The internet and social media are notoriously rife with skin-care misinformation from non-beauty professionals. But recently, it seems that that misinformation is coming not just from some random user on TikTok or a sketchy MAHA content creator, but rather from highly reputed journalistic outlets. CNN recently cautioned readers that only 25% of sunscreens are safe and effective. (The news network also sent out a push alert notifying followers of this supposed fact, leaving many, including Fashionista’s own Beauty & Style Director, confused and alarmed.) NPR, on the other hand, thinks we should all avoid lotions and creams that contain fragrance, no questions asked.
What both of those alarmist articles have in common is that one of the main sources they relied upon to draw their key conclusions is the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which claims to be an unbiased advocacy group working to ensure consumer safety. In the beauty space, an increasing number of people, from lay consumers to beauty brands and journalists, are relying on the EWG to provide “agenda-free” information on the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients. But many in the scientific community think the organization is doing more harm than good.
What Is the Environmental Working Group?
The EWG describes itself as “a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment.” It claims to stand up for public health when the government and industry won’t. Apart from personal care products, the EWG’s other areas of interest are food and water, farming and agriculture, energy and family health, among others.
That all sounds rather ideal — if also idealistic — on its surface. Who wouldn’t want a healthy life in a healthy environment? EWG claims to be unbiased, with nothing but consumer safety in mind; it just may be a well-intentioned organization looking to do some good in the world. But unfortunately, pure intentions don’t always translate to clarity or accuracy when collecting, interpreting and disseminating data. The organization, which did not respond to Fashionista’s multiple requests for comment for this article, has come under criticism from the scientific community over the years.
Why Do Some Scientists Consider the EWG to Be Controversial?
When NPR posted on Instagram to promote its anti-fragrance story, it was met with a barrage of comments from scientists and science-literate creators. Many commenters expressed surprise at seeing a respected outlet relying on EWG’s data. “This is embarrassing coming from you,” commented beauty journalist and podcaster Kirbie Johnson. “I would’ve thought NPR would be aware that the EWG aren’t a good source for science,” wrote Dr. Michelle Wong (a.k.a. @labmuffinbeautyscience), a chemistry PhD and science communicator. Other comments cited the strict guidelines governing fragrance manufacturers, and one user labelled it “peak chemophobia and a disturbing editorial choice at a moment of dangerous antiscience sentiment.”
So, why all the concern?
“They’re pseudoscientific, and mostly promote misleading interpretations of the scientific evidence. A lot of people seem to think they’re scientific, but they really aren’t if you dig deeper into what they’re saying, versus what their references actually say,” Dr. Wong tells Fashionista.
She echoes what other beauty professionals who are also trained scientists seem to be feeling: Jen Novakovich, a science communicator at The Eco Well, and a cosmetic scientist, says the EWG employs pseudoscience to get to its ratings. “They highlight studies and pull out one part, say, endocrine disruption, and miss the fact that within that citation, it says that these issues are accounted for within regulations,” she explains.
Novakovich did a deep dive on the EWG back in 2019. In it, she provided a case study on methyl paraben: At the time of her publication, the EWG claimed that there was strong evidence that the ingredient was an endocrine disruptor. But she pointed out that if you look at the references it provided to support its claim, they didn’t really do so. The EWG has since updated its rating on methyl paraben to reflect “limited evidence of endocrine disruption.”
Photo: Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Another controversy surrounding the EWG came after the recent release of its annual sunscreen guide (now in its 19th year). For 2025, the report proclaimed that more than 77% of sunscreens it reviewed ranked poorly due to ineffective skin protection or what it deemed as concerning ingredients. This resulted in a flurry of panicked headlines, including the aforementioned one from CNN. Many outlets repeated EWG’s talking points without citing (or seemingly even consulting) any other sources. Some did actual journalism and called dermatologists to fact-check these claims, noting that these results hadn’t been peer-reviewed, that the org has been criticized in the past for its misleading claims about chemical safety, and that it might also have some financial conflicts of interest.
It’s not our intent to cast aspersions on trusted news sources doing plenty of other important (and actually factual) work. But as media companies struggle, budgets for fact-checkers and thoroughly vetted, time-consuming reporting are shrinking, and one outcome is that discussions of personal care “safety” are being muddled.
