Hawaii moves to ban sale of sunscreens with coral-harming chemicals(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Hawaii moves to ban sale of sunscreens with coral-harming chemicals
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hawaii-moves-to-ban-sale-of-sunscreens-with-coral-harming-chemicals/
9 comments
Yeah it's weird. I know that I shouldn't distrust everything a source says just because one thing they publish uses misleading data to arrive at a funny conclusion.
And yet.
This author's analysis of the EWG "Dirty Dozen" pesticide-residue-on-produce report -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inc... -- made me wonder about this source.
This author (Steven Savage) claims that: (1) there is evidence that non-organic produce contains more residue of the kind of pesticides which are only used on non-organic produce and not used on organic produce; (2) there is no evidence that the levels of pesticide residue found on non-organic produce are toxic to humans; (3) there is no measurement of the levels of residue of the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce on any produce; (4) there is no evidence that the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce are non-toxic to humans.
This author additionally claims that (5) the EWG report reports fact 1, ignores facts 2, 3, and 4, and uses this combination of facts which he says are misleading in order to assert that certain kinds of produce are more toxic to humans in their non-organic form vs. their organic form. His claims seem to agree with the literature to the extent that I'm able to understand it. As far as I can tell, every year EWG puts out a report which makes this assertion, every year it gets this criticism, and every year their report does not addres this criticism.
Having read this makes me somewhat more skeptical of the EWG's coverage of all topics, not just pesticide residue on produce but also active ingredients in sunscreen.
With all that being said, I currently mostly use sunscreen whose only active ingredient is zinc oxide, which is also the active ingredient in the diaper cream I use on our baby. I don't have any evidence that this is better or worse than using the stuff that kills the coral reefs. It's just convenient.
And yet.
This author's analysis of the EWG "Dirty Dozen" pesticide-residue-on-produce report -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inc... -- made me wonder about this source.
This author (Steven Savage) claims that: (1) there is evidence that non-organic produce contains more residue of the kind of pesticides which are only used on non-organic produce and not used on organic produce; (2) there is no evidence that the levels of pesticide residue found on non-organic produce are toxic to humans; (3) there is no measurement of the levels of residue of the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce on any produce; (4) there is no evidence that the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce are non-toxic to humans.
This author additionally claims that (5) the EWG report reports fact 1, ignores facts 2, 3, and 4, and uses this combination of facts which he says are misleading in order to assert that certain kinds of produce are more toxic to humans in their non-organic form vs. their organic form. His claims seem to agree with the literature to the extent that I'm able to understand it. As far as I can tell, every year EWG puts out a report which makes this assertion, every year it gets this criticism, and every year their report does not addres this criticism.
Having read this makes me somewhat more skeptical of the EWG's coverage of all topics, not just pesticide residue on produce but also active ingredients in sunscreen.
With all that being said, I currently mostly use sunscreen whose only active ingredient is zinc oxide, which is also the active ingredient in the diaper cream I use on our baby. I don't have any evidence that this is better or worse than using the stuff that kills the coral reefs. It's just convenient.
The ACSH, whose criticism you cite, is not what I'd call a neutral organization. They're generally pro-industry, with murky funding sources. Leaked documents from 2012 reveal a lot of industry money. More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_an...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would...
Granted this is just an opinion. EWG attacks conventional pesticides while ignoring organic practices (see their dirty dozen list). They cite the fraud scientist Seralini when attacking GMOs. Looking at them it's pretty clear they are an organic industry front group.
Granted this is just an opinion. EWG attacks conventional pesticides while ignoring organic practices (see their dirty dozen list). They cite the fraud scientist Seralini when attacking GMOs. Looking at them it's pretty clear they are an organic industry front group.
Being anti-organic seems so weird to me. What is the reason?
I'm not anti-organic, but there are a couple of good arguments against organic food. First the end product is pretty much identical nutrition-wise. Second, organic produce requires more land, so it's unclear whether that scales to feed all people. And third, many "organic" pesticides are not shown to be better for the environment than the non-organic alternatives.
Personally I think we could achieve more by picking up some ideas from organic farming (e.g. more diversity to combat pests, better preservation of the soil) without demonizing all advances in agriculture like improved fertilizers or GMOs.
Personally I think we could achieve more by picking up some ideas from organic farming (e.g. more diversity to combat pests, better preservation of the soil) without demonizing all advances in agriculture like improved fertilizers or GMOs.
> First the end product is pretty much identical nutrition-wise.
In my own experience, organic fruits and vegetables at least taste much better.
