![]() The report concluded that only 15% of the sunscreens met the group's criteria for safety and effectiveness. In July 2008, the EWG published an analysis of over 900 sunscreens. EWG has collaborated with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University to publish a map showing detections of PFAS in water samples across the USA. Since the early 2000s, EWG has been advocating for increasing regulations on the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Īs You Sow publishes a similar report on pesticides in agriculture. 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. Scientists have stated that the list significantly overstates the risk to consumers of the listed items, the methodology employed in constructing the list "lacks scientific credibility" and "may be intentionally misleading." A 2011 study showed that the items on the list had safe levels of chemical residue or none at all. The list cautions consumers to avoid conventional produce and promotes organic foods. The EWG promotes an annual list ranking pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables called the "Dirty Dozen", though it does not give readers context on what amounts regulatory agencies consider safe. Īccording to EWG co-founder Ken Cook, the EWG advocates for organic food and farming. ![]() ĮWG partners with companies to certify their products, and its reports are influential with the public. ĮWG has been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals. In 2002, a lobbying organization, the EWG Action Fund (a 501(c)(4) organization) was founded. ![]() EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States. In 1993, the Environmental Working Group ( EWG) was founded by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles. EWG is a nonprofit organization ( 501(c)(3)). “Sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide tend to rate well in our analysis: They are stable in sunlight, offer a good balance between protection from the two types of ultraviolet radiation – UVA and UVB – and don’t often contain potentially harmful additives,” EWG said in its study.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. The study also notes a rise in the number of mineral-only sunscreens on the market-representing 34% of the products EWG tested in 2017, double the number from a decade ago-while adding that those products often hold up better under the EWG researchers’ scrutiny. EWG said those worrisome products can include oxybenzone, which is known to be a hormone disruptor, and retinyl palminate, a form of vitamin A that EWG says can sometimes actually heighten sensitivity to the sun. The Washington, D.C.-based research group found that roughly 73% of the products it tested either contained “worrisome” products or they did offer the level of UV protection they advertised. Last month, the EWG released its 11th annual sunscreen guide, which analyzed more than 880 beach and sport sunscreens, as well as 480 moisturizers and 120 lip products containing SPF. That’s because nearly three-quarters of all sunscreens on the market don’t work as well as they claim to, or they contain potentially harmful ingredients, according to a recent study from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG). But even people who stay well-stocked and diligently lathered in sun block may still find themselves inadequately protected.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |