https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group
The accuracy of EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic food industry.[2][3][4] Its warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading".[5][6][7] Despite the criticism, EWG has been influential.[8]
……………
The EWG issues various product safety warnings. 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.[9]
"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."[10]
According to Kavin Senapathy of Science Moms, the EWG "frightens consumers about chemicals and their safety, cloaking fear mongering in a clever disguise of caring and empowerment." Senapathy included two main areas of criticism for the organization including: methodologies used by the EWG for "food, cosmetics, children’s products and more are fundamentally flawed", and the EWG is largely funded by organic companies and does not assess or discuss pesticides from organic farming.[3]
Quackwatch describes EWG as one of "[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products".[11]
