EWG: The Endlessly Wrong Group

Whenever you pick up the newspaper and read a scary story about chemicals in everyday items that are supposedly killing us, there’s a good chance the group behind the narrative is the worrywarts at the Environmental Working Group. In telling consumers to worry about the monster hiding under the bed (and in the fridge and medicine cabinet), it has no credibility whatsoever. Just ask the real experts: Seventy-nine percent of members of the Society of Toxicology (scientists who know a little something about toxins) who rated the EWG say that the group overstates the health risk of chemicals. And a newly published analysis dissects just how half-baked EWG’s campaigns are.

Every year EWG releases a “Dirty Dozen” report highlighting the 12 foods to avoid due to pesticide residue and generating needless, fear-mongering news stories about how apples and celery are harming us. But what do credible scientists have to say? Researchers with University of California-Davis’ Department of Food Science and Technology analyzed EWG’s 2010 “Dirty Dozen” report, and found that (unsurprisingly) EWG fails basic science.

They write:

The methodology used to create the ‘Dirty Dozen’ list does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures….

Results from this study strongly suggest that consumer exposures to the ten most common pesticides found on the “Dirty Dozen” commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect. …

In summary, findings conclusively demonstrate that consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” commodity list are at negligible levels…

This isn’t the first time a EWG campaign has strained credulity. The group’s formula to a scare campaign is to point to the presence of a chemical without credibly establishing that there’s any actual harm (which is what really matters). It’s the dose that makes the poison.

EWG runs the so-called Campaign for “Safe” Cosmetics, which recently found that levels of lead in some lipstick exceed federal limits for lead in candy. Notice the bait-and-switch: We eat candy, but (hopefully) nobody noshes on lipstick. Nonetheless, it provided EWG another platform to recklessly frighten consumers.

“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. Sixty-six percent of the members of the Society of Toxicology disagreed that cosmetics were a “significant source of chemical health risk.”

And that’s what it comes down to: Alarmist activists versus trustworthy scientists. We can’t be the only ones hoping for an end to EWG’s Reign of Error.

________________________

Personal Care Truth received permission from The Center for Consumer Freedom to re-post this article.

  • Dene62

    Whilst it is good to see that so many members of the Society of Toxicology believe that the EWG overstates the health risk, it concerns me that 21% appear to believe otherwise! I would like to think that this 21% had never even heard of them. It would be interesting to find out a little more about the beliefs of those 21%! Similarly, what do the 34% of SoT members really think about the health risk of cosmetics – ie, those who didn’t tick the box that indicated a disagreement that cosmetics were a significant source of chemical health risk? It is good to see healthy majorities in both votes, but I do wonder about those who obviously don’t agree with the majority – a not insignificant proportion in both cases.

    • Perry Romanowski

      I think there are some people in academia who believe cosmetics are frivolous and should not be used in society.  I once had an organic chemistry professor who thought deodorants were just awful & people shouldn’t be exposed to chemicals unnecessarily.  Perhaps this attitude is prevalent among some academics and is a certain portion of the 21%

  • Lise M Andersen

    teehee- love the title. :)

    • Anonymous

      Me, too!

  • Patricia Butter

    I’m no lover or hater of EWG, but I think Dene has a good point. The pesticide issue also depends on the vulnerability of the consumer. The Mount Sinai Center for Children’s Environmental Health just recently released a study linking certain pesticide exposures for pregnant women to their child’s cognitive development: http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/service-areas/children/areas-of-care/childrens-environmental-health-center/cehc-in-the-news/news/new-mount-sinai-study-shows-exposure-to-certain-pesticides-impacts-child-cognitive-development
    Also I think that most women, like me do inadvertently consume a majority of their lipstick.

    • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk Colin

      Thanks for drawing that study to our attention Patricia. I will look out for it when it is published.  I am not sure it is good practice to do a press release on a paper before it is actually available.  From the wording of the press release there seems to be a link between ability to metabolise the organophosphate and cognitive development.  If that is the case, the cognitive development and the low metabolic efficiency might be related, and the pesticide might simply be a marker of another problem altogether.  

