Talk:Environmental Working Group/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

63.167.255.231

I'm impressed that EWG has an active member currently working in the Department of Homeland Security. Frankie (12 July 2006)

A cryptic comment. If I understand what you are saying correctly, Wikipedia contribs, incl to this article, are coming unlogged-in from a DOHS-owned IP address, but why say "EWG has...a member" rather than "Wikipedia has a contributor or contributors"? Andyvphil 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A very valid point Andyvphil, was thinking the same. Plus, Frankie, since you haven't extracted the relevant line, I scrolled through the first 50 listings, and didn't see the relevant one (could have missed it, didn't search). Well, here is their [http://www.ewg.org/about/staff list of putative employees], and it comes with fairly detailed bios, how about you tell us who's the putative mole. Jergas (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

controversy, funding (by Bill Moyers)

Ran across the EWG in its tiff with John Stossel, and installed a link to this article from his Wikipedia article. Here's a couple links to some critical comments and info about funding that may be useful in filling out the picture:[1][2] Andyvphil 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Both links broken here, Andyvphil. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Additions, copyedits, External links, refs

• Added information about each of the org's project areas, w/external links and refs where relevant
• Cleaned up sentence structure, punctuation, grammar
• Moved the bit about Bill Moyers from the intro to the section on funding
• Added a wikilink to GuideStar (organizations don't generally offer their 990s on their own sites)
• Removed the bit labeled "Criticism of Al Gore", which had no references and, as far as I can tell, wasn't a criticism or controversial (unless it's controversial to criticize Al Gore). I'd be happy to have it re-added if someone knows of references for it. Ahanley98 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's 10am(ish) ip-logged edits are mine. I removed the section on accomplishments, added the category Current Projects and subheads (and some citations and external links, although the farm bill section needs citations -- workin' on it). I also moved the section about funding below critiques and controversies, although I'd be happy to have it go above both that and current projects. I'd like to remove the section on other issues/projects -- it's true and verifiable, but it's also all available on the org's website, so I'm not sure it's relevant. Leaving it for now.Ahanley98 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the hardrock mining act link, and removed this bit about the Florence and John Schumann Foundation since they do not fund the org. Ahanley98 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"One of its funders is the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, headed by Bill Moyers.[3][4]"

The first reference you deleted does seem to have Moyers saying "as a matter of disclosure, the foundation I serve made a small grant to Mr. Cook's organization a few years ago" and the second supports it. Did you perhaps mean that the foundation has not recently supported EWG? ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Founding Date for EWG

A proof-reading detail, only. The Wikipedia article on EWG lists its founding date as 1992, yet the first paragraph states, "Founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, EWG is headquartered in Washington, D.C...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group Alphaa10 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Stubbing in Controversy section

For this article to be balanced, the cases where activities and reports of the EWG need to be stated and cited. I have stubbed in a short section, so others can expand as further citations come to editor's attention. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this does not make grammatical sense. Please elucidate. In the absence of any ongoing discussion I have removed the tag. -Wormcast (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Environmental Working Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808152843/http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/mcelroy/mcelroy21.html to http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding adding of a criticism section for the article

Hello all, fairly fresh WP user, please be gentle.

Anyway, I feel that there is a fair bit of literature which shall not fit into any existing section bringing aspects of the EWG into question.

For instance, the article titled 'Environmental Working Group: A Scare A Day' criticizing the group for providing claims without evidence to back it up, and fear mongering.

Furthermore, the study 'Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels' brings to question the validity of the 'dirty dozen' list made by the group, and says that "the methodology used by the environmental advocacy group to rank commodities with respect to pesticide risks lacks scientific credibility".

--Ini7 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism sections are, at best, un-ideal; see Wikipedia:criticism for more on that. And the criticism that we already have in the article is problematic. The criticism of their cosmetic comments is from two self-published sources, which are things to be avoided in the general case. The material on the spraying which currently says that their claim has been "dismissed by scientists", when between the two sources given there is actually just one scientist, and the second source used is his blog and again faces the WP:SPS problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

NatGertler, I feel that by dismissing Ini7's viewpoint, you've caused harm in several places. First, I think the user had a perfectly concern, and you dismissed his concern out of hand by using a technicality. Yes, the criticism section may or may not be appropriate, but that doesn't change the fact that the article on Wikipedia as written is not just one-sided but dangerously wrong. If you do a cursory look on the internet (try "ewg criticism") you will find tons and tons of sources chiming regarding the credibility (or lack thereof) of the organization. Second, by dismissing the concern, you caused harm to anyone looking up this organization on Wikipedia and assuming, as I did, that it was an upstanding legit non-profit, which, if you read the criticism, is far from the truth. --Digizen (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have zero problem with properly-sourced critical material being integrated into the article, and I made no statement otherwise. I don't think concern over the quality of sourcing is a "technicality", particularly when it comes to critical material. The article actually still does contain material that @Ini7: added. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just found the reference from Ini7. Let me apologize for the tone of my initial response to you, I thought you were nitpicking the concerns of someone who had a valid reason to gripe. I still strongly believe that the article needs to be adjusted to account for the fact that the organization is highly controversial. Where would you suggest this be done? Should I go ahead a put a blurb about the controversy in the main description of the group?

Criticism should not be put in the introduction unless it's in the body of the article. Appropriately-sourced criticism of individual campaigns/reports/whatever of theirs should be integrated into discussion of those campaigns/reports, rather than in a separate criticism section. Overall criticism of the group is a little trickier, we don't have much of a general history of the group where this could be integrated. If you can find folks covering the criticism who are not engaging in the criticism themselves, that actually gives some opportunity for a criticism section under WP:CORG, or better a general reactions section, where it might be integrated with any praise that the group receives.

Thank you for the apology. We're good. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So I found a couple of articles where the criticism is sourced from other people. In other words, in several articles, various people and agencies are quoted as saying that EWG is problematic. Does this count as covering criticism without engaging in the criticism? Examples: [5], [6], [7].

On the whole, all the articles I've found are negative towards the organization, I haven't found anyone that wants to say nice things unfortunately. --Digizen (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Criticism is an essay, not a WP policy or guideline. It's not binding. It says:

This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Sometimes criticism sections fit into an article, sometimes they don't. A criticism section can be appropriate if there are general criticisms of the organization, e.g., if scientists have general criticisms about their methodology. If an article is predominantly favorable and non-critical, I think a criticism section can be appropriate to balance it out. --Nbauman (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental Working Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307062032/http://farm.ewg.org:80/sites/farmbill2007/ to http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental Working Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221105722/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/tds-toc.html to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/tds-toc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Again the topic of criticism

I've added a brief summary of in article criticism to the lead and I'm going research the addition of a criticism section for the article. As stated above it's not always appropriate or useful for a section like that to be useful but here I contend it i. Why? Well it gives an viewpoint that is well outside the mainstream and consensus view point in science . I feel we're running into WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I'd like thoughts on that if anyone's got them. Cheers Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My intention is to consolidate, clarify, and expand the current in article criticism. I'll also condense a more succinct and thoughtful version of what I've so far placed in the lede. Sure there is currently valid and properly sourced criticism in the article but its disparate and difficult to parse out for the average Wikipedia reader.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Gandydancer, I am following your work and incorporating it into my research for the section I'll be piecing in later. Cheers. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section added. Some new information, some just a relocation and centralization of existing in article information. Duplicate content removed.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking into reintegrating it back into the relevant sections. Usually, it's better to have the criticism right next a claim to better satisfy WP:DUE, especially when we get into WP:FRINGE advocacy from a group like this (see WP:CRITS for more on why we avoid these sections). Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the criticisms are of particular pieces of work that EWG has done. If they are in the relevant sections, they are easy to support with sources - indeed in some cases the criticisms provide third party sources for the work that EWG has done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

