"The transparency of the USDA’s program in providing the detailed data is good because it reveals how insignificant these residues are from a health perspective. Įnvironmental historian James McWilliams has described EWG warnings as fear mongering and misleading, and wrote that there is little evidence to support the claims made by the EWG. They describes EWG as one of "he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products". Quackwatch has inclued EWG in its list of "questionable organisations". Brian Dunning of Skeptoid describes the EWG's activities as "a political lobbying group for the organic industry." Īccording to a 2009 survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology conducted by George Mason University, 79% of respondents thought EWG overstated the risks of chemicals, while only 3% thought they underestimated the risks and 18% thought they were accurate. EWG warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading".
The accuracy of EWG reports and statements have been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals as has its funding by the organic food industry. The EWG issues various product safety warnings. Despite the criticism, EWG and its reports are influential among the public and companies have partnered with them to certify some of their products. EWG has been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals. A sister lobbying organization, the EWG Action Fund (a 501(c)(4) organization) was founded in 2002. EWG is a nonprofit organization ( 501(c)(3)).įounded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States. The Environmental Working Group ( EWG) is an American activist group that specializes in research and advocacy in the areas of agricultural subsidies, toxic chemicals, drinking water pollutants, and corporate accountability.
0 kommentar(er)