  • Cindy

    Although they may have started out with good intent, the EWG definately went wrong somewhere with their scare campaigns. It would be nice to have a sort of watch dog group to alert the public of potential dangers.

    • Anonymous

      Very good point and very sad, in my opinion. I was hoping that would be the role they would fullfill: a watch group with excellent credentials.

  • Sandra

    Go ahead, indulge yourself and your family in lead and other toxic chemicals, I bet you or someone you love will soon get cancer, maybe then you’ll write an update on this post.

    • Dene62

      I am shocked by the lack of sensitivity in your comment. I currently have several family members (and a few other people I know) suffering from cancer. There is absolutely no proof of the cause being lead in cosmetics, or any other cosmetic ingredient in ANY of the cases. This is an extremely pointless, hurtful and unhelpful comment.

      • Sandra

        This group seems like a plot from corporations, if you want to turn a blind eye on toxic chemicals (there’s no relation?! please talk to someone educated and see their reaction to this comment!!) go right ahead! As a side note, my comment wasn’t meant to hurt but to just remind that so many people are suffering from cancer, toxicity at unheard of rates.

        • Dene62

          Not only are you trivialising the debate by making such comments, you are also not putting forward a proper argument. Check out the major cancer research sites (research, NOT lobby groups) and they ALL state that the major known causes are lifestyle choices such as alcohol and tobacco, or stress. Your information about cancer rates is also incorrect, as many cancer rates are actually dropping, as has been reported elsewhere on this site. If you truly believe that this site is a “plot from corporations”, then why bother to engage? I can’t be bothered to engage with “conspiracy theorists” – you waste my time! I write as a private individual – believe me, or ignore me – I don’t really care too much either way, quite frankly.

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

          Sandra –

          Do you have research or studies that support this
          statement?> “people are suffering from cancer, toxicity at unheard of
          rates”.

          • chanel

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops

            According to this “datablog”, the U.S. rates #7 in comparison to the rest of the world.

            Do you feel that if your partner or yourself were to develop cancer that you would still criticize people for taking simple precautions? 

            Eating organic and using simple, clean products is not paranoia.

          • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/ Colin

            Chanel, every couple of years in the UK you get a news story on what colour of car is most dangerous.  The police record and publish the colours of cars and someone has the bright idea of seeing which colour is involved in the most accidents.  Obviously, there has to be one colour that is the top of the table.  

            Do you really think that the US figure of 300.2 is really that much worse than Norway at 299.1 or better than France at 300.4?  Do you think you should emigrate to Norway, or indeed the UK at 266.9 to improve your chances of not getting cancer?  Trust me, there is nothing us snobby Brits would like more than to be able to look down in a superior way on the Yanks for their crummy carcinogenic lifestyle.  But I simply don’t think the small differences in those numbers would remotely justify it.

            The truth is we are all in the same boat in the battle against cancer.  There is currently no evidence linking cosmetic ingredients to cancer, but if some does come to light I don’t think any contributor on here would want to ignore or downplay it.
             

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

            Chanel, let’s be very clear. I’m not criticizing people for taking simple precautions. It’s a matter of personal choice. If you want to eat organic and use simple products, that is certainly your choice.

            What I am criticizing are special interest groups spreading fear and misinformation based on educated guesses and hype. They do not have the science to support their claims.

            Consumers deserve truthful information to make an informed decision on the products they use on themselves and their family members.

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

          Sandra, conspiracy theory is far reaching and bears no evidence of science, only that you clearly have a strong belief of how we are getting ill.  I am equally as confident that it isn’t with cosmetics.  If you have any scientific proof that cosmetics are the evil doing to causing cancer, please provide us with the evidence.  Identifying the toxic chemicals would also go far, rather than making a blanket statement of all “toxic chemicals”.  Which ones supposedly are being used in cosmetics and skincare?

          As to what Dene says about lifestyle choices in relation to cancer, he could not be more correct.  My mother died from bladder cancer and it had nothing to do with the use of her personal care products or the red lipstick she loved to wear, but it was from her smoking and enjoying her evening cocktails her entire adult life until age 59.  These are directly responsible and the leading cause to bladder cancer…..period, end of story.  There are many environmental factors, harmful lifestyle choices and genetics, which all play a role in causing disease, it is not black and white to one scenario.