More bullshit from EWG

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/08/17/children-killer-glyphosate-found-in-cheerios-experts-dismantle-environmental-working-groups-glyphosate-study/ Guy (Help!) 10:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Fringe

per WP:FRINGE we should not be uncritically repeating this pressure group's mission statement. They publish organic industry propaganda (e.g. recent glyphosate bullshit). Guy (Help!) 12:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

However, we should be very wary of using as source articles on Forbes.com that are listed as being by a "contributor". Those are basically blogs; once someone is approved for one, Forbes is not vetting their articles before posting. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_246#Forbes.com .) As such, they are only as reliable as blogs are, which means they may be used for topics on which the writer is an expert. The author of the article being cited claims to be "an author and public speaker covering science, health, medicine, agriculture, food, parenting and their intersection"; none of that is the funding of organizations. As such, I am undoing that change. Please do not readd the claims until an appropriate source is found. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

We hould also not be using the "toxin gambit" (everything is toxic, even water), and calling them an "environmental group" when actually they are an activist group or pressure group. They are funded by the organic lobby ([8] has some useful detail). They are somewhat coy about it but not that coy. Above all they are known for inaccurate scare campaigns. The main function of their work is to promote the organic movement. Actually that is environmentally problematic, since organic agriculture (a) uses older or "traditional" inputs that in many cases are more persistent or more polluting, (b) can have more waste due to spoilage in the distribution chain and (c) is less efficient so requires more land to achieve the same amount of food. An "environmental" group that opposes GMOs, with their potential to produce more food from less land with less inputs, through factors such as drought resistance, is not an environmental organisation at all.

I think we should compromise at this point: strike "toxins" because it's a meaningless crunchy talking point, and use "activist group", because that is unarguably true and neutral (activism is neither good nor bad, the problem here is that their activism promotes pseudoscience and disinformation, but we can and do discuss that lower down). 

It's not a neutral force, is my point, and we should not portray it as such. Sierra Club are environmentalists, and their work promotes environmentalism.

EWG's work promotes the organic industry, pretty much exclusively, to the point that their 501(c)(4) lobbying arm spends pretty much zero money by now ([9]), it's all done by the 501(c)(3). A review of campaign activity shows "cosmetic safety", where they advocate against pesticides and GMOs, agriculture, where they argue for the organic industry and subsidies thereto, and against pesticides and GMOs, advocating for the (dis)HONEST Act. It is hard to find any area where their lobbying is not in lock-step with the organic industry. When I say hard, I mean I haven't found one in about four hours of searching. That could just be my weak Google-fu. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that "activist group" is a better fit, the argument that they aren't an environmental group because what they propose would be actually poor for the environment is not an effective one; even if one were only to see the side as you present it, that could just be a case of them being unwise rather than not having care for the environment as their goal. That they are backed by the organic industry gets us into the chicken-or-the-egg question that hits so many attempts to discuss advocacy. Is Senator Doodlebug anti-smurf control because he gets donations from the smurf manufacturers, or does he get donations from the smurf manufacturers because of his stance against smurf control? Sometimes these things are answerable, but at this point with this article, we have so little on the how-and-why of the founding of this group or its history aside from the listings of campaigns that we cannot state much, nor can it be clearly inferred from the information we present.

Which gets into a problem that this article has in general - while we have plenty of reliable sources discussing this announcement or that controversy of theirs, there is a lack of good RS coverage of the group as a whole. You depict yourself as spending hours looking at the examples trying to build a picture from it, which is a sign of that lack as well as raising some WP:OR concerns, were your findings to be applied to the article.) A good article covering them clearly would be very helpful, but you edit here enough to know that Wikipedia is not the place to create knowledge, merely to reflect it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that their claim to be an "environmental organization" is Orwellian. What they actually do is advocate for the organic industry. They are a lobbying and propaganda group promoting the organic agenda. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I've come across this article a few times even before the recent glyphosate business. Part of the problem is a lot of sources are fine in terms of WP:PARITY, but I haven't been that enthused about using them to really start editing the page. I'll try to keep an eye on this article a bit more though. There have been some papers on things like their "Dirty Dozen", so there are some higher quality sources out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section

At the moment, the article has a criticism section, which is made up of responses to EWG efforts that have their own sections above. It would be better if the individual criticisms were integrated into the coverage of those campaigns, rather than have the campaign and response separated like that. Would anyone object to the integration? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I favour integration. The criticism often provides a good third party source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing

I've tried to address a few problems recently, and an IP has been trying to undo them.

1. At some point, someone moved something by copying from the article as it appears instead of from the source code, which left non-linked numbers in brackets appearing where reference links should be.
2. Sourced criticism from university researchers was replaced by an unsourced claim that criticism came from agribusinesses like Monsanto.
3. Statements about a study regarding organic food consumption, which showed no link to EWG, were included. This is WP:SYNTH.
4. A critic was stated as working for agribusinesses, when the criticism being addressed happened before the employment being mentioned, at least as sourced. As such, that later employment has no shown relevance.

I have restored my version (which is largely the restoration of an older version.) I invite people to raise their concerns here. -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Another critique

Well written: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/when-chemicals-are-used-to-scare-you-about-food/2019/05/06/81a5cd20-6ced-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

Rejected and Requested Edits

Thank you all for engaging in a robust discussion of the best way to present and organization information about the Environmental Working Group.

Without submitting any further edits, I respectfully request that editors continue to update this page to better reflect Wikipedia’s mission to “provide a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner.” Misinformation continues to proliferate on both EWG’s Wikipedia entry and on the “Talk” page where editors discuss the page.

EWG is seen as a credible, science-based consumer watchdog organization by mainstream media and scientists, but this is not accurately represented by this page, the bulk of which continues to be talking points from critics of EWG.

In addition, repeated false claims among editors on the Talk page that EWG exists to lobby on behalf of the organic industry seem to be having a significant influence on the entry. EWG receives minimal funding from private companies; as you can see on our “Funding” page, nearly half of our funding comes from foundations, and about equal that from individuals: https://www.ewg.org/about-us/funding.

We also post our 990s on our website, which are very easy to find: https://www.ewg.org/about-us/irs-form-990.

Thank you for considering making this page more balanced to better reflect Wikipedia’s commitment to impartiality.

Alex Formuzis (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Alex Formuzis, Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources (see WP:RS). Self-published material is not generally acceptable, especially when it is promotional in nature or the subject is controversial (as is the case here). You might choose to believe that EWG is seen as a credible watchdog, but there are strong sources saying the opposite. Chemophobia and anti-GMO activism is considered a fringe view here, so we do not take claims at face value and our policies on fringe science apply. Guy (help!) 17:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Kavin Senapathy

I am removing the material cited to Kavin Senapathy for now. Per WP:FORBESCON, Forbes "contributor" material counts as a self-published source. When concern was raised above about that source, the page used to defend her was an interview on the website of a convention where she was appearing, and not a third-party source. I do not object to her material being re-added if better bona fides can be established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that this quote was restored but I can't find the Talk conversation explaining that. I'm trying to understand the Wiki policy on self-published sources. Can someone help me? Total newbie and not trying to step on any toes. Jbangles (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Expert sources can be used carefully in cases like this of a WP:FRINGE subject in terms of WP:PARITY. The bar is just a bit lower for their use in subjects like this. KoA (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticism in this article

This article doesn't seem to read much like an encyclopedia article about the "Environmental Working Group", but more like a "Criticisms of" article. The criticisms seem to outweigh any of the information about what the group does or its history.

Some of my concerns -- The Section "Dirty Dozen" doesn't explain what it is, and only lists criticism of the list. In the finances section, does the president's income from 2015 matter that much? Especially if it is cited to a single source, a rating website? The first section after the lead (which usually gives an overview of the topic or its history) starts with one short sentence mentioning "product safety warnings" before it delves into three separate criticisms, some of which don't seem to be from science experts -- as far as I can tell, Kavin Senapathy is a science activist (who was financially connected to Monsanto for awhile[10]) and James McWilliams is primarily a historian with a focus on US environmental history.

Can this be balanced out with views from scientists, EWG's actions, or the history of the EWG? I do question if the current article is proportional to what the reliable sources say about this organization or if it gives undue weight to criticisms. News sources still seem to cover the EWG's research and work (most recently, the NYTimes[11]), and I'm just slightly worried about heavily quoting opinion pieces or people who work for industries that the EWG criticizes. I welcome hearing others' thoughts, since it seems there are a few active editors on this article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing really seems out of line in terms of WP:DUE in this case. We need to be wary of WP:FALSEBALANCE whenever people are concerned about the group being correctly criticized. We're supposed to have heavy criticism of WP:FRINGE groups like this that scientists generally don't take seriously (to the point that "Dirty Dozen" list is called out in peer-reviewed literature). WP:PARITY also comes into play when dealing with such subjects too. In short, since the group's notability largely stems from scientific misinformation, we have to reflect that appropriately. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Thank you for sharing that info, because now I have some of the context I was missing but looking for. Undue weight might not be the right term here. To be blunt but hopefully more clear: this article is a lot of criticisms with very little context. I'm not concerned that there are criticisms (just to be clear, I'm not an advocate for this group, nor do I know much about them). I'm concerned that this doesn't read like an encyclopedic article. The lead reads fine to me. The rest of it is missing context and a general history of the organization, so regardless of the accuracy, it makes the article hard to read and makes it look undue (which is probably why I was concerned on first reading it, regardless of its accuracy).

The critics cited in this article usually outline what they are criticizing or the EWG's actions/work [12][13] alongside their criticisms. The Modern flat Earth societies article outlines history and theories while being sure to include that they are inaccurate, so that it does not overrepresent fringe organizations. I don't think including more context and a general history of the organization would give a false balance to the information. But it would help readers, and it would make this a more informative article.

I think my concerns above still apply - what is the Dirty Dozen? What product safety warnings are we talking about? Is the president's 2015 income somehow significant to an encyclopedia article about this organization? Should there be an opinion quote from an activist (without a science or environmental background) who is involved with Monsanto and the GMO movement? (On second look, I think the quote from the historian is fine.) Background information is missing, I'm just not sure which should be included to improve the article. I still welcome anyone's thoughts. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously. I found their site via EPA, looking for information about the number of PFAS contamination sites in the US. I was unfamiliar with "EWG" and went to Wiki to get the history. I was surprised at how negative the entry turned out to be. In fact, the entry is sufficiently negative to suggest that there has may have been a political battle waged rather than a primarily factual description of who they are and what they do. Consequently, I will discount most of the subjective elements and accept that EPA's link suggests reasonable scientific integrity. Rhoneyman (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3303 Adv Writing for Environmental Professions 151266

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Winnie-barkley (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WritingTeacherC (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

Hi everyone! I also noticed some issues with the bias in this article. I had added a few third-party sources that commented on some of the positive impacts that the EWG has had. I also updated the finances section and some charity reviews. Unfortunately, these changes had been reverted but I'm hoping we can keep working together to improve the article. Thank you for all of your feedback! Winnie-barkley (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. Keep in mind that WP:DUE weight that's part of our netural point of view policy is not the same as bias. The EWG has been pretty heavily criticized for what we call WP:FRINGE tactics when it comes to areas of food science, so we can't really "balance" that by actively looking for positive impacts. Instead we want to go by what independent sources have to say. In your recent edits, you were mostly citing the EWG itself, which is not a particularly reliable source and definitely isn't independent. For the Charity Watch source, it isn't clear how meaningful the ratings really are, and those types of rating sites tend to be avoided. For the remaining paragraph about the Guardian, etc. that is not what we call a WP:MEDRS source, and the Forbes source is basically just a blog post rather than coming from Forbes itself.

That's a lot to sort through, but given the mix of being a science topic and the fringe aspects of this group, the sourcing requirements and assessing due weight is a bit more stringent here that makes it a challenging topic for student editors to navigate (and your instructor should hopefully be aware of this). The main thing is what do reliable scholarly sources have to say about the advocacy group? That's what the current article is aiming to reflect while not giving undue weight to some of the advocacy the group engages in. KoA (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Charity reviews are best used with caution, because they aren't really rating the quality of the charity. Rather, they are trying to detect the scamminess of a charity -- are they spending their money on their goals, or on high pay for their directors and on fundraising? Do they offer clear information reports or no? So the National Committee to Promote Painting Puppies Purple to Prevent Polio would get high marks if they spent 97% of the money they raised buying advertising to advise you to paint your puppy purple.... even though painting puppies is a bad idea and would in no way prevent polio. So if the goal is for that to provide balance to claims questioning the quality of their science, it doesn't really address that. You had placed it in a section you titled "Public Opinion", which is a term generally used for polling data -- what the general public thinks of something. It doesn't apply to either a charity rating service nor someone writing in The Guardian. (And as a very minor tip for the future: section headers aren't supposed to get "Title Case" where You Capitalize Every Important Word, but "Sentence case" where capitalization is only added to the first word. But that's the sort of small thing that if you don't follow the standard, someone will just correct it rather than grrrring at you.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality Flag Discussion, July 2016

The Environmental Working Group is a hugely controversial organization, which is by no means mainstream. However, the Wikipedia entry for the page talks about EWG as an organization entirely without controversy. There needs to be clear unambiguous language in the page for EWG that mentions this.

First several articles that came up when I searched for "ewg junk science" in Google: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Digizen (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. Criticism in the lede and a centralized criticism section ought to alleviate the concerns.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Google search for "environmental working group junk science" is guaranteed to cherry-pick negative articles. Unfortunately it sweeps in a lot of sources that don't meet WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS, and are often paid public relations operations advocating the interests of the chemical industry. Advocacy organizations can be a useful contribution to the public debate, but (like the EWG) they should be identified as such, and their negative assessments of the EWG shouldn't be taken at face value. I would propose deleting every citation that doesn't meet WP:RS, unless it serves a useful purpose, and I would put the WP:NPOV flag up again until that problem is elminated. --Nbauman (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

@KoA I think this revert has two main issues:

• Why should we get into criticisms of the organisation without having even described WHAT the organisation does? It seems extreme and doesn't make sense.
• moving the content into a specific section doesn't mean "shunting all the problems to the end of the article" as if to hide them. If anything it makes them more visible and easily accessible by creating a specific criticism section that appears in the table of contents.

What do you think? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is general Wikipedian view that criticism and controversy sections are to be avoided when possible, with the material integrated into the article as a whole. You can see that discussed here. We even have Template:Criticism section to flag that very concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not a hard rule that must always be followed, but there's been plenty of conversation about not having a criticism section, and having the issues integrated has been the stable version for quite some time. It is preferred in articles about WP:FRINGE groups like this because it effectively separates criticism that is required to present the fringe groups point of view. Effectively, that means the viewpoint is presented without proper context in a given section.

In short, we generally describe what fringe groups do based on what reliable sources say about them in proper WP:DUE context. Because of the nature of such groups, that's typically going to be through those criticizing the group, especially in terms of WP:GEVAL. There's actually a really good example description of how we'd do that in the journal article on the Dirty Dozen I've been meaning to expand on a bit. KoA (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that essay. I totally agree with it. I think @KoA you are actually turning it on its head. The point of NOT having that section is that: In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.. Since we agree here that that attention is not undue (there are several notable criticisms of EWG published on reliable sources) we can include that section without issues. We cannot overload the article with ONLY criticism material and remove any other content. That would just make it unreadable (as it currently is). As the linked article says: In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.. This applies exactly to this article so I think WP:CSECTION supports my view that we should create a separate section. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I think the criticism section should include "general" commentary on EWG's activity. But we should leave specific criticisms on specific activities in the other sections. That would make the article much easier to follow and read. It's the the approach I used in my (since reverted) original edit. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There's already been plenty of discussion on criticism sections, prior to this recent one, and this doesn't really add anything new. As for We cannot overload the article with ONLY criticism material and remove any other content., no one is overloading anything. It's just following WP:NPOV or especially WP:GEVAL policy. In this case, the due weight falls on criticism of the organization's tactics. KoA (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been discussed partially several times and some have pointed out that this article is problematic in this respect. After reviewing the previous discussions I am not convinced there is a solid consensus and I think we have some issues to fix here once and for all. I'll tag previously involved editors to see if we can broaden the discussion (Talk:Environmental Working Group#Regarding adding of a criticism section for the article @Ini7 @Nbauman @Digizen, Talk:Environmental Working Group#Again the topic of criticism @Rap Chart Mike@Kingofaces43@Toddy1, Talk:Environmental Working Group#Criticism in this article). What I am proposing is simply to move (not remove) the general criticism of the organisation into a dedicated section (the material is abundant and can be expanded and improved - I already partially did that in some reverted edits) while leaving specific criticisms of specific claims in the contextual "activities" section. It just seems much more readable and follows WP:CSECTION. Referencing WP:NPOV or WP:DUE issues here is a contradiction as (per WP:CSECTION) adding a specific Criticism section gives additional weight to the criticisms. I think giving that additional visibility is warranted here though given the sources available. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

I've been reviewing the sources of the article to see how well they comply with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think there is a problem. For example:

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" about newer chemicals (such as oxybenzone) in its report and that their recommended products were based only on "very old technology" such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide."

The full quotation from that source includes:

Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos, a consulting professor at the Duke University School of Medicine and spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, who also tests sunscreen products in her laboratory, applauds the EWG for looking at the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens, but feels the group is making unfair "sweeping generalizations."

These citations throughout the article often cherry-pick negative comments and ignore the positive. When I see language like, "More bullshit from EWG," I suspect the editor isn't approaching this from a neutral POV.

I think Alex Formuzis, who properly identified himself and wrote his comments in Talk, followed WP:COI rules completely, and made some good points, which shouldn't be brushed aside by any editor who wants to write a fair article. --Nbauman (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just in the interest of accuracy, I'll note that Formuzis did not follow COI rules as completely as you claim. The account's first edit deleted huge chunks of criticism from the article, added promo material, replaced third-person sources with self-sources... all the sort of stuff that we want COI editors not to do, and with no statement of his connection to the group. Prior to that, Special:Contributions/65.210.77.98 added some of the same phrasing that the account added, so it seems rather probable that that was either earlier efforts by Formuzis or something internally coordinated at EWG. It was only after he was... well, you could say "caught", but I suspect "educated" is a more appropriate term, as many folks seem not to understand that expectations for a Wikipedia page differ from a LinkedIn page... that he posted the talk page material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There's WP:GEVAL policy at play there too. They're basically saying it's good for someone to have healthy interest, but the way they went about it was pretty off.

Either way, we can't cherry-pick positive things out like that when the recurrent theme on the group's actions are not that positive. We're supposed to be largely negative/critical if we're following NPOV policy here for a group like this. If anything, we're lacking a bit on just how much sources deal with problems from this group, but that can be expanded later. In the meantime, as long as we're not legitimizing other activities they do, there's also not a strong need to flesh that out yet either. KoA (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. The COI editor should be taken with a grain of salt obviously but not summarily dismissed. If the comments they made can be verified by independent reliable sources we should consider editing the article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:KoA, you're begging the question. You're assuming that EWG is a fringe group, that "the group's actions are not that positive," that "We're supposed to be largely negative/critical if we're following NPOV policy here for a group like this." No, first we have to decide whether EWG's actions are "not that positive." Most of the evidence for that cited here is from partisan, pro-industry, conservative sources, most of which don't meet WP:RS. As I review the sources, I see that the editor frequently quotes selectively to make the meaning more negative towards EWG. The editors here have eliminated some of the positive accomplishments that Alex Formuzis pointed out, such as the DuPont PFOA case. Last Sunday's New York Times had an article on perfluoroalkyls and polyfluoroalkyls, and the Biden EPA has determined they're toxic and is restricting them. You may not agree, but the NYT and the EPA are WP:RS. If the EWG gave early warnings on PFOA, and the EPA agreed, that takes them out of the FRINGE category. And we should restore the DuPont case to the entry. --Nbauman (talk)

Here's another example of misleading editing. The WP article says, "EWG has been criticized for exaggerating the risks of chemicals." But the source (Bloomberg) says:

“It really opened our eyes,” recalls P&G’s Senior Scientist Rachel Zipperian, who at the time was doing product research for the Herbal Essences brand. “That was when we took a stand.” P&G, the 181-year-old maker of iconic brands like Ivory and Pantene, opted to partner with EWG and overhaul the brand instead of simply sticking to its own safety testing and research. The result: Two new Herbal Essences shampoos, which go on sale in January.

They represent the first “EWG-verified” products from a large company, and highlight how the non-profit is stepping in to compensate for the Food and Drug Administration’s light touch when it comes to regulating the cosmetics industry.

We should include a more representative excerpt from the Bloomberg article, which is a WP:RS, and delete the articles which are not WP:RS. —Nbauman (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Nbauman, I'll ignore the attempt to pretty blatantly misrepresent me (please read WP:TPNO). It's the sources that establish the fringe nature of this group. There's also a point where people taking to a talk page to try to claim a group isn't fringe that fought against the scientific consensus on GMOs, pushed the idea that vaccines cause autism, etc. and have been widely panned for that kind of stuff is just not appropriate use of an article talk page. If you need guidance on dealing with fringe topics WP:FTN is a good place to ask for advice on how we actually use NPOV policy in relation to fringe subjects. KoA (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What specifically did I say that "blatantly misrepresent[ed]" you?--Nbauman (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Information to be added or removed:

Extended content

Sources 2, 3, 11, and 18 are from industry-backed groups or otherwise untrustworthy outlets, so text that is based on information from these sources should be deleted unless more trustworthy sources are found. Source 2 is from American Council on Science and Health, an organization that, as of 2013, got 58% of its funding from industries that EWG criticizes, including the chemical companies 3M and Bayer. [19] Source 3 is from the Genetic Literacy Project, which has strong ties to Bayer’s recent acquisition, Monsanto. [20] EWG has been highly critical of Monsanto’s flagship product, Roundup. Source 11 is from the Center for Accountability in Science, which is run by Richard Berman. Berman is a lobbyist hired by industry groups to undermine the industries’ critics, which he often does by creating nonprofits that are tied to his lobbying firm. [21] [22] [23] Source 18 is from Chemist’s Corner, a blog run almost exclusively by one guy, Perry Romanowski. Romanowski never provides any sources--reputable or otherwise--for his criticisms of EWG, has published no peer-reviewed articles, and wrote a book promoting lead in cosmetics as safe. [24] Information that could be added: In June of 2019, EWG published a peer-reviewed study that shows that nitrate pollution of tap water may be responsible for up to 12,594 cases of cancer per year. [25] Information that could be added: EWG’s studies, scientists, and leaders are regularly quoted in national news outlets, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and CBS. [26] [27] [28] Where the Steve Savage study is described under “Dirty Dozen,” text should be added to clarify that just because pesticide residues are below the EPA limit does not necessarily mean that produce is safe. The United States has extremely weak toxics regulation that has not been significantly updated since 1976, despite pressure from scientists to regulate some pesticides and other toxics more strictly to protect human health, so compliance with EPA regulation does not equal safety. [29] [30] Information that could be updated because the article mentions a much older version of an annual study: EWG’s annual sunscreen guide for 2019 found that about ⅓ of sunscreens meet EWG’s safety criteria. [31] EWG generates these guides to fill gaps in consumer protection, because current FDA regulation allows use of the active ingredient oxybenzone, which a study by the FDA itself found is absorbed into the skin at unsafe levels. [32] Information that could be included: EWG advocates for stronger chemical regulation, because the EPA’s approach is to assume new chemicals are safe until proven otherwise. [33] EWG warns about some untested and unregulated chemicals, including many widely used pesticides like glyphosate (marketed as Roundup) either because of existing science that indicates concerning human health impacts or because existing science does not definitively rule out human health risk. [34] Information that could be included: In 2017, EWG, along with four other consumer, health, and food safety groups, sued the FDA to challenge a rule that lets food and chemical companies decide that food additives are safe, despite a congressional requirement that the FDA itself approve new food additives. [35] [36] A Pew Charitable Trusts study found that manufacturers decided that almost all food additives they introduced over the last decade were safe. [37] Explanation of issue: As detailed above, some of the sources used are questionable, and other text could use clarification, updating, or inclusion. References supporting change: (Also listed as line references in the section above) [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

Lotsotypso (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 23-JUL-2019

  Specification requested  

• It is not known what specific changes are requested to be made. Any changes in the text that you wish to have made, including any sentences that you wish to have removed, need to be stated here verbatim. An example way to request the changes would be "Change x to y using z", as shown in the collapsed box below.

Change x to y using z

X A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any) Y A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any) Z A reference which verifies the requested change Example edit request: Please remove: "The Sun's diameter is 25 miles." ↑ This is X ↑ Please add: "The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles." ↑ This is Y ↑ using this as the reference: Harinath, Paramjit (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. ↑ This is Z ↑

Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed.
Regards,  Spintendo  21:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some proposed changes

Feel free to make edits other than the ones I requested--I know that you’ll be wary of making edits suggested by a connected contributor. However, my main concern is that, as I point out below, most published criticism of EWG comes from groups funded by chemical companies that EWG criticizes. Groups that frequently criticize EWG include the Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health, which are funded by chemical manufacturers, and Chemist’s Corner/Perry Romanowski, who never provides sources and has produced some dubious science in the past (see below for references on this). If adding criticism of EWG to this article in the future, please check the credibility of the source, and find out who is funding them.

Extended content

Please remove: Source number 8, “How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies?” Explanation of issue: This source is not trustworthy. It is an article from the Center for Accountability in Science, which is founded and operated by Richard Berman. Berman is a lobbyist hired by industry groups to undermine the industries’ critics, which he often does by creating nonprofits that are tied to his lobbying firm. References: O’Donnell, Jayne, July 31, 2006. Got a nasty fight? Here's your man USA Today. 2014. Who is Richard Berman? Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW Staff, August 2, 2014. Berman Enlists Industry Scientist for Latest Projet, Flip-Flops on Cancer Risk of Tanning. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Please remove: The accuracy of the EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic lobby. Explanation of issue: The source for this statement, a Skeptoid article, lists in its references several sources that were previously removed from this article for being untrustworthy industry-backed groups, as well as the “How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies?” article listed above as untrustworthy. These references include an article from the American Council on Science and Health. As of 2013, this council got 58% of its funding from industries that EWG criticises, including the chemical companies 3M and Bayer. Another citation in the Skeptoid article is from the Center for Organizational Research and Education, another one of Richard Berman’s industry-backed nonprofits. Another citation is from Perry Romanowski, who frequently attacks EWG while providing no sources for his claims, has never published a peer-reviewed paper, and has a book that promotes lead in cosmetics as safe. Two more Skeptoid citations are from Biology Fortified, which has ties to the chemical company Monsanto and the Genetic Literacy Project (which is also funded by Monsanto). References: Kroll, Andy, and Jeremy Schulman, October 28, 2013. Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group. Mother Jones. Biology Fortified, Inc. Sourcewatch.org. Center for Organizational Research and Education. Desmogblog. It’s Okay to Have Lead in Your Lipstick. Amazon.com. Please add under “Chemicals and Human Health”: In June of 2019, EWG published a peer-reviewed study that shows that nitrate pollution of tap water may be responsible for up to 12,594 cases of cancer per year. In 2017, EWG, along with four other consumer, health, and food safety groups, sued the FDA to challenge a rule that lets food and chemical companies decide that food additives are safe, despite a congressional requirement that the FDA itself approve new food additives. A Pew Charitable Trusts study found that manufacturers decided that almost all food additives they introduced over the last decade were safe. References: Temkin, Alexis, Sydney Evans, Tatiana Manidis, Chris Campbell, and Olga V. Naidenko, June 11, 2019. Exposure-based assessment and economic valuation of adverse birth outcomes and cancer risk due to nitrate in United States drinking water. Environmental Research. Daley, Jason, March 7, 2019. Over 2,000 Questionable Additives Are Lurking in Packaged Food. Sierra Magazine. Wellspeak, Alanna, May 22, 2017. Groups Sue FDA to Protect Food Safety. Environmental Working Group. Fixing the Oversight of Chemicals Added to Our Food. Pew Charitable Trusts. Please add after the paragraph on the 2009 sunscreen report: EWG’s annual sunscreen guide for 2019 found that about ⅓ of sunscreens meet EWG’s safety criteria. EWG generates these guides to fill gaps in consumer protection, because current FDA regulation allows use of the active ingredient oxybenzone, which a study by the FDA itself found is absorbed into the skin at unsafe levels. References 2019. EWG’s 13th Annual Guide to Sunscreens. Environmental Working Group. Matta, Murali K., Robbert Zusterzeel, and Nageswara R. Pilli, May 6, 2019. Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients. JAMA. Please add at the end of the “Dirty Dozen” section: However, compliance with EPA regulations does not necessarily mean that pesticides are safe. This is because the United States has extremely weak toxics regulation that has not been significantly updated since 1976, despite pressure from scientists to regulate some pesticides and other toxics more strictly to protect human health. References: Wilson, Michael P., and Megan R. Schwarzman, February 9, 2009. Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. Eilis O’Neill, February 26, 2019. Will An Appeals Court Make The EPA Ban A Pesticide Linked To Serious Health Risks? NPR’s The Salt. Please add to the end of the introduction: EWG advocates for stronger chemical regulation, because current EPA policy is to assume that new chemicals are safe until proven otherwise. EWG warns about some untested and unregulated chemicals, including many widely used pesticides like glyphosate (marketed as Roundup) either because of existing science that indicates concerning human health impacts or because existing science does not definitively rule out human health risk. EWG’s studies, scientists, and leaders are regularly quoted in national news outlets, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and CBS. References: Wilson, Michael P., and Megan R. Schwarzman, February 9, 2009. Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. Chemical Policy (TSCA). Environmental Working Group. Del Real, Jose A., May 21, 2019. They Grow the Nation’s Food, but They Can’t Drink the Water. The New York Times. Knickmeyer, Ellen, May 22, 2019. Research on children’s health risks in doubt over EPA funds. Associated Press. August 15, 2018. Weed-killing chemical linked to cancer found in some children's breakfast foods. CBS News.

