense.The first problem comes from comparing lipstick, which is applied topically, to candy, which is ingested in full. Common sense dictates that there is clearly a difference between putting on some lipstick and eating the whole tube. Furthermore, testing conducted by the FDA and published in the July/August 2009 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmetic Science found that “lead levels found are within the range that would be expected from lipsticks formulated with permitted color additives and other ingredients that had been prepared under good manufacturing practice conditions.”The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is just as questionable in its use of data as the parent organization that is driving it. “These things sound terribly scary, but there’s a massive disconnect between how toxicologists evaluate risks and how activist groups evaluate risk,” Trevor Butterworth of George Mason University’s Center for Health and Risk Communication told the New York Times. Indeed, the Society of Toxicologists survey found that only 6 percent of toxicologists believe that “any” exposure to a harmful chemical like lead is unacceptable. They feel that the media (and the public) does not understand that “the dose makes the poison.”This point is driven home by the fact that the CSC provides no evidence showing that the trace amounts of lead in lipstick have caused any sort of problem. That comports with scientist’s understanding of the situation; in the aforementioned survey of toxicologists, only 26 percent think that cosmetics “pose a significant health risk.” The disconnect between the toxicologists and the EWG’s Campaign for Safe Cosmetics isn’t hard to understand. Real scientists try to determine whether or not a substance is harmful; the Environmental Working Group and its offshoots simply point to a substance’s existence, claim the sky is falling, and put out a press release.
  • At the end of 2009, the Environmental Working Group released a report on the quality of water available out of the tap in various localities across the country. Their results were both explosive – generating many unquestioning headlines from newspapers worried about their local water supplies – and mostly bunk.Between 2004 and 2008, the EWG found that the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority in Florida “reported 45 impurities in the water,” according to the Pensacola News Journal. The ECUA then commissioned the University of West Florida to examine the water. The results? “The UWF study showed that the ECUA did not exceed a single water quality standard set forth by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. ‘According to the accepted drinking water quality regulations, the water provided by ECUA offers minimal risk and is safe for human consumption according to federal and State of Florida standards,’” the study said.Other responses were blunter, and the study’s methodology was called into question. “The fault is with the Environmental Working Group,” David Wright of the Riverside Public Utilities told the Press-Enterprise. “They lied about groundwater test data and represented that as tap water data.” The EWG had tested water that had yet to be treated and passed it off as the stuff that comes out of your tap.
  • One of the worst things that the Environmental Working Group has done is contribute to the myth that vaccines are leading to a spike in autism in America’s children. In 2004, the EWG published the paper “Overloaded? New Science, new insights about mercury and autism in children.” The paper reported that there are “serious concerns about the studies that have allegedly proven the safety of mercury in vaccines” and stoked fears that childhood vaccines like those for Measles, Mumps and Rubella are responsible for increased incidences of autism.The EWG was playing a dangerous game here. By trying to put a scare into parents about the health of their children in order to score some free media coverage, they contributed to a growing subculture in which vaccines are shunned and kids are getting sick. In 2010, for example, an unvaccinated San Diego boy contracted measles during a trip to Europe, exposing 839 people to the disease upon return to the U.S.The EWG is literally putting children at risk of devastating childhood illnesses by propagating this phony science. And that’s what the vaccine-autism scare is: phony. It was first cooked up by a charlatan who fudged his data and is no longer allowed to practice medicine in his home country, and the theory has been rejected not just by autism activists but by the federal court system. Meanwhile, the EWG’s website continues to host articles alleging a link between vaccines and autism.
  • Vaccines aren’t the only healthy products that the Environmental Working Group has tried to scare people away from utilizing; they also have claimed that trace amounts of mercury in fish represent such a health risk that people should avoid eating seafood altogether. Instead of trying to balance concerns over mercury in fish with the health and nutritional benefits of eating seafood, the EWG put out scary press releases designed to oversimplify the issue and ensure a hyped-up response.As a result, Americans are now depriving themselves of the health benefits of fish. An article in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that, when it comes to scaring non-pregnant women away from eating fish because of mercury, “the net public health impact is negative. Although high compliance with recommended fish consumption patterns can improve public health, unintended shifts in consumption can lead to public health losses.” They also found that pregnant women who ignore fish altogether are also worse off with regard to heart disease, stroke, and prenatal cognitive development. Tuna is called brain food for a reason, after all.Of course, an even-handed look at the benefits and risks of eating fish is unlikely to convince reporters to cover the topic. Over-the-top warnings about the dire threat unborn children face from mercury? That’ll be sure to grab some eyeballs, keep the EWG in the public spotlight, and keep the donations flowing in.
  • The EWG has long argued in favor of organic agriculture, claiming that pesticides are a danger to our health and a horrible threat to humanity. What they’re not telling us, of course, is that most of the pesticides we find on fresh produce are natural, and manufactured by plants themselves. In a 1995 interview with Vegetarian Times magazine, the award-winning Berkeley biologist Bruce Ames insisted that “99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants to ward off insects and other predators… Reducing our exposure to the 0.01% of ingested pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates.”And even that small portion of agricultural pesticides that are synthetic have resulted in tremendous gains for humanity, despite EWG’s unfounded assertions to the contrary. Man-made agricultural chemicals have been in use for over 50 years in the United States, and they are among the most rigorously tested and heavily regulated products in the economy. They have undeniably made fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper and more readily available for Americans, especially for the economically disadvantaged. The U.S. Public Health Service says that “such nutritional advances are largely responsible” for much of the 30 years of increased life expectancy that we’ve all gained in the last 100 years. Organics aren’t necessarily any healthier; only one in ten toxicologists thinks that “organic or ‘natural’ products are inherently safer.”