        • Anonymous

          It hurt, Sandra.

        • Dene62

          My final word on the intellectually bankrupt “conspiracy theory” accusation – you, Sandra, enjoy the luxury of anonymity when you post a comment on PCT – my profile and full name are made public, and you can Google my name (and those of the other contributors) and find out our entire backgrounds. If you had done this instead of making your baseless allegation, your insensitive comment about cancer and your snide comment about talking to someone educated, you may get a little more respect. Of course there ARE toxic chemicals and there should be concern in some cases, but the EWG have massively overstated and distorted the risks involved in cosmetics – and cosmetics are the focus of this site. If you want to talk about “toxic chemicals” in general, I suggest that you choose a more appropriate forum.

        • Sarah

          As I said above, the American Cancer Society IS “someone educated” in regard to cancer.  So is the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Society of Toxicology.  Why favor the EWG over these groups?

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

      Sandra –

      Thanks for your comments; however, just because the information we post on PCT is in direct conflict with your beliefs, there’s no need to be hurtful. It is your right to believe the misinformation, but do not use our thread to spread fear mongering. If you’d like to engage in dialogue, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the topic at hand. If not, I’m sure the EWG will welcome you on their bandwagon.

      Lisa

    • Anonymous

      Why, thank you, Sandra, for such…wonderful sentiments, especially considering that my father in law (aged 66) was just diagnosed with prostate cancer that is highly aggressive and has spread to his marrow. Cancer runs in his family, by the way, both his mother and sister died from it, meaning : it’s genetic.

      Forgive me, I have no patience for this nonsense today. The earth itself creates many toxins, toxics, poisons…the list goes on. If you wish to avoid cosmetics that contain these supposed toxins then by all means do so. There is no one forcing you to purchase them. As for me, I will continue to use the already safe (to probably a ridiculous level) cosmetics that are being made, be they termed “natural” or “synthetic”. Have a good day, Sandra. I bear you no ill-will for this.

      (For my friends here, the doctor seemed very optomistic that the cancer can be treated and that my dad in law will still enjoy many more years of good life. He still needs to see a specialist but all does not seem lost, as it were. )

      • http://demiurgiclust.net shelly

        You’re displaying a hell of a lot more patience than I would’ve. Really, my reply would’ve involved a four-letter word and a one-finger salute. I have no respect for someone who, essentially, wishes someone close to us would get cancer just to prove their asinine point.

        I lost my grandfather (dad’s side) to it in 2004. My mother is an almost-two-year breast cancer survivor (yay early detection and treatment!). It turns out another woman on her side of the family (can’t remember how they’re related) died of breast cancer. Genetics for the loss on this one, too.

        Anyway. You’re right; many toxins are naturally-derived. Our own bodies produce toxins and chemicals, for goodness’ sake. To avoid any and all toxins one would have to live in a literal bubble, but even then that’s not completely fail-safe.

        And I hope your FIL will pull through and kick the cancer’s backside.

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

      I frankly, Sandra, would be more concerned about what you are eating and drinking since heavy metals and trace toxic elements are ubiquitous and go hand in hand with what summertimebluesanndgreens stated below.  Kind of difficult to avoid, but you keep blaming the cosmetics and personal care product industry if it helps you to ignore the obvious. 

      I have always wondered why the food industry is not attacked to the level the cosmetics industry is, after all ingesting something is a direct feed to the bloodstream, whereas a topical application is not…..why aren’t you more concerned about the foods and drinks we consume?  Why isn’t EWG?….curious, maybe it’s because they know full well food is necessary to survive and cosmetics are not.  Plus, every food item in the nation would have to come off the shelves to be tested if they stirred similar controversy, but this is not practical as we would all starve in trying to avoid trace elements and contaminants inherent in soil, animals, water and food that comes from the soil.

