208: Dirty Dozen Disinformation (w/Drs Andrea Love & Michelle Wong)
May 30, 2024
auto_awesome
Dr. Andrea Love and Dr. Michelle Wong discuss the questionable methodologies of the Environmental Working Group and its fear-mongering tactics regarding 'Dirty Dozen' list. They critique the group's practices in demonizing chemicals, highlight concerns of greenwashing, and shed light on spreading misinformation about pesticide residues on produce. The conversation also delves into health risks of ineffective pesticides and chemicals in beauty products, flaws in sunscreen safety ratings, and validity of product verification marks.
EWG promotes fear-mongering by exaggerating risks of consumer products.
EWG's Dirty Dozen list distortion misleads consumers about produce safety.
EWG's evaluation discrepancies highlight varying global chemical regulations.
Deep dives
EWG's Fear-Mongering Marketing Tactics
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) engages in fear-mongering by exaggerating risks of consumer products. They exploit chemophobia and the appeal to nature fallacy, spreading misinformation about chemicals and scaring consumers with flawed methodologies. Their approach is to pit products against each other without considering actual toxicity levels, promoting fear without scientific basis.
The Flawed Dirty Dozen List
EWG's Dirty Dozen list claims to identify the most contaminated produce, advocating for organic options. However, their scoring methodology is misguided, focusing on the number of pesticide residues detected rather than actual toxic levels. Trace quantities of regulated pesticides are distorted to imply danger, while organic pesticides are not included in their evaluation, misleading consumers about the safety of conventional produce.
Misleading Claims on Banned Chemicals
EWG often cites chemicals banned in one country but not another, like in the EU and the US. However, many of these claims are inaccurate, with substances like glyphosate not banned in the EU. Discrepancies in bans often stem from different regulatory approaches, with the EU favoring hazard-based assessments while the US utilizes a risk-based approach, leading to varying conclusions on chemical safety.
Risk-Based Assessment vs. Hazard-Based Approach
When evaluating risks, considering exposure duration, shark species, and proximity can impact the likelihood of harm in a risk-based assessment. Different routes of exposure and dosages play crucial roles in assessing potential harm from substances. FDA adopts a risk assessment approach, focusing on dosage and likelihood of harm, while some regions like the EU lean towards a hazard-based approach, often overly cautious and potentially compromising effectiveness.
Misconceptions Surrounding Sunscreen Safety
The Environmental Working Group's skin deep database rates products solely based on listed ingredients, without considering dosages critical for both efficacy and safety. The database's emphasis on natural ingredients over certain chemicals perpetuates a 'natural is safer' fallacy. Overly cautious marketing tactics by some organizations create fear around chemical sunscreens, despite their proven effectiveness in preventing skin cancers, showcasing the importance of informed decision-making in skincare choices.
Every year, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, DC-based lobbying group, publishes its “Dirty Dozen” report, which supposedly informs consumers about the 12 “dirtiest” fruits and vegetables. The report is repeated verbatim by major media outlets, which routinely demonize strawberries, blueberries, and other conventionally-grown produce. But does their science hold up?
Not according to the majority of scientists and researchers. Over the decades, the EWG has slammed some pesticides but not others, ignored data on dosages, and even wondered out loud if all that mercury in vaccines might just be causing autism. They also routinely ignore potentially hazardous organic chemicals, while selling “verified” labels for skin care products and sunscreens.
Today Derek is going to walk me, the non-science journalist, through the work of the EWG before he talks to biomedical scientist Dr Andrea Love and cosmetic chemist Dr Michelle Wong about the group’s questionable methodologies and fear-mongering tactics.