The Enivronmental Working Group (EWG): Are they a reliable source?

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is one of the most well-known names in the natural living community. They position themselves as a consumer watchdog, exposing harmful chemicals in food, water, and personal care products. If you’re researching anything surrounding natural living or chemicals, you’re likely to find links to EWG studies or blogs.

For instance, if you want to know if a specific product is non-toxic, it’s very easy to just search for it on the EWG Skin Deep Database and find a ranking on it. That’s quite a lot of power over information and consumer purchasing choices.

With such a big (and widely trusted) voice, it’s important for consumers to understand if the EWG is really trustworthy and if they really should be the Bible of the natural living community.

The Who

They Why

Are they reliable?

Summary / TLDR

Who are they?

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) was founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, two environmental policy advocates with a shared vision: to provide the public with information about environmental health risks and push for stronger government regulations. Their goal was to take complex scientific data on pollution, toxic chemicals, and industrial agriculture and make it understandable and accessible for everyday consumers.

Ken Cook, the organization's president, has been one of the most vocal advocates for pesticide regulation, clean drinking water, and safer consumer products. Under his leadership, EWG has grown into a highly influential nonprofit, known for its extensive research and consumer guides, like the Skin Deep® Database I mentioned above.

The organization operates primarily through donations, grants, and foundation funding. There is a common conception that the EWG receives significant contributions from groups that support organic farming, environmental policies, and clean beauty standards, but the EWG states this makes up a relatively small portion of their funding.

It is likely true that the organization does receive a substantial amount of funding from groups with the very specific agenda of promoting an organic market to consumers, as that is the same agenda the founder has.

I bring all this up because it’s important to understand that while it does seem that the EWG does pretty good research work and plays a strong positive role in our society, they have bias. Every organization has bias. It’s crucial to know that the bias at EWG is very strong.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. They have goals and a perspective that they bring into their work. That’s fine. However, you have to look at their conclusions with that in mind. For instance, if you ask a someone who fundamentally believes that climate change does or doesn’t exist, their interpretations of various events or data are going to largely rely on their stance for that issue.

So when you see EWG say something, understand that they will always skew toward chemicals are bad and we should eliminate all of them, even when the evidence doesn’t necessarily support this.

What are they about?

At its core, EWG’s mission is to protect public health and the environment by providing transparency on toxic chemical exposure. They focus on three main areas:

1. Research and Advocacy – EWG conducts its own investigations into food safety, agricultural practices, personal care products, and water contamination. They often push for legislative changes to regulate chemicals they deem harmful.

2. Consumer Education – They produce user-friendly databases and guides, like the Dirty Dozen™, Skin Deep® Database, and Tap Water Database, designed to help consumers make informed decisions.

3. Policy Influence – EWG frequently lobbies lawmakers and regulatory agencies like the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to enact stricter safety standards on pesticides, food additives, and industrial pollutants.

EWG has positioned itself as a bridge between scientific research and public action. By packaging their findings in an accessible, easy-to-digest format, they have helped shape consumer awareness on issues like organic food, personal care product safety, and drinking water quality.

What Do They Do?

A closer look into EWG’s specific products. EWG is best known for its consumer guides, which rank everything from produce to sunscreen based on potential health risks. Some of their biggest hits include:

• The Dirty Dozen™ & Clean Fifteen™ – A yearly list of fruits and veggies with the highest (and lowest) pesticide residues. While it helps raise awareness, some experts argue the methodology exaggerates risks and scares people away from eating fresh produce. (Source)

• Skin Deep® Database – Rates personal care products based on their ingredients and potential toxicity. While helpful, some dermatologists have questioned its scoring system, noting that just because an ingredient sounds scary doesn’t mean it’s harmful. (Source)

• Tap Water Database – Allows consumers to check for contaminants in their local drinking water. Definitely a useful tool—but the way EWG sets its “health guidelines” is much stricter than actual regulatory limits, making nearly all tap water seem like a health hazard. (Source)

Additionally, they have conducted a number of studies on various subjects. These studies are often evaluating the safety of ingredients in consumer products. It’s a little bit of a combination of doing research and partnering with people that do research and putting out reports on it.

I’ll remind you that the EWG is largely a political beast. Their main goal beside helping consumers accessing information is to drive public policy. That’s ALWAYS going to be a red flag when it comes to determining if an organization can be fully trusted.