    • Sarah

      My mother has had cancer twice, and I don’t blame cosmetics.  Neither does she.  We all get exposed to lead and toxic chemicals (e.g., drinking water, walking down a city street)–but cosmetics cannot be a big source of our exposure to these things because our exposure to cosmetics is only a tiny fraction of our overall exposure to substances.  Our own bodies make carcinogens!  Naturally!  So why blame cosmetics for cancer?  Why not focus instead on the known risks identified by the American Cancer Society (e.g., for breast cancer, if memory serves–obesity, alcohol use, hormone exposure, genetics)?

      • Anonymous

        I’ve got a “plastic” plate covering a hole in my skull that’s been there since I was 5 or 6! I’m 43!

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

    Do you have research or studies that support this statement?> “people are suffering from cancer, toxicity at unheard of rates”.

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

    Sandra –

    Do you have research or studies that support this statement?> “people are suffering from cancer, toxicity at unheard of rates”.

  • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk Colin

    Do scroll down to the reactions bit.  Jen Grimes on Twitter has christened them the Endless Wrong Group.  Very amusing.

    • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk Colin

      Er, please ignore this comment. I hadn’t read the title of the post.

  • Gski 67

    A little fact checking goes a long way to discover the TRUTH. The EWG asked the Society of Toxicology be censured and deserved a penalty for concealing CORPORATE FUNDING for a paper that argued against stricter Chromium standards in water. At the time of the papers publication PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric was being sued ( in the famous Erin Brockovich case) for polluting the water w/Chromium that was linked to the towns high rate of cancer. Of course they would want to discredit the EWG and keep covering up for Corporations.

    • Dene62

      Whilst the “fact” that you state above may be absolutely correct, the conclusions you appear to be drawing from it are dubious, to say the least. For the EWG to claim to be “holier than thou” on any funding issue is hypocritical given that they spend over half the funds they receive in donations on staff salaries, but the pie chart on their web site claims only 11% goes on salaries. However, this fact (and it IS a fact, based on published accounts) does not mean that everything the EWG does is wrong. Equally, your assertion that the SoT can’t be trusted based on one error of judgement over declaration of a funding source does not mean that they are in the pocket of “corporations”. This is simply not a logical argument! The poll was conducted amongst individual members, and is not presented as the opinion of the SoT as a single entity. The funding for toxicological studies does not all come from large corporations. You cannot destroy the entire credibility of any entity on the basis of a single example of alleged wrongdoing. If you want to discredit the above article, you will have to do a lot better than this! (and I refer you to my earlier comment in this thread about the intellectually bankrupt “conspiracy theory” argument)

  • Jen

    I would like to know who the author is it just says guest and when I try to find out there is no information.  How are we to make a decision as to whether or not this person is credible in his or her info/beliefs if there is nothing to tell us who they are what they have written in the past and where did they get their info?  I also ckd the site the article was reposted from and couldn’t find any answers there either.  And saying that “It’s the dose that makes the poison” I say this, and this is only my opinion, I can read, I’ve read the ingredients in these products and read all sorts of studies by all sorts of groups and scientists, that say what these ingredients can do(or cause) and to slather that stuff on my body or my childs’ body everyday, day in day out, over and over several products a day, that adds up.  It adds up in our bodies, it adds up in our environment.  I er on the side of caution by choosing not to use these questionable products.  But that is only my opinion.

    • Dene62

      Jen, I can’t address the issue of the source of the article, but I don’t really see that this is especially critical as it is clearly an opinion piece, the main thrust of which is the SoT survey which is available on their web site.

      What concerns me more is your apparent assumption that cosmetic ingredients accumulate in our bodies and in the environment – a common assumption, but based on no evidence that I can find. Where are the scientific studies that demonstrates cosmetic ingredients accumulate in the body? And, whilst some ingredients may be slow to break down in the environment, accumulation is very different to a slow breakdown, and very few ingredients are noted to have issues in this area (only triclosan and EDTA immediately spring to mind, resulting in many companies refusing to use them). Additionally, I have difficulty with the logic of claiming that cosmetic ingredients accumulate in the body AND in the environment (in terms of the implication that ALL ingredients do this). If something accumulates in the body, it isn’t available to accumulate in the environment. You can’t have it both ways! Moreoever, if you are one of those who believe that everything we put on our skin is absorbed (I am not necessarily tarring you with that brush, but I say this to make a general point, because many of those who do also believe your accumulation story), even if you take one of the lower claims of absorbing 6lbs of cosmetics/year, after 20 years of cosmetic use, the body would be mostly cosmetic ingredients (only if both claims were true!). I would not recommend “slathering” anything on your body – most cosmetics are used fairly sparingly, but I would agree that the term “slathering” makes it sound much more dangerous.

