Retrieved March 30, 2011.“Many face sunscreens contain ingredients like antioxidants or skin-brightening botanicals that offer additional benefits beyond sunscreen itself,” explains Joshua Zeichner, M.D., director of cosmetic and clinical research in dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. ^ a b c "Charity Navigator Rating – Environmental Working Group"."EWG Sunscreen Report Misleading, Skin Expert Says (Go Ahead, Slather It On)". "Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says". "How Wrong Is The Latest "Dirty Dozen List?" ". ^ "PDP Databases and Annual Summaries".Why Parents Shouldn't Freak Out Just Yet". "A New Study Found Weedkiller in 28 Cereals and Other Kids' Foods. ^ "About the Environmental Working Group".President Ken Cook earned $289,022 in reportable income in 2015. Over 84 cents out of every dollar go toward EWG's program expenses. Finances and funding įor the fiscal year ending December 2015, EWG raised nearly $13.7 million and spent $12.5 million. Commenting on the 2010 sunscreen report, Zoe Draelos, of Duke University and spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, said the group made unfair "sweeping generalizations" in its report and their recommendations were based on "very old technology". Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate. The report concluded that only 15% of the sunscreens met the group's criteria for safety and effectiveness. In July 2008, the EWG first published an analysis of over 900 sunscreens. A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data by Steve Savage found that 99.33% of the detectable residues were below the EPA tolerance and half of the samples were more than 100 times below. Ī 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all. Ĭritics of the Dirty Dozen list have suggested that it significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items, and that the methodology employed in constructing the list "lacks scientific credibility". Dirty Dozen ĮWG's "Dirty Dozen" list describes food additives that have been associated with adverse health impacts, including some additives that have been restricted in certain countries. Quackwatch describes EWG as one of "he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products". Unfortunately, the EWG misuses that transparency in a manipulative way to drive their fear-based, organic marketing agenda." Īccording to Kavin Senapathy of Science Moms, the EWG "frightens consumers about chemicals and their safety, cloaking fear mongering in a clever disguise of caring and empowerment." Senapathy included two main areas of criticism for the organization including: methodologies used by the EWG for "food, cosmetics, children’s products and more are fundamentally flawed", and the EWG is largely funded by organic companies and does not assess or discuss pesticides from organic farming. "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. Environmental historian James McWilliams has described these warnings as fear mongering and misleading, and wrote that there is little evidence to support the claims made by the EWG. The EWG issues various product safety warnings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |