Talk:Environmental Working Group

Senapathy

@Graywalls: For your recent edits, I wanted to note that there has been at least some support voiced that Senapathy is actually a sufficient source for the things that she had been used for in the article. See this discussion, for example. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd echo that discussion too with Guy's comments about Senapathy. She's a decent WP:PARITY source on these subjects when it comes to critiquing fringe stuff in the food realm. She generally would be reliable as a science communicator. I wouldn't use her for things requiring MEDRS, but the short of it is that previous discussion has held that she is reliable as a subject matter expert, so the use of Forbes articles in this context was ok. KoA (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Although, if we have to rely on such thing, it could be undue. Graywalls (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Finances and funding

I don't think that there is a good reason to delete this whole section that has been in the article since 2023. Leyo 20:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed additions

Thank you for taking the time to leave such detailed feedback on my previous request. Based on your advice, I'm resubmitting three suggestions (1, 2, and 3) with a few revisions and MEDRS citations. I've also included three new suggestions (4, 5, and 6) in this request. I look forward to your response.

1. Pesticides in Children's Food

In June 1993, the EWG released its first major report, Pesticides in Children’s Food, which analyzed laboratory tests of more than 20,000 food samples alongside federal dietary data, to estimate children's exposure to pesticide residues. The 1993 report laid the groundwork for EWG's later annual publication, the Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, which ranks fruits and vegetables based on pesticide contamination data.

MEDRS: The paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce to pediatricians: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/5/e1406/32522/Organic-Foods-Health-and-Environmental-Advantages?autologincheck=redirected

News citation for other facts: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/27/us/us-will-focus-on-reducing-pesticides-in-food-production.html

2. Skin Deep database

In 2004, EWG launched the Skin Deep database, which evaluates the toxicity of personal care products. Subsequently, in 2015, EWG started its "EWG Verified" trademark licensing program for consumer products that meet its ingredient safety criteria.

MEDRS: International Journal of women’s dermatology: https://journals.lww.com/ijwd/fulltext/2025/06000/safety_and_accessibility_of_commercially_available.11.aspx

MEDRS: 2025 peer-reviewed in the National Institutes For Health National Library of Medicine: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12583145/

News citation for other facts: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-12/revenge-of-the-chemistry-nerds-p-amp-g-teams-with-health-watchdog

3. Glyphosate residues in oat-based foods

In August 2018, EWG published results from laboratory testing of oat-based breakfast foods, reporting that 31 of the 45 products tested contained glyphosate at levels it considered harmful. While these levels were within limits deemed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, EWG argued that the federal standards were outdated and called for stricter regulation of long-term, low-level exposure to the chemical.

MEDRS: Cited in the peer-reviewed study published by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Chemical Sciences Division: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814620320756

News citation for other facts: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/glyphosate-oat-products-ewg-study/index.html

4. Body Burden

In 2005, EWG published a study, titled Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns, analyzing chemical contamination in umbilical cord blood.

MEDRS: Fall, 2009 - The Journal of Perinatal Education: Environmental Hazards Education for Childbirth Educators: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2776525/

MEDRS: January, 2010 – Environmental Health Perspectives journal: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2831984/

News citation for other facts: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8567514

5. Farm Subsidy Database

In 1995, EWG launched the Farm Subsidy Database, an online resource that compiles and analyzes U.S. federal farm subsidy payments. As of 2024, it documents data of more than $539 billion in subsidies paid since 1995, and is cited by journalists, researchers, policy think tanks, and other advocacy groups.

News citations:

• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-03-16-mn-43471-story.html
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/05/know-your-farm-subsidies-know-your-food/56341
• https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies
• https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&page=conc&progcode=total

6. California laws co-sponsored by EWG

EWG has co-sponsored multiple California bills that were signed into law. These include the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act of 2011, which limited bisphenol A (BPA) levels in baby bottles and sippy cups; the California Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act of 2020, which banned several chemicals from cosmetics; the California Food Safety Act of 2023, which banned four food chemical ingredients, including Red Dye No. 3; the California School Food Safety Act of 2024, which banned six food dyes in schools; and the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act of 2025, which defined and banned ultra-processed foods (UPFs) from K–12 school meals.

News citations:

• Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act of 2011: https://oaklandnorth.net/2011/10/07/new-california-law-will-limit-bisphenol-a-in-products-for-infants-and-toddlers/
• California Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act of 2020: https://wwd.com/beauty-industry-news/beauty-features/feature/california-toxic-free-cosmetics-act-gavin-newsom-1234617158/ & https://www.allure.com/story/california-toxic-free-cosmetics-act-ban-chemicals-beauty-products
• California Food Safety Act of 2023: https://abcnews.com/GMA/Food/landmark-ca-bill-ban-harmful-food-chemicals-spares/story?id=103150822
• California School Food Safety Act of 2024: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/30/health/california-food-dye-ban-schools-wellness
• Real Food, Healthy Kids Act of 2025: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/08/health/ultraprocessed-food-ban-california-wellness

Manaokin (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the previous discussion, I wouldn't recommend the changes at least on MEDRS related items. Part of the challenge is that many of the "studies" EWG does are not published in peer-reviewed journals, so it complicates matters on a few fronts.