Lotsotypso (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 19-AUG-2019

  Additional specification requested  

• Thank you for making the earlier suggested changes to the formatting of your request, they are much appreciated.
• In those suggested changes, it was mentioned that each claim needed to have a reference appended to it. In the current edit request, there are instances where multiple claims have been provided with multiple references, but with no way to differentiate them.
• When proposing edit requests it is important to highlight in the text, through the use of ref tags, which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. The point of these inline ref tags is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point will be lost if the ref tags are not clearly placed. Note the examples below:

Examples

No ref tags provided The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. References       1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.       2. Harinath, Paramjit. (2019) "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.       3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2. In the first example above there are three references provided, but the claim statements do not contain ref tags indicating which reference applies where. The references instead have been placed outside of the text, placed together towards the bottom. Your edit request similarly bundles the references together outside of the area of the text. In the example from my previous reply, I showed one claim being provided with one reference. In that way, it was clear which reference went with which claim. This is not the case with the latest edit request. These links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below: Ref tags provided The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. References

• In the second example above, the links between the provided references and their claim statement ref tags are perfectly clear. Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  02:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Addressing the requested edits:

• First request:  Not done. This is WP:SYN. A runs B, B criticises C, A is criticised, therefore the published criticism of C is invalid - in fact it exhibits precisely the issue being complained of, that activists are partisan. I have added more sources. ACSH is a credible organisation.
• Second request:  Not done. I have added more sources. Once again the principal argument is "because Berman", which is not compelling. The sources provided are non-wonderful and there is no question that EWG's reports have been criticised as inaccurate, scaremongering and the rest. We're not here to decide that these criticisms are invalid because we don't like one of the peopel who makes them.
• Third request:  Not done. "X published Y, source, Y published by X" does not work. For claims like this we require proper review studies, not primary research funded by lobbying organisations.
• Fourth request:  Not done. EWG's "safety" criteria are not significant and the balance is WP:SYN.
• Fifth request:  Not done per WP:SYN.
• Sixth request:  Not done. WP:NOTPR. "X has been quoted in the media, source, X being quoted in the media" is a PR claim and not a third party source.

Feel free to find reliable independent secondary sources that analyse the specifics and conclude that (a) EWG is not tied tot he organic lobby, (b) its work is scientifically accurate and not scaremongering and (c) it is generally accepted by the scientific community. We have been looking at this for years, and none of those things have been demonstrated to date. It seems unliekly that smeone paid by EWG will be the eprson to bring this to us. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested changes to Environmental Working Group page

Hello editors,

Please see below requested edits to the “Environmental Working Group” Wikipedia entry, sorted by section.

In summary, our main concern is that, as we point out below, most published criticism of EWG comes from groups funded by chemical companies that EWG criticizes. This is a clear conflict of interest that should be addressed whenever any changes are requested or made to EWG’s Wikipedia page. Ideally, the page would be protected from edits to prevent text from being quickly reverted back to the clearly biased text we are trying to address.

Groups that frequently criticize EWG include the Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health, which are funded by chemical manufacturers, as well as Chemist’s Corner/Perry Romanowski, who never provides sources and has produced some dubious science in the past (see below for references on this).

If considering adding criticism of EWG to this article in the future, we request you first check the credibility of the source, and find out who is funding them.

Thanks very much in advance for your consideration.

Best,

Alex

Requested changes:

INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

Please remove: The accuracy of the EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic lobby.

Explanation of issue: The source for this statement, a Skeptoid article, lists in its references several sources that were previously removed from this article for being untrustworthy industry-backed groups, as well as the “How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies?” article listed below as untrustworthy.

These references include an article from the American Council on Science and Health. As of 2013, this council got 58% of its funding from industries that EWG criticises, including the chemical companies 3M and Bayer.

Another citation in the Skeptoid article is from the Center for Organizational Research and Education, another one of Richard Berman’s industry-backed nonprofits.

A third citation is from Perry Romanowski, who frequently attacks EWG while providing no sources for his claims, has never published a peer-reviewed paper, and has a book that promotes lead in cosmetics as safe.

Two more Skeptoid citations are from Biology Fortified, which has ties to the chemical company Monsanto and the Genetic Literacy Project (which is also funded by Monsanto).

References Kroll, Andy, and Jeremy Schulman, October 28, 2013. Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group. Mother Jones. Biology Fortified, Inc. Sourcewatch.org. Center for Organizational Research and Education. Desmogblog. It’s Okay to Have Lead in Your Lipstick. Amazon.com.

Please remove: Its warnings have been labeled “alarmist”, “scaremongering” and “misleading.”

Explanation of issue: The sources listed for this statement are a Guardian article, a Financial Post article, and an article by The American Spectator. The Guardian article includes a statement on the Environmental Working Group being “notedly alarmist,” but this links to a story that makes no such statement.

The Financial Post is an unreliable source and has caused controversy in the past by publishing false stories. The author, Terence Corcoran, does not list any sources to back up his claims about the EWG in the cited piece.

The American Spectator is a source of questionable legitimacy. It is funded primarily by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has faced a variety of controversies for various offenses, including having ties to Russian fascists and funding voter suppression, according to Source Watch.

None of these sources lists factual evidence to support their claims.

References Koch, W. (2010, December 22). EPA acts to address likely carcinogen in U.S. tap water. Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/12/epa-chromium-6-tap-water/1#.Xl1qd9ZKj1J Our mistake: Note to readers. (2012, September 4). Retrieved from https://archive.is/20120904174351/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=6df3e493-f350-4b53-bc16-53262b49a4f7 Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation

Please remove: Despite the questionable status of its work, EWG has been influential.

Explanation of issue: This is clearly a biased statement. EWG is a respected, reliable, widely quoted organization funded in part by mainstream foundations.

Furthermore, the Bloomberg article listed as a source for this statement does not bring into question the “status” of EWG’s work at all. In fact, it paints the work EWG has been doing in a very positive light. Also, the link listed at the bottom for this article takes you to an “are you a robot” captcha.

References Kary, T. (2018, December 12). Revenge of the Chemistry Nerds: P&G Teams With Health Watchdog. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-12/revenge-of-the-chemistry-nerds-p-amp-g-teams-with-health-watchdog

Please add to the end of the introduction:

EWG advocates for stronger chemical regulation, because current EPA policy is to assume that new chemicals are safe until proven otherwise. EWG warns about some untested and unregulated chemicals, including many widely used pesticides like glyphosate (marketed as Roundup) either because of existing science that indicates concerning human health impacts or because existing science does not definitively rule out human health risk.

EWG’s studies, scientists, and leaders are regularly quoted in national mainstream news outlets, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and CBS.

