Unveiling the Flaws of EWG

Written by Jennifer Feenan, Licensed Esthetician with BS Molecular Biology & Minor in Chemistry

In our quest for healthier living, ingredient databases have emerged as beacons of knowledge, guiding consumers through the labyrinth of product ingredient labels. One such prominent player is the Environmental Working Group (EWG), known for its Skin Deep Cosmetics Database and other resources aimed at empowering consumers to make informed choices about the products they use.

However, beneath the surface of these databases lies a web of flaws and inconsistencies that the average consumer isn’t aware of. While intentions may be good, the methodologies and interpretations are not without critique. Let's delve deeper into why the logic of EWG’s ingredient database is flawed.

1. Oversimplification of Complex Science

The primary flaw lies in the oversimplification of complex scientific data. Ingredient databases often categorize chemicals as either “good” or “bad,” overlooking the nuances of toxicity and exposure levels. While there are arguably ingredients you should avoid at all costs, this classification fails to consider that toxicity is dose-dependent, meaning that even benign substances can be harmful in large enough quantities, while other substances can be safe in small doses.

Water is a great example of this. From microscopic organisms to towering trees, every living thing on Earth depends on water to survive and thrive. Humans are no exception with around 60% of our bodies being composed of water. The amount of water needed to survive is crucial because too much or too little water both have dire consequences on our health and can lead to death. Everything depends on dosage.

2. Lack of Context

Context matters, yet it's often missing in ingredient databases. The mere presence of a certain chemical on a list does not inherently make a product harmful. The concentration of the ingredient, delivery system, and its interactions with other compounds are all critical factors that influence its safety profile. Databases like EWG do not have access to every skin care company’s lab data and proprietary information on formulations so they can’t account for variables like these. Failing to account for these variables leads to misguided conclusions about a product's safety.

3. Misleading Ratings

EWG specifically ranks ingredients and products on a 1 to 10 scale, and their EWG Verified products don’t even receive a rating . An ingredient is considered a 1 when it’s “safe” or if there's no data, which is super misleading! An ingredient without data should be rated N/A because there is nothing to back up any numbered rating. These ratings also have nothing to do with product efficacy, meaning that the ingredients themselves may be considered safe for your body but there is no evidence that they work. There are a lot of ingredients are non-toxic but when used they are used on your skin, they will disrupt the skin barrier’s function, causing irritation, dryness, acne, and other skin issues.

Another problem with EWG is that they have chemicals that are the essentially the same not listed as such on their website, with different ratings. A good example of this is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) vs. Sodium Cocoyl Sulfate (SCS) The difference is that one of these is that one is generally derived from petroleum and the other a coconut. SLS is ranked 1-2 while SCS is ranked 1. These synthetic detergents are not a health risk per se, but they are skin irritants. They strip skin of its natural oils and 9 times out of 10, if someone’s skin feels dry or tight after cleansing, these ingredients are responsible. Paula’s Choice Ingredient Dictionary rates SLS as WORST because of its negative impact on the skin. If you would like an in depth analysis as to why you should avoid both, check out this article.

4. Cherry-Picking Evidence

Ingredient databases have been criticized for cherry-picking studies to support their predetermined conclusions. This selective use of data can skew perceptions and mislead consumers because ignoring contradictory evidence undermines their credibility.

Often, EWG does not list any sources that support their rating system. For example, take a look at Populus Tremuloides Bark Extract. This plant extract has proven antioxidant properties, contains beneficial flavonoids, and can serve as a natural preservative in cosmetic products. They rate it a 4-8 because there’s restrictions on aerosol use, then they rank many products that contains it, along with other natural extracts, a 4-7 even though it’s not in aerosol form. If it’s a “EWG Verified” brand, all of a sudden there’s no risk. They cite “Open scientific literature” and say that “9 studies in PubMed science library may include information on the toxicity of this chemical,” on the ingredient page but have no links to this research to back any of these claims and even say that the data on this specific ingredient is “limited”. If you look at the same ingredient in Paula’s Choice’s Ingredient Dictionary, they rate it GOOD and have 4 cited studies to back up this rating. While this database isn’t perfect, it’s a much better option than EWG.

5. Disregard for Risk-Benefit Analysis

Every decision involves a trade-off between risks and benefits, and the same holds true for product formulation. Ingredient databases tend to focus solely on the risks associated with certain chemicals while disregarding the benefits they provide. For example, preservatives are necessary to prevent microbial contamination and ensure product safety. Preservatives generally make up 1% or less of a product’s ingredient deck, which is considered a safe level. By demonizing all preservatives as harmful, ingredient databases overlook the public health benefits they confer.

Have you noticed that EWG has these messages on product pages like this: When you make a purchase through retailer links on our site, we may earn commission through affiliate programs. All affiliate fees EWG receives support our nonprofit mission. Or, EWG may receive a commission on purchases made through an Amazon link

That commission applies to ALL products on their website, even if it’s ranked a 10, the worst ranking on their site. They're okay with making money off consumers when they buy products that EWG has deemed unsafe; there's zero integrity behind that!

In conclusion, ingredient databases like EWG have undoubtedly raised awareness about the potential risks associated with certain chemicals in consumer products. However, their oversimplified approach and lack of scientific rigor undermine their credibility and hinder informed decision-making.

Moving forward, we must advocate for a more nuanced approach to ingredient safety—one that considers the complexities of toxicology, incorporates scientific evidence from diverse sources, and weighs the risks against the benefits. Empowering consumers with accurate information and fostering critical thinking skills are essential steps towards a healthier and more informed society.

As we navigate the landscape of ingredient databases, let's remember to question assumptions, seek out reliable sources, and approach decisions with discernment rather than succumbing to fear-based narratives. Only then can we truly empower ourselves to make choices that promote both health and well-being!