In fact, the methodology and messaging of the EWG have faced significant criticism—particularly from scientists who argue that their conclusions often overstate risks without strong scientific backing. This is an issue of interpretation and comes from going into it with a bias.

If you think chemicals are bad, you’re likely to state something is harmful if it has at all been shown to be harmful in any capacity. But if you’re not taking into account the real-world application of the concentration and use of these things as people are actually experiencing them, then the information may not be the most helpful and your conclusions may be misleading.

To illustrate this: cold weather can kill you. If you’re outside without proper clothing in temperature that is too cold for too long, you can die. However, how many people are out in temperatures that are too cold for too long and dying? Not a lot. Because we know the limit of what is safe for our bodies as well as what has impact at all. So we make sure to only expose ourselves to safe levels of cold.

While not a total parallel, chemicals and pretty much any substance works like this.

Again, this is why it’s important to understand from the get-go that the EWG is not just out there conducting research and presenting black and white facts. They are collecting and representing data with pretty significant bias. Bias is normal and pervasive. But some organizations are better at holding it back than others.

Once more, this isn’t to say that the EWG produces unreliable research that you should ignore, but just that you should probably double check their conclusions and see if there is enough other evidence out there to support their story. Because there isn’t always.

Are they reliable?

Here’s kind of what it boils down to for me: The EWG is a great resource doing great work, but they are not all-knowing and they are not the supreme authority on what is healthy and what is not. They have bias that they don’t always reserve and they are one piece of the evidence puzzle that makes an informed choice.

They do good, and they do bad. Let’s look at that briefly.

The Good: EWG shines a spotlight on important environmental health issues, advocating for stricter safety regulations and more transparency from industries. If nothing else, they get people thinking about what’s in their food, water, and skincare.

The Bad: Their reports often rely on hazard-based assessments rather than risk-based ones. In other words, they tend to focus on whether a substance could be harmful rather than whether it’s actually harmful at real-world exposure levels. This can lead to unnecessary panic over substances that are present in minuscule, harmless amounts.

The Alarmist: Some scientists and regulatory agencies have criticized EWG for exaggerating risks. For example, a 2011 study found that their "Dirty Dozen" list may lead to unnecessary fear about conventionally grown produce—even though pesticide levels in these foods are well within safe limits. (Source)

So should You Trust EWG?

The short answer: With a grain of (non-toxic, unprocessed) sea salt.

EWG provides useful information, but their tendency to sound the alarm without always having rigorous scientific backing means their reports should be taken as a starting point rather than the final word. Before making major health or purchasing decisions based on their findings, it’s wise to cross-check with peer-reviewed research and official regulatory bodies like the FDA, EPA, and CDC.

Now, I understand why a lot of people give high levels of credence to the EWG. In a world where we have become very skeptical of experts and government agencies (rightfully so, I think), we often look to sources that are pushing against these things.

The problem is that the EWG can too often be used as a confirmation bias for people who already think certain things and who are going to interpret data in a specific way. Again, if you think chemicals are bad and that’s that, then you’re probably going to think this is true in any concentration.

While this is fine, I personally think that it’s important to take the context in which various ingredients are being used into account before throwing the baby out with the bath water. So while I think the EWG does good work and can help alert us to various issues, they can also be very alarmist and cause a lot of concern over something that probably isn’t worth your energy to worry about.

Also, the EWG is not perfect. As with anything, they are not always going to get it right and I think it’s dangerous to treat a very human and biased organization as if everything they put out is the gold standard Bible of the natural living world.

Summary / TLDR

The EWG is a powerful player in the natural living space, but their approach is often more dramatic than data-driven. If you’re looking for a reason to be cautious about environmental toxins, they’ll certainly give you one. But if you want a clear, unbiased picture of health risks? You may need to dig a little deeper.

It is my stance that the EWG can be a great resource if taken together with other sources. You shouldn’t take the EWG at face value, but if their conclusions line up with other high-quality research then you can likely trust it. But the EWG in and of itself is not the powerhouse one stop shop for understanding what is healthy and what is not like a lot of people make it seem.

I hope you found this content helpful. If you enjoyed it and would like to see more educational content as well as research backed product recommendations, please subscribe to our newsletter and browse our catalog of pervious posts.