> Second, organic produce requires more land, so it's unclear whether that scales to feed all people.
This isn't strictly true. In practice it has been, but it's not inherent to organic production in general but rather how it's been carried out so far. The agricultural system Permaculture addresses this directly and can yield on par with conventional farming.
> And third, many "organic" pesticides are not shown to be better for the environment than the non-organic alternatives.
This too isn't a strict requirement in organic farming, but I guess I'm arguing semantics here. To be more clear, non-conventional farming doesn't require pesticides.
In my own experience, organic fruits and vegetables at least taste much better.
> Second, organic produce requires more land, so it's unclear whether that scales to feed all people.
This isn't strictly true. In practice it has been, but it's not inherent to organic production in general but rather how it's been carried out so far. The agricultural system Permaculture addresses this directly and can yield on par with conventional farming.
> And third, many "organic" pesticides are not shown to be better for the environment than the non-organic alternatives.
This too isn't a strict requirement in organic farming, but I guess I'm arguing semantics here. To be more clear, non-conventional farming doesn't require pesticides.
> In my own experience, organic fruits and vegetables at least taste much better.
Have you done blind taste testing? We already know that e.g. more expensive things taste better.
Have you done blind taste testing? We already know that e.g. more expensive things taste better.
I suspect the correlation runs the other way. Farmers willing to go through the efforts of producing higher quality produce are more likely to also go through the steps to get that produce certified organic. Not because it improves the quality per se, but because it lets them charge more.
Comparing best case scenario organic farming as it might be done in the future with worst case scenario conventional farming methods is not particularly fair.
You're right, I wasn't clear. There are already farms producing food using permaculture systems, but I meant rather that it's not the majority of what you hear about for what is organic.
A third point against "organic" is that with foreign imports it only means the seller told the import company it was "organic". So foreign food producers just say their stuff is "organically grown", even if it was smothered in pesticides, pumped full of steroids etc, because then they get to claim a premium too.
Lack of consistent standards, or authority to enforce mean it's essentially a rubber stamp.
Lack of consistent standards, or authority to enforce mean it's essentially a rubber stamp.
Organic uses pesticides
> So foreign food producers just say their stuff is "organically grown", even if it was smothered in pesticides
Organically grown products are usually smothered in pesticides, since “organic” doesn't prohibit pesticides, just the more targeted and effective ones, forcing quantity to make up for quality.
Organically grown products are usually smothered in pesticides, since “organic” doesn't prohibit pesticides, just the more targeted and effective ones, forcing quantity to make up for quality.
They are now growing potatoes in the Egyptian desert, to fill demand for organic potatoes in Germany. Organic is not automatically better for the environment.
The problem with GMOs is that you can skip to dangerous islands of viability that would be impossible with standard breeding.
At least that's my understanding of Taleb's argument against GMOs.
At least that's my understanding of Taleb's argument against GMOs.
Imho the problem with GMO is patents on gene sequences.
I don't see how altering plants to produce chemicals is more dangerous than introducing new chemicals produced in a lab. We do the latter all the time, most chemicals we use in industrial processes are basically untested for safety (e.g. look at all the additives in plastics or textiles). GMOs can help reduce the need to pesticides and fertilizers so their use can help the environment. But due to overblown fears even completely harmless modifications like introducing new colors of flowers are treated as if they were literally the devil [1].
As with all new techniques it's probably good to be careful and test things for long term adverse effects, but the kneejerk reaction of GMO=dangerous does more harm than good.
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/how-transgenic-petun...
I don't see how altering plants to produce chemicals is more dangerous than introducing new chemicals produced in a lab. We do the latter all the time, most chemicals we use in industrial processes are basically untested for safety (e.g. look at all the additives in plastics or textiles). GMOs can help reduce the need to pesticides and fertilizers so their use can help the environment. But due to overblown fears even completely harmless modifications like introducing new colors of flowers are treated as if they were literally the devil [1].
As with all new techniques it's probably good to be careful and test things for long term adverse effects, but the kneejerk reaction of GMO=dangerous does more harm than good.
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/how-transgenic-petun...
I work for a company that has sibling companies that do GMO work.
I myself feel like there are plenty of legit discussions to have about GMOs, yet we cant have those discussions because of the startlingly large number of people that think GMOs will mutate YOU.
It is refreshing to see a comment on the topic that doesn't trigger a reflex laugh/sob.
I myself feel like there are plenty of legit discussions to have about GMOs, yet we cant have those discussions because of the startlingly large number of people that think GMOs will mutate YOU.