References Wilson, Michael P., and Megan R. Schwarzman, February 9, 2009. Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. Chemical Policy (TSCA). Environmental Working Group. Del Real, Jose A., May 21, 2019. They Grow the Nation’s Food, but They Can’t Drink the Water. The New York TImes. Knickmeyer, Ellen, May 22, 2019. Research on children’s health risks in doubt over EPA funds. Associated Press. August 15, 2018. Weed-killing chemical linked to cancer found in some children's breakfast foods. CBS News.

CHEMICALS AND HUMAN HEALTH

Please change the following: Their Guide to Pesticides in Produce lists 44 fruits and vegetables based on the number of pesticides that were found to contain according to United States Department of Agriculture data.

To: EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, released every year since 2004, ranks the pesticide contamination of 47 popular fruits and vegetables. It is based on results of more than 43,000 samples of produce tested by USDA and the Food and Drug Administration.

References Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). EWG's 2019 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php CBS News. (2011, June 13). Pesticide alert: 12 most contaminated fruits and veggies. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/pesticide-alert-12-most-contaminated-fruits-and-veggies/

Please change the following under “Chemicals and human health”: The organization has also constructed a database of tap water testing results from public water utilities.[10][better source needed]

To: EWG maintains a national Tap Water Database, detailing contaminants in nearly 50,000 water utilities in every state. The free, user-friendly database is the most comprehensive consumer resource available on drinking water quality in the U.S. The most recent database update was released in October 2019, and includes 32 million utility test results for 517 different contaminants or contaminant groups.

References: 'Meets All Government Standards': EWG'S 2019 Tap Water Database Details Unsafe Contamination in Communities Nationwide. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/release/meets-all-government-standards-ewg-s-2019-tap-water-database-details-unsafe-contamination Bender, R. G. (2019, October 23). How safe is your tap water? This database can tell you. Retrieved from https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/how-safe-is-your-tap-water-this-database-can-tell-you-133712033.html Aria Bendix, B. I. U. S. (2019, October 24). An environmental group found arsenic and chromium in tap water in all 50 US states. Here's how to check what's in your taps. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.sg/environmental-working-group-tap-water-database-contaminants-2019-10 Truthout. (2019, October 27). New data show severity of water contamination in poor neighborhoods. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2019/10/27/new-data-show-severity-of-water-contamination-in-poor-neighborhoods_partner/

Please add: EWG is the leading advocacy group mapping PFAS contamination of drinking water across the U.S. Per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals, are a family of thousands of chemicals used to make water-, grease- and stain-repellent coatings for a vast array of consumer goods and industrial applications. Because these substances, which include Teflon and Gen X, are notoriously persistent in the environment and the human body, they are often referred to as “forever chemicals.” Some have been linked to serious health hazards.

In February 2020, EWG published a peer-reviewed study that found the EPA has failed to add the Food Quality Protection Act-mandated children’s health safety factor to the allowable limits for almost 90 percent of the most common pesticides.

In September 2019, EWG published a peer-reviewed study that chemical pollutants of U.S. drinking water could result in more than 100,000 cancer cases, the first study to conduct a cumulative assessment of cancer risks due to 22 carcinogenic contaminants found in drinking water nationwide.

In June 2019, EWG published a peer-reviewed study that showed that nitrate pollution of tap water may be responsible for up to 12,594 cases of cancer per year.

In 2017, EWG, along with four other consumer, health, and food safety groups, sued the FDA to challenge a rule that lets food and chemical companies decide that food additives are safe, despite a congressional requirement that the FDA itself approve new food additives. A Pew Charitable Trusts study found that manufacturers decided that almost all food additives they introduced over the last decade were safe.

References PFAS Chemicals. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/key-issues/toxics/nonstick-chemicals Brasileiro, A. (2020, February 21). Environmental agency proposes to regulate 'forever chemicals' in drinking water. Retrieved from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article240488166.html Naidenko, Olga V. February 10, 2020. Application of the Food Quality Protection Act children’s health safety factor in the U.S. EPA pesticide risk assessments. Environmental Health. Evans, Sydney, Chris Campbell, and Olga V. Naidenko. September 18, 2019. Cumulative risk analysis of carcinogenic contaminants in United States drinking water. Heliyon. Temkin, Alexis, Sydney Evans, Tatiana Manidis, Chris Campbell, and Olga V. Naidenko, June 11, 2019. Exposure-based assessment and economic valuation of adverse birth outcomes and cancer risk due to nitrate in United States drinking water. Environmental Research. Daley, Jason, March 7, 2019. Over 2,000 Questionable Additives Are Lurking in Packaged Food. Sierra Magazine. Wellspeak, Alanna, May 22, 2017. Groups Sue FDA to Protect Food Safety. Environmental Working Group. Fixing the Oversight of Chemicals Added to Our Food. Pew Charitable Trusts.

Please add the following references: Skin Deep(R) EWG Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ Brar, F., Brar, F., & Anonymous. (2020, January 29). The Documentary 'Toxic Beauty' Explores How Unregulated Beauty Products Can Make People Sick. Retrieved from https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/toxic-beauty-documentary-unregulated-cosmetics-dangers Zanolli, L. (2019, May 23). Why smelling good could come with a cost to health. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/fragrance-perfume-personal-cleaning-products-health-issues Rosenstein, J., & Fleming, O. (2019, August 21). The Ultimate Guide To Clean Beauty. Retrieved from https://www.harpersbazaar.com/beauty/skin-care/a28352553/clean-beauty/ Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). EWG's 2019 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). EWGs Tap Water Database: Whats in Your Drinking Water? Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/tapwater

DIRTY DOZEN

Please remove: Source number 14, “How Dirty Are Your Fruits and Veggies?”

Explanation of issue: This source is not trustworthy. It is an article from the Center for Accountability in Science, which is founded and operated by Richard Berman. Berman is a lobbyist hired by industry groups to undermine the industries’ critics, which he often does by creating nonprofits that are tied to his lobbying firm.

References O’Donnell, Jayne, July 31, 2006. Got a nasty fight? Here's your man USA Today. 2014. Who is Richard Berman? Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW Staff, August 2, 2014. Berman Enlists Industry Scientist for Latest Project, Flip-Flops on Cancer Risk of Tanning. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Please add to the end of the “Dirty Dozen” section: However, compliance with EPA regulations does not necessarily mean that pesticides are safe. This is because the United States has extremely weak toxics regulation that has not been significantly updated since 1976, despite pressure from scientists to regulate some pesticides and other toxics more strictly to protect human health.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s safety levels, called “tolerances,” help agency regulators determine whether farmers are applying pesticides properly. If tolerance levels were set to protect all children eating produce, as EWG believes they should be, more fruits and vegetables would fail to meet them.

In fact, a recent EWG investigation found that the EPA has failed to add the Food Quality Protection Act-mandated children’s health safety factor to the allowable limits for almost 90 percent of the most common pesticides.

References Wilson, Michael P., and Megan R. Schwarzman, February 9, 2009. Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. Eilis O’Neill, February 26, 2019. Will An Appeals Court Make The EPA Ban A Pesticide Linked To Serious Health Risks? NPR’s The Salt. Naidenko, Olga V. February 10, 2020. Application of the Food Quality Protection Act children’s health safety factor in the U.S. EPA pesticide risk assessments. Environmental Health.

SUNSCREENS

Please add after the paragraph on the 2010 sunscreen report:

EWG’s annual sunscreen guide for 2019 found that about one-third of sunscreens meet EWG’s safety criteria. EWG generates these guides to fill gaps in consumer protection, because current FDA regulation allows use of the active ingredient oxybenzone, which a study by the FDA itself found is absorbed into the skin at unsafe levels.

