The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The strange thing about parenting in the social media age is that it’s both overwhelming and empowering. … I bought expensive natural baby-care products and organic baby food. I felt strong and empowered, and no small part of that was fueled by the mass of information I was getting from the parenting information bubble in which I’d found myself.
. . . .
Despite its relatively unassuming name, one of the most recognizable and highly trusted brands for many parents is the Environmental Working Group, or EWG. . . . When experts review the EWG’s consumer guides, the findings often come up short. In their Dirty Dozen list, the EWG publicizes what they call “dirty” pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables without mentioning that what they describe as “dirty” pesticide residue levels are actually safe because they’re well below “tolerance” levels set by the EPA.
. . . .
Parents become lured in by the EWG because the organization’s extensive databases of scary-sounding chemicals have the veneer of science and seem positioned to trigger parental anxiety. The EWG often publicizes its findings with some reference to rising rates of conditions like autism, food allergies and obesity, conditions that seem frightening because they don’t have a simple explanation.
. . . The EWG name has become so valuable and recognizable that it’s now the centerpiece of a new venture the Group calls EWG Verified. . . . The EWG plans to license the trademark — that is, charge an annual fee in exchange for use of the brand on its packaging — to select natural and organic companies.
. . . [EWG has] long had financial ties to the products and industries they evaluate. . . . EWG Verified is just a much more brazen version of their strategy. Now more than ever, their plans for profit are tied to the very companies they’re supposed to be independently reviewing.