1. That source isn't particularly in line with WP:MEDDATE as it's 14 years old. There's also the issue of cherry-picking a single study that pretty much only links the website when other sources generally describe EWG as not reliable on pesticides and produce topics (which the article currently describes).
2. The journal articles just mention they used the database and don't really give depth needed. Merely using a database in an article is not something that would mean inclusion in an encyclopedic article.
3. Similar to 2, but this text also omits how EWG somewhat arbitrarily chose a reference level that that it seem like extremely low concentrations were a hazard. That would definitely need more sourcing if it was going to be mentioned as a whole. I know there are sources that describe that topic well, but it's been awhile since I've dug into them. In short, that topic is complicated to make sure we get it right.
4. This also seems to be passing mention. Not all "studies" (non-peer-reviewed) done by the group would warrant mention in an encyclopedia. An equivalent would be WP:NOTCV for BLPs where even peer-reviewed studies aren't listed, and I'm not really seeing a case made for this study in the sources.
5. This could be mentioned in some fashion, but I wouldn't use the proposed text, especially after the first sentence. I'm not proposing this as a source in the article itself, but it's an example what other advocacy groups say about this particular advocacy group's use of the database. It gets complicated quickly, so it's probably safer just to have a basic description of what the database is and avoid getting into the finer details that would take a lot more heavy lifting. It's well known enough it warrants mention though.
6. I wonder if it's better to just have a lobbying section instead, but I'd be curious if there are sources that summarize what the group's key lobbying efforts have been instead of finding individual legislation they've been involved with? Maybe it's just seeing California, but I'm wondering why California gets a specific call out here.

KoA (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Can you provide links to the sources that state the Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce is not reliable?

2. Here is a peer-reviewed 2025 study that draws extensively from EWG’s Skin Deep database to inform its findings:

• Evaluating personal care product use by Environmental Working Group hazard scores in relation to consumers’ sociodemographic characteristics, purchasing behaviors, and product safety perceptions - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-025-00751-9

Here is a similar peer-reviewed study published in 2026 that uses EWG’s Skin Deep database scores to inform its findings:

• Clean beauty gentrification: The role of historic and contemporary resource allocation practices on hair product safety in Boston, MA - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41541897/

Here is another 2026 peer-reviewed study published in another medical journal that relies heavily on EWG’s Skin Deep database:

• Analyzing the landscape of “clean” products for textured hair at a Los Angeles Target - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00867-6

3. Here is a version of the paragraph that clarifies how EWG established its own safety levels for glyphosate residues in food:

In August 2018, EWG published results from laboratory testing of oat-based breakfast foods, reporting that 31 of the 45 products tested contained glyphosate above the level it considered harmful - a benchmark of 160 parts per billion, which EWG derived by taking California's Proposition 65 cancer-based No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for glyphosate, applying an additional children's health safety factor modeled on the margin required under the federal Food Quality Protection Act, and arriving at a maximum daily dose of 0.01 milligrams, then converting that dose into a concentration using an assumed 60-gram serving size. While these levels were within limits deemed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, EWG argued that the federal standards were outdated and called for stricter regulation of long-term, low-level exposure to the herbicide.

4. I would be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed paper that goes more in-depth into any single analysis conducted by a research and advocacy organization. Instead, such analyses are typically cited alongside many other sources of evidence to inform broader scientific reviews, risk assessments, or research conclusions.

Below are four examples of peer-reviewed publications that include EWG's Body Burden study in their reference lists, demonstrating that the analysis has been considered as part of the broader scientific literature:

• A Toxicological Framework for the Prioritization of Children’s Safe Product Act Data - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4847093/
• Prenatal Exposure to Chemical Mixtures and Cognitive Flexibility among Adolescents - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8708222/
• Developmental Exposure to TCDD Reduces Fertility and Negatively Affects Pregnancy Outcomes across Multiple Generations - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3044210/
• Environmental Hazards Education for Childbirth Educators (NOTE: EWG mentioned in both the abstract and reference sections) - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2776525/

5. Let's leave out the second sentence if only the first sentence is fit to be included. Just to clarify, that hyperlinked "advocacy group" is funded by the commodity crop industry and is not a public interest organization.

6. Yes, that would be fine. The section can start with:

EWG has a government affairs department that frequently lobbies members of Congress as well as state lawmakers in support of legislation the organization believes would minimize human exposure to industrial and agricultural chemicals. EWG has sponsored several legislative proposals in California that have been signed into law, including Assembly Bill 1264 authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) that established the first-in-the-nation law to legally define ultra-processed foods (UPFs), ....

... and list the other bills. Manaokin (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

References