Motivation

Why does the Environmental Working Group issue so many obviously faulty statements and press releases in order to gin up fear among American parents? The answer is simple: There are big bucks to be made in the fearmongering business.

According to their 990 tax forms, the Environmental Working Group’s total revenue was more than $6.2 million for 2008. Over $3.2 million of that was distributed to the group’s board members: $219,401 to president Kenneth Cook; $179,218 to executive director Richard Wiles; and $150,226 to director of research Jane Houlihan. Five more board members racked up six figure salaries. Another $2 million was distributed to other employees, and almost $300,000 was put into pension plans and other benefits packages.

Where does this money come from?

The EWG raises the vast majority of its money – $6 of the $6.2 million – from various philanthropies, most of which have a distinct leftward bent and seem to be more interested in influencing public policy than doing real scientific work, and individual donations. In 2009, for example, they received $300,000 from the Popplestone Foundation (a major donor to liberal think tank the Center for American Progress and liberal magazine the American Prospect), $50,000 from the Winslow Foundation (who supports, among other projects, Grist.org, a group fighting “the climate apocalypse”) and $75,000 from the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment (a major funder of the Center for Progressive Reform).

In 2008, they received $85,000 from the Turner Foundation (liberal billionaire and CNN founder Ted Turner’s philanthropy) and $250,000 from the Joyce Foundation (which gave millions of dollars to discredited community organizers ACORN and has fought to outlaw private ownership of handguns). One could go on in this fashion, but hopefully you get the point: There’s big money to be had from leftwing philanthropies if you’re in the business of scaring people about health issues and the environment.

This might help explain why the EWG has branched out into new ventures like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. They can whip up discontent and generate massive headlines by making exaggerated claims about the dangers of lead in lipstick or chemicals in baby shampoo, then cash in when it’s time to go ask for more grant money from progressive-minded philanthropies.

Of course, the Environmental Working Group isn’t limited to asking for money from foundations. There’s also the private work that they do. As the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson pointed out on his blog in 2004, something shady was going on between the Environmental Working Group and the American Trial Lawyers Association. In the midst of legal wrangling over asbestos the “EWG released a report that echoes the major assertions of the plaintiff’s trial bar on the topic of asbestos, and [added] some controversial claims of its own, including a claim that deaths from asbestos-related disease are on the rise. … It turns out (as you learn if you reach this page) that the new report ‘would not have been possible without the financial, intellectual and material support of the American Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA),’ and in particular a ‘grant in the amount of $176,000 from ATLA to the EWG Action Fund.’” As Olson concludes, “You might almost think there’s a pattern here.”

The EWG’s work has come under fire in the past for being overly partisan. A free-market nonprofit in the Pacific Northwest has asked the IRS to strip the Environmental Working Group of its tax-exempt status, arguing that EWG is operating in violation of numerous tax laws by engaging in excessive lobbying. The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE) filed the petition on February 8, 2002.

CDFE alleges that EWG functioned as an illegal political action committee, and pressured then-Vice President Al Gore during his unsuccessful 2000 campaign. The IRS petition outlines EWG’s history as a lobbying organization — which, if true, would put EWG squarely in violation of nonprofit law. EWG was also accused of filing false tax returns.

__________________________________

Personal Care Truth received permission from Activist Cash to re-post this article, which originally appeared here.

  • Dene Godfrey

    Thanks for posting this, Lisa and Kristin. I enjoyed reading it on the original site, and this posting will give it a wider audience. This needs shouting from the rooftops!

    I wonder how/why the EWG have managed to maintain their tax-exempt status?

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

    Most welcome Dene! We are fighting for our livelihood and I can promise you, we aren’t going down without shedding light on all aspects of anything related to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010.

    Great question. How/why has the EWG managed to maintain their tax-exempt status? We may never know the answer to that question.

  • Anonymous

    One thing I know is that soon after the CDFE made that assertion (that they function as a political action committee and engage in lobbying, so they should not be tax-exempt), they formed the EWG Political Action Committee. No kidding. They’re skating by on a technicality.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TELLB2KFEFN5SHEVTQS7JOHG7M Erin

      They claim to not be a lobbying group, and have no political agenda, yet when they created their Political Action Committee, they didn’t even bother to conceal the connection it has to EWG. Both organizations are accessible from the same website! The statement, “We can’t do our work protecting you, your family, and the environment without your support! Pitch in today!” is right there on the activist page, one click away from EWG’s homepage, to collect contributions.