References 2019. EWG’s 13th Annual Guide to Sunscreens. Environmental Working Group. Matta, Murali K., Robbert Zusterzeel, and Nageswara R. Pilli, May 6, 2019. Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients. JAMA.

OTHER PROJECTS

Please remove: 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.

Explanation of issue: James McWilliams does not write that there is little evidence to support the claims, but admits that the scenarios are possible, and that the pesticide mentioned is harmful to human health, despite the title of the article.

References McWilliams, J. (2014, September 3). How the Environmental Working Group Sells Its Message Short. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/social-justice/hidden-cost-fear-mongering-environmental-working-group-sells-message-short-90037

Please remove: 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. Unfortunately, the EWG misuses that transparency in a manipulative way to drive their fear-based, organic marketing agenda.

Explanation of issue: This quote comes from a Forbes article written by Steven Savage. Mr. Savage does not have a degree in toxicology or any experience in the field of toxicology. His education is in plant pathology, which does not make him an expert in how pesticides affect human beings. His impartiality is called into question by the fact that he previously worked for DuPont, a famous chemical manufacturing company, and currently works for the CropLife Foundation, a trade association of agrochemical companies.

References Steven Savage. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/#1270f70b430f Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://croplife.org/

Please remove: According to Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy, the EWG "frightens consumers about chemicals and their safety, cloaking fear mongering in a clever disguise of caring and empowerment. Criticism of the organization, whose rhetoric is dirtier than any fruit or veggie on its list, boils down to two main points: 1) The methodologies EWG uses in analysis on food, cosmetics, children’s products and more are fundamentally flawed and 2) The EWG is largely funded by the very companies its shopping recommendations help. Take again, for example, the annual Dirty Dozen list. A 2011 paper published in the Journal of Toxicology concludes that 'consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG's Dirty Dozen commodity list are at negligible levels' and 'the EWG methodology is insufficient to allow any meaningful rankings among commodities.'[26] (Note: Their methodology hasn’t really changed in the last five years.)"[4]

Explanation of issue: Kavin Senapathy is an opinion writer, not a journalist. She also holds no scientific credentials.

The main source Ms. Senapathy uses to back her criticism is a piece from Activist Facts, a site created by the nonprofit the Center for Organizational Research and Education. This nonprofit was founded by Richard Berman, a lobbyist for the fast food, meat, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Its nonprofit status has been called into question by experts on nonprofit law for various offenses, including the embezzlement of over $7 million in charitable contribution by Berman himself.

Ms. Senapathy is not a credible source and has several clear conflicts of interest that should render her an inappropriate source for any EWG Wikipedia entry content. Her LinkedIn page lists her as a member of the advisory board of Genomic International Corporation, a GMO company; EWG has been critical of GMO companies and products. Furthermore, SourceWatch lists her as a pro-GMO activist and a contributor to Science 2.0 and the Genetic Literacy Project, both of which are funded by chemical industry groups. Ms. Senapathy has also defended the use of glyphosate; EWG has criticized the widespread use of glyphosate as a dessicant on oats for the risks it poses to human health.

Forbes has removed several articles Ms. Senapathy contributed to its website for failing to meet the publication’s editorial standards.

References Kavin Senapathy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kavin_Senapathy Senapathy, K. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/in/kavinsenapathy/ Malkan, S. (2019, May 15). Why Forbes Deleted Some Kavin Senapathy Articles. Retrieved from https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/kavin_senapathy_henry_miller/

Alex Formuzis (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 Not done. This is almost too much to parse for an edit request, but first since your username is the same as EWG's VP of Communciation and Campaigns, please be sure to read WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO if you haven't already.

Most of these requests boil down to wanting to remove a source because they frequently criticize the EWG. That would violate multiple Wikipedia policies, especially WP:GEVAL. That especially applies to WP:FRINGE topics such as this where we also often rely on WP:PARITY of sources for criticisms of groups such as the EWG. None of the sources I see here really fall outside the parity bounds. Generally, the criticisms of the EWG have been very WP:DUE, and that isn't going to change without appropriate sourcing. It's better if you try to request focused edits, but please keep in mind this isn't a page for company talking points (or any company page for that matter). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of legitimate concerns here (Forbes "contributor" status is generally not sufficient, as Forbes does not stand behind those; they basically allow people to blog on their site.) However that is buried in a sea of promotional material that we're being asked to put into the article ("The free, user-friendly database is the most comprehensive consumer resource available on drinking water quality in the U.S.", "EWG is the leading advocacy group") and points of view they wish us to promote ("the United States has extremely weak toxics regulation"). This is an encyclopedia, not a LinkedIn page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about Savage, I'll admit I'd given up trying to give everything equal scrutiny before reaching that point. In that case though, that looks to be a WP:PARITY criticism by a subject-matter expert where blogs and the like can be acceptable sources when quoted like that in WP:DUE fashion (i.e., someone with a PhD in a pest field like plant pathology is expected to have a background in the subject matter they commented on). I'd definitely be in favor of finding better sources, but it's also not something of the sort requiring immediate removal either.

It's a similar case for Kavin Senapathy as a known reputable science communicator in this subject. Not a great source for nuts and bolts science, but the kind of comments that actually are in the article aren't out of her lane either. That paragraph could use a little rework though, so I might try tackling that in the next few days. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If Senapathy (whom I was specifically looking at) does have better credentials than "Forbes contributor", it would be helpful to include them for clarity; if she doesn't, than the material should probably be removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

NatGertler, see https://centerforinquiry.org/conferences/csicon/2016/interview-senapathy.html. Per WP:PARITY, she is a decent source for critique of bogus claims about GMOs, for example. Dr. Savage is a plant pathologist (quoted here and here, for example). Guy (help!) 23:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just rolled back seven edits the the main article by Kingofaces43, who seems to be a strongly connected contributor per the above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Oopsee, this dang post is so long that I mixed the editor names up. Restoring. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I was trying to figure trying to picture how me working for a such a group would ever work out, so I got a good chuckle out of that. Hopefully the main issues that us non-connected editors caught are somewhat taken care of in that string of edits I just made. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Hi editors, Please note that the second part of this opinion quote still included in this article is blatantly false: “The accuracy of EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic food industry...“. If this quote must for some reason remain as-is in this article despite its inaccuracy, please supplement it with the correct information — “In reality, the vast majority of EWG’s funding actually comes from foundations and individuals, and a very small percentage from the organic industry and other companies” — along with the link to EWG’s funding page, which clearly shows this breakdown (https://www.ewg.org/about-us/funding) and includes annual financial reports.

Please also consider adding the following to the Shopper’s Guide section. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises pediatricians to consult “reliable resources that provide information on the relative pesticide content of various fruits and vegetables,” including EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce.[57]

Alex Formuzis (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There doesn't appear to be anything "blatantly "false" when looking at the multiple sources for that sentence. They all generally touch on some aspect about criticisms due to accuracy or ties to the organic industry. What you just said doesn't refute that either, and in reality, we still need independent sources, not the EWG. As mentioned before, we also have specific policies (WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, etc.) about trying to call heavily criticized organizations "reliable sources" even if someone can find a stray source that claims so. A single source like that can't outweigh all the others that dive into some depth on the issues with EWG's reporting in scientific topics. Also keep in mind that even the source itself says the recommendations expire after 5 years unless reaffirmed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)