What’s more, EWG is good at sounding legit. It’s practiced in putting out what appear to be fact-based, well-researched reports to help steer journalists’ coverage and consumers’ purchases. (We at Fashionista are not immune; we’ve fallen prey to these tactics and even shared the organization’s sunscreen rankings in our reporting, on multiple occasions, before.)
Critics Claim it Cherry Picks Data, Eliminating Important Nuance and Context
Some critics of the EWG point to the fact that the group seems to cherry pick its data, instead of reviewing all the scientific literature available on certain ingredients.
In a time when misinformation about everything from sunscreens to vaccines is rife, and trust in government agencies that safeguard public health has been eroded, that’s concerning. “Great intentions, unfortunately, have created more fear and suspicion around institutions versus what is needed: more rigorous regulations,” says Charlotte Palermino, co-founder and chief brand officer of skin-care brand Dieux. Palermino also creates content that often goes viral, to help consumers understand the nuances around product formulation. “Unfortunately, [EWG] continues to publish reports that aren’t peer-reviewed by category experts and are largely denounced by toxicologists, dermatologists, epidemiologists and so on,” she says.
//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js
Apart from cherry picking data, critics also say the EWG eliminates nuance. Via its popular Skin Deep database, the organization ranks more than 130,000 beauty and personal-care products on a scale from EWG Verified (the highest ranking) to 10, or “worst.”
“EWG’s rankings can be overly simplistic and sometimes lack context, especially regarding concentration, usage and overall formulation, leading to unnecessary alarm about certain ingredients that are safe within regulatory guidelines,” says Krupa Koestline, a “clean” cosmetic chemist and founder of KKT Innovation Labs. “I appreciate what the EWG is trying to do in terms of consumer awareness. However, my main concern is that [the Skin Deep database] tends to take a binary approach: labeling ingredients as ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ with little nuance,” she says.
Formulation is highly contextual, says Koestline. Ingredients interact with each other, and their safety often depends on how and where they’re used. “The database doesn’t always reflect this complexity, which can mislead consumers.”
Many of EWG’s critics point out that the agency operates in a similar way, by spreading misinformation or offering an incomplete picture. “This has caused a feedback loop within the industry, and EWG is part of it: of fear mongering and teaching consumers about ‘nasty’ ingredients based off of misinformation. It’s misinformation driving consumer perceptions and sentiment, which in turn drives business behavior,” says Novakovich.
Another oft-leveled criticism of the EWG is its refusal to acknowledge the most fundamental principle of toxicology, which is that the dose makes the poison. The organization has a tendency to label ingredients as “harmful” or “toxic” without considering the dose at which they are used in products.
“As [the EWG] doesn’t take into consideration the dose of an ingredient, it’s impossible to determine safety,” says Palermino. “For example, oxygen and water can be toxic — it all depends on the dose. Furthermore, some of the studies used aren’t applicable (eating something is different than rubbing it on your skin). Ultimately, [the Skin Deep database] is not a very helpful tool without dose and mode of exposure.”
Dr. Wong puts it in a way that’s easy for those of us without advanced science degrees to understand: “Products are like food: A meal with a cup of salt in it would be much worse for you than if you just had a sprinkle of salt, but the EWG’s rating system would rate these as equally bad.”
The Impact of EWG’s Unclear or Unsubstantiated Information
What the EWG does do effectively is create needless panic in the minds of consumers. A key example is how it interpreted mouse studies about retinyl palmitate, a derivative of vitamin A, acting as a photocarcinogen (speeding up the development of skin tumors and lesions on sun-exposed skin). The American Academy of Dermatology, as well as Norway’s regulatory board, Vitenskapskomiteen for mat og miljø, rejected those findings as not being applicable to human skin.
@javonford16 #stitch with @Nara Smith #cosmeticchemist #sunscreen #skintok #diysunscreen
https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js
Misinformation is far from harmless. If fear-mongering headlines proclaim that most sunscreens aren’t effective, consumers may stop even trying to protect their skin from harmful, potentially cancer causing UV exposure. We’ve already seen a tendency for this type of rhetoric to resonate with the public: In response to content creators with massive follower counts — ahem, Lucky Blue and Nara Smith — showing (highly risky) methods for making DIY “sunscreen” or claiming that beef tallow offers all the SPF protection you need, consumers have started to embrace these alternatives to traditional formulas. (For the record, dermatologists and chemists resoundingly agree: DIY sunscreen and beef tallow are not it.)
