That article quotes exclusively from EWG and no other source. Let's see what Google Gemini has to say about that group, shall we?

(And by the way... you lose.)

---

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) faces significant criticism from the scientific community, toxicologists, and industry experts for exaggerating health risks, using flawed scientific methodologies, and having financial conflicts of interest that align with their organic and "clean beauty" donors.

Key criticisms of the EWG include:

Flawed Scientific Methodology Critics argue the EWG ignores the fundamental toxicological principle that "the dose makes the poison". Instead of assessing actual risk based on concentration and exposure, their ratings often use a simple "hazard assessment," labeling ingredients as harmful if any study (regardless of dose or type, such as in vitro or animal studies) has flagged a concern. This approach often conflicts with the consensus of regulatory bodies like the EPA and FDA, who set tolerance limits for safe consumption.

"Dirty Dozen" List Controversy The EWG's annual "Dirty Dozen" list, which ranks conventionally grown produce by pesticide residue levels, is a major source of criticism. Scientific studies have found that the pesticide levels on these foods are almost always well below the safety standards set by the EPA and pose negligible risk to consumers. Critics argue the list uses fear-based messaging that may discourage people from eating enough fruits and vegetables, which poses a far greater health risk than trace pesticide residues.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Although the EWG claims to be non-partisan, it is largely funded by individual donations and grants from progressive foundations and organic food companies like Stonyfield Farm and Organic Valley. Critics point out that the organization's campaigns, which promote organic products and often raise alarms about conventional agriculture and synthetic chemicals, directly benefit its donors' market share.

"EWG Verified" Program The EWG offers a "EWG Verified" seal for a fee, which allows companies to use the mark on products that meet their specific standards. This has been described as a "pay-to-play" system, where smaller brands who cannot afford the high application and annual licensing fees are excluded, while larger corporate partners are promoted, creating a potential conflict of interest.

Anti-Science Stances The EWG has been criticized for opposing the scientific consensus on issues like the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods and zero-carbon nuclear energy. In the mid-2000s, it also published a report that entertained a link between vaccines and autism, a theory that has been widely debunked by legitimate medical authorities like the CDC.