It is refreshing to see a comment on the topic that doesn't trigger a reflex laugh/sob.
> The problem with GMOs is that you can skip to dangerous islands of viability that would be impossible with standard breeding.
I don't think that's true. GMO only provides an average of 5% more production in the developed world, and that's what I've read from the studies cited on the Monsanto website, so presumably the studies which put them on the best light possible. It's a clear increase of revenue and production but it's not a game changer revolution either.
I don't think that's true. GMO only provides an average of 5% more production in the developed world, and that's what I've read from the studies cited on the Monsanto website, so presumably the studies which put them on the best light possible. It's a clear increase of revenue and production but it's not a game changer revolution either.
> "At least that's my understanding of Taleb's argument against GMOs."
I'm interested in reading more about this perspective. Is this in one of his books? Or does he have articles about this somewhere?
I'm interested in reading more about this perspective. Is this in one of his books? Or does he have articles about this somewhere?
He talks about it in Antifragile and has written a few articles on the topic
This one: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/business/dealbook/another...
is more of a popular-science take and this one: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIbGFzOXF5UUN3N2c/... is a more rigorous analysis.
He also talked about his thoughts about GMOs on an econtalk podcast here: http://www.econtalk.org/nassim-nicholas-taleb-on-the-precaut...
This one: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/business/dealbook/another...
is more of a popular-science take and this one: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIbGFzOXF5UUN3N2c/... is a more rigorous analysis.
He also talked about his thoughts about GMOs on an econtalk podcast here: http://www.econtalk.org/nassim-nicholas-taleb-on-the-precaut...
Yeah there's a weird logical disconnect amongs the people that Taleb would call IYI "Intellectual Yet Idiots", many of which subscribe to mainstream left-progressive politics.
X is bad for natural diversity. X has the potential to make it much easier to produce enough food to feed people. X might result in all insects, in particular bees, dying. The biggest danger of X is that it could trigger a positive feedback loop, a runaway process that ruins the world. Although X also happens naturally albeit at a much slower rate, we don't have enough understanding of X to ensure it's safe.
If X == "global warming", then X is bad. If X == "GMOs", then X is good. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
X is bad for natural diversity. X has the potential to make it much easier to produce enough food to feed people. X might result in all insects, in particular bees, dying. The biggest danger of X is that it could trigger a positive feedback loop, a runaway process that ruins the world. Although X also happens naturally albeit at a much slower rate, we don't have enough understanding of X to ensure it's safe.
If X == "global warming", then X is bad. If X == "GMOs", then X is good. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The organic industry activity demonizes GMOs to boost their profits (GMOs aren't permitted in organic). Much of their rhetoric is based on pseudoscience.
Organic is less efficient requiring more inputs and land and can be argued is worse for the environment.
Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not.
Organic is less efficient requiring more inputs and land and can be argued is worse for the environment.
Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not.
> can be argued is worse for the environment.
Worse utilization doesn't mean worse for the environment overall, especially considering the extreme damage conventional farming leaves on the health of the soil, as one example.
> Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not.
I do think that it's frustrating the level of permissiveness that the term "organic" encompasses in the US especially, but pesticides aren't required for organic farming -- check out Permaculture.
Worse utilization doesn't mean worse for the environment overall, especially considering the extreme damage conventional farming leaves on the health of the soil, as one example.
> Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not.
I do think that it's frustrating the level of permissiveness that the term "organic" encompasses in the US especially, but pesticides aren't required for organic farming -- check out Permaculture.
Habitat loss is probably the leading cause of decline and extinction right now. I'd wager habitat loss due to agriculture is killing more than glyphosate runoff by a significant margin. Whether the degree to which habitat loss is averted with space-efficient GMOs is sufficient to offset glyphosate runoff, I cannot say. I suspect the most ethical option is to stop consuming food grown in particularly threatened environments, particularly imported tropical fruits, whether or not they're organic.
Regardless, it seems clear to me the matter of organic vs non-organic is not as clear cut as the organic industry and their prolific passionate proponents would have us believe.
Regardless, it seems clear to me the matter of organic vs non-organic is not as clear cut as the organic industry and their prolific passionate proponents would have us believe.
Most people greatly underestimate habitat loss as the biggest problem for ecosystem decline. The appearance of many animals not seen for 100 years in the Chernobyl exclusion zone suggests that an area contaminated with high level radioactive waste is a net positive for natural ecosystems because it keeps the humans out.
in addition to the sale, it seems like it would make sense to ban the importation of sunscreen with tourists in their luggage. Hawaii's a frequent vacation spot for me, and I always pack my own (high spf) sunscreen. I can never find sunscreen when visiting that works well with my skin.
if they can't ban the luggage-packed sunscreen, perhaps an information campaign. if I know what not to bring, I'll tend to make sure I don't, and I'm not alone.
if they can't ban the luggage-packed sunscreen, perhaps an information campaign. if I know what not to bring, I'll tend to make sure I don't, and I'm not alone.