The potential effects of widespread misinformation in the beauty industry can be seen with parabens, a well-tested ingredient that has been all but wiped from the cosmetic landscape because of a limited understanding of science and toxicology. A flawed 2004 study, published by medical journals, found the presence of parabens in breast tumors, which caused people to (inaccurately) extrapolate that parabens were cancer-causing. Parabens were henceforth labeled “unsafe” for cosmetic use in scores of subsequent news reports, and no amount of future research could redeem their reputation, despite convincing evidence that they are perfectly safe. They were demonized in the media to such an extent that brands became reluctant to formulate with them at all, in spite of their safety, since they’d been forever tainted in consumer perception. Parabens have now been widely replaced by preservatives that don’t have as much safety testing behind them.
“[Misinformation] hurts the beauty industry, as it sows distrust, promotes a fear of ‘chemicals’ — everything is a chemical, after all — and promotes science illiteracy,” says Joyce de Lemos, co-founder and chief of product of Dieux, who is also a cosmetic scientist and product formulator.
EWG’s Financial Bias
Despite its claims otherwise, EWG isn’t completely unbiased, as is the case with most people and organizations. One aspect of its working model that its readers may not realize is that the “EWG Verified” seal is available for brands to purchase. Its website states: “EWG Verified is a trademark licensing program that follows a published set of health standards independently developed by EWG’s research team [emphasis our own]. The program, currently available in the personal-care and cosmetics, household cleaners and baby diaper categories, is designed to facilitate participation by companies of all sizes and stages of development.”
The website goes on to state that costs for participation vary widely, generally on a sliding scale, based on factors such as company size and stage of development. Typical fees include an application fee and annual licensing fee. To be fair, elsewhere, the website states that EWG does not charge a fee for a product to be rated in the Skin Deep database and companies can’t pay for better ratings.
But more egregious is the fact that EWG participates in earning money through affiliate fees for products purchased through retailer links on its website. This applies even to products it has designated as ranking as low as 9 and 10 in its database.
Experts have been pointing out this obvious conflict of interest for ages. Perry Romanowski, a cosmetic chemist and educator at Chemists Corner, has written about the EWG’s hypocrisy of financially profiting from even the products upon which it bestows its lowest scores. And it is, in fact, profiting: In 2023, the organization earned more than $1.5 million from licensing and consulting.
“One thing to keep in mind is that the EWG’s funding model and affiliations can sometimes influence their positions,” says Koestline. “It’s important for consumers and journalists to look into multiple sources and consider the broader scientific consensus.”
So, Who or What Should We Trust?
The experts we consulted for this story stress that they want better safety for everyone, but EWG’s approach might not be the best way to get there. “[It’s better to] fund the FDA, the CDC and the EPA, and ensure the best scientific minds are at these agencies,” says Palermino. “Ultimately, there will be bias in any organization, so better checks and balances and category experts are needed. Boards of review are critical,” adds de Lemos.
“It would be useful to consumers for our regulatory bodies to have transparent conversations, and communicate in a clear way to the public,” says Novakovich. “They should invest in science communication to help the public understand, because the public is facing so much noise and headlines that seem really scary, and they’re looking to make sense of the world. And when you don’t communicate effectively, then there are these gaps that people will fill in with simple messages.”
Dr. Wong would love it if concerned consumers worked to become more aware. “Developing critical thinking skills is extremely important. Some good places to start are the SIFT method and learning about logical fallacies,” she says.
Other resources the experts suggest include Inci Decoder, a tool to decode ingredient lists, and qualified science educators including Dr. Wong and Novakovoich, as well as Ava Perkins, Alex Padgett, Ramón Pagán and Javon Ford.
There’s no doubt that science is complicated and nuanced in ways that consumers might not have the time or mental bandwidth to parse every time they want to buy a moisturizer or some produce. But the EWG’s attempts to simplify complex topics into black-and-white issues has created an atmosphere of fear and mistrust that may be inflicting more harm than good. And such dramatic “findings” lend themselves well to click-y headlines, which is why they tend to get so much media coverage.
The truth is, a lot of the issues the organization focuses on have wide swaths of grey area. And anyone attempting to make sense of them — or trying to explain them to the public — has to sit with the discomfort of not knowing for certain whether some products, ingredients or systems are safe for us or not. The EWG seems reluctant to do that.
Source: Fashionista.com