      You are fully entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have to observe that your opinion does not seem to be based on any sound evidence, from what you have written above. It is all very well being able to read scientific studies on cosmetic ingredients, but that will rarely tell you if there is any risk involved in their use in cosmetics, because much higher doses are generally used in these studies than you would ever be exposed to in real life.
      The best indication are the scientific reviews that include a risk assessment, such as those carried out by the CIR Panel in the USA, and the SCCS in the EU.

      If you chose not to use these “questionable products” (by which, I assume that you mean cosmetics in general), I have to wonder why you are bothering to investigate this site. If you are avoiding cosmetics, what possible interest could you have?

      • Anonymous

        I don’t know what to say anymore. Blueberries contain lead, correct? So I eat blueberries once a day then I’m eating lead. I breathe in lead from car exhaust, right? Plus there’s lead in soil? So if I make my own let’s say blueberry facial mask here at home using organic ingredients I’m still …..putting lead on my skin. So there’s lead in lipstick in the parts per million. Is that per swipe, per tube, per batch (if I feel like getting technical about it)? I don’t “eat” my red lipstick. I lick my lips and therefore ingest some, yes. Does it match what I eat in my blueberries?

        I apologize that I’m not able to remember all of the details. I get a lot of things wrong and end up falling back on old thought patterns. I’m satisfied that the 10? 12? ingredients in question out of the thousands available for use in cosmetics in any number of combinations are perfectly safe. Cosmetics are no more or less harmful than the cup of black coffee that I’m drinking right now. And this is my third cup and won’t be my last.

        Good morning, all. How are you? Seems like I haven’t talked with you in ages :)

        Tina

        • Dene62

          Most raw materials have a limit on the lead impurity of less than 10 parts per million (ppm) – and that is based on the raw material, not the finished product. Not all ingredients are contaminated with lead, so a typical lead concentration would be low single figures ppm at most. By no means all the lipstick applied is ingested, especially if you do a lot of kissing, and I assume that you usually find yourself removing it at the end of the evening. There is little doubt that SOME may be ingested but, in comparison with other sources, including foods/candy etc, it is insignificant in terms of the contribution to overall exposure, but it makes a great scary story for the EWG!

          • Anonymous

            Thanks, Dene :) The picture is so much bigger than what’s it’s being made out to be.

            I usually try to wipe off some of the lipstick before eating and drinking. I figure the dishwashers (including me!) appreciate not have to scrub extra hard to remove it.

          • Sarah

            I eat mine:)  Seriously, I have to reapply a lot–not sure where it goes, but there is none left at the end of the day to be removed.

            More to the point–I’m always glad to see discussion of dose and exposure (a bit of a fixation w/ me), and I also think it helps to look at the epidemiological perspective.  Like (in the grand, grand scheme of things) why are people living longer if the modern world is so toxic?

          • Dene62

            Sarah, I have often used that argument, and I have been told that it is because people are not dying in infancy so much. I can’t accept that as a serious reason, because that is totally unrelated to longevity. Even if more people survive to maturity, it wouldn’t follow that they would survive into their 80’s in this “toxic soup” (yes, I’ve seen it described as such!) that we have created.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve got a 91 year old great aunt who still is sharp and really only suffers from diabetes, which she keeps under control. Think of the toxic soup she survived!! Oh, the perfumes she encountered must have been grand!!

          • Sarah

            Yeah, that could maybe be rebutted with something such as a normal distribution of age at death, modal age at death, or something similar?

          • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk Colin

            I think Dene’s argument stands any way you look at it.  Reduced infant mortality is both a good thing and an indicator that the environment is less than toxic than it used to be.  

            If it were offset by premature deaths the population would be decreasing.

          • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk Colin

            It is probably truer to say that increased life expentency is consistent with the environment being less toxic than it used to be. I was betraying my UK bias there.  Britain is a vastly cleaner and healthier place now than it used to be.  This may not be so true elsewhere.

          • Sarah

            Right–I think I was arguing that it could be shown that the increased life expectancy is not just due to infant mortality, just by looking at the distribution of age at death (i.e., not all of the shift is at the lower end of the age range).  Not sure if that was clear.  Population size might be another way to get the same information.

          • Anonymous

            I’m a lip gloss & lip balm eatin’ girl!! Wonder how much glitter I’ve ingested? My insides must sparkle!!

      • chanel

        Dene, coming from somebody who works around cosmetics, it is absolutely true that some ingredients can accumulate.  Aside from the accumulation, about 60% of ingredients can be absorbed through the skin, some of these “carrier oils” pull other toxic residue into the skin.  I think you are being very harsh on Jen and your reliance on only published scientific evidence is a common naive practice.  Many of the test done are done because they have a specific agenda (promoting a lucrative ingredient or product).  Many of the test that prove toxicity are filed away or considered faulty due to their possible detrimental influence on consumer spending. 

        well wishes, Dene.

        • http://twitter.com/SueApitoLikes Sue Sawhill Apito

          I sense that you might be new to the cosmetics scene chanel, and while I appreciate your obvious care and concern, repeating statistics such as “about 60% of ingredients can be absorbed through the skin” really does add weight to your argument.  It is a made up statistic.  Other made up statistics include “everything you put on your skin absorbs right into your bloodstream” and “89% of cosmetic ingredients are absorbed into your bloodstream”.  If any of these statistics were true…we’d all be dead.  It’s now a case of “the boy who cried wolf” — so much drama and anxiety over nothing that when ingredients do actually prove to be harmful…consumers simply shrug and think…whatever…I am going to die of something, why not at least smell good.  Yes, tests done by cosmetic companies have a specific agenda just like drugs tested by the pharmaceutical industry have a specific agenda — either to see if they work or make sure they don’t harm.  There are all these folks out there who on one hand say “I use Skin Deep to research my cosmetic ingredients” and on the other say “Don’t trust the cosmetics industry to tell the truth about ingredients”.  The problem…where exactly do these folks think Skin Deep GOT the data for their database?  FROM the cosmetics industry — although cherry picked to present a worst case scenario for the corporate brands and ingredients and to make the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics signer brands look better, to be sure.  But they do not do ANY research or testing themselves…it ALL comes from the very industry they criticize for being less than honest.  And by no means is the data complete there…leading people to think that is all there is, which is the biggest disservice in my opinion.  A 100% “data gap” only means missing from Skin Deep…it does not mean the ingredient has never been tested…it just means this database does not contain any data about it.

        • Dene62

          “reliance only on published scientific evidence is a common naive practise”? What do YOU rely on for scientific information, chanel? Your cynicism over the reasons for testing is misplaced and belongs entirely in the realms of the pharma industry (and even then, largely unfairly), and there is NO comparison between the cosmetics and pharma industries in the rationale behind toxicological studies.
          If the tests that prove toxicity are filed away in the manner in which you claim, how is it that YOU are aware of them? Sorry, but that claim doesn’t bear scrutiny.

  • chanel

    I really don’t understand your criticism of EWG.  It is the consumer’s right to know if there is even a slight risk of toxicity with things like parabens, alcohols, etc.  Do you really believe that every single toxicity report is neutrally based and that big suppliers of these cheap ingredients do not have an influence?  I call that naive.  Aside from there being any risk of these things, they are simply not necessary.  There are many alternatives that we should be focusing on that are easier for our environment to break down as well as for us to produce.  Of all of the things one could criticize!  To go after advocates of transparency in business is dumb-founding to me.  Why don’t you prioritize your energy into attacking some of the greater evils! 

    Well wishes to you, friend.

    • Dene62

      The EWG are not advocates for transparency of business. If there were, they would have published their own accounts beyond 2008! They manipulate information and are more interested in scaremongering than truth (which is one of the main reasons PCT exists – to combat the distortions and disinformation and provide the facts).