If you're playing in the water and not looking for a tan, another option is a rash guard to minimize sunscreen use (just face and neck if you get a long sleeve). I lived in Hawaii for a number of years and found rash guards to be the best option for me personally. I would spend hours at a stretch in the water and sunscreen will wash off quicker than you might think.
When I go on vacation to the tropics I wear a long sleeve part polyester/spandex shirt that dries quickly even when I go in the pool/ocean. The effective SPF is 50. It's a bit dorky, but much better than getting a sunburn and I don't have to reapply sunscreen.
Many rashguards test at SPF 200, but they can't advertise as more than "50+"... at that point, it is basically SPF infinity.
An information campaign is already in place on Hawaiian airlines. Not sure if that's just them being pro-active or what, but they do warn you.
They also have had signs on beaches for a year or two - or, at least, beaches near coral reefs.
What I do is stay out of the sun from 10-2.
I don't think that helps significantly. Check out the plot on Wikipedia [1] for the ultraviolet index in NYC. At peak on summer, solar noon versus 8am there's a factor of ~3 difference between UV incident on a horizontal surface. Since the sun is much lower at 8am, that factor is primarily from the surface being at an oblique angle to the sun. So atmospheric absorption is significantly smaller than a factor of 3 and since much of the human body is not oriented horizontally, that's the part I'd want to be considering. Either way though, SPF of at most 3 is insufficient.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index
10 to 4 you mean?
Solar noon can vary a bit, such as 12:30pm to 1:30pm (depending on DST also).
Solar noon can vary a bit, such as 12:30pm to 1:30pm (depending on DST also).
never needed sunscreen, seems like brown skin saves the corals :D.
Seriously, though. I learned from the movie Get Out that dark skin is totally in fashion. And whenever I go under 30° latitude, I feel very poorly adapted to the climate.
If one of you biohackers could invent a hormone or something to change your skin color, that would be amazing. Prevent skin cancer/vitamin D deficiency, the kuro gyaru would love it, and maybe we could all find some class more interesting to discriminate against.
If one of you biohackers could invent a hormone or something to change your skin color, that would be amazing. Prevent skin cancer/vitamin D deficiency, the kuro gyaru would love it, and maybe we could all find some class more interesting to discriminate against.
> Seriously, though. I learned from the movie Get Out that dark skin is totally in fashion.
"Seriously"?
A fictional movie about carving out someone's brain so you can transplant yours to take over their body?
"Seriously"?
A fictional movie about carving out someone's brain so you can transplant yours to take over their body?
I don't understand why people bring easily acquired items like sunscreen in their luggage. Unless you're going somewhere that doesn't have a Walgreens or a Rite-Aid, I see no reason to haul around sunscreen, shampoo, toothpaste, deodorant, mouthwash, contact lens fluid, etc., to get stopped by the TSA multiple times and have to throw it out anyway because it exploded because of the pressure difference.
So you arrive somewhere on a holiday, and rather than getting out and seeing the sites, you go shopping at a grocery store? And you are confused why everyone doesn't do the same? That is such a strange question to me.
Yeah, it takes about 12 minutes and the extra $12 spent is worth not having to haul those things around. I prefer carrying as little with me as possible. Plus, the grocery store has gummy worms.
You must only go to boring places if you can always get those extra things easily ;)
Hell, you can get it on arrival at most airports. I agree with you - I hate packing stuff I can buy.
Often personal preference, especially when travelling through different countries. Canada has vastly different preferences in deodorant style and scents to New Zealand for example. Also different countries have different brand names (eg Lynx in NZ, Axe in North America), so if you have a preferred brand for whatever reason it might have a different name or not exist at all.
Plus the last thing I want to do after getting off a long flight is go shopping for toothpaste.
Plus the last thing I want to do after getting off a long flight is go shopping for toothpaste.
No Old Spice in NZ :(
Cost and convenience. The markup on personal hygiene products at Walgreens for example is horrific compared to say, Walmart. After landing in a far away place, I don’t want to have to spend any time tracking those items down.
If you follow the TSA regs for liquids, it’s a non-issue.
If you follow the TSA regs for liquids, it’s a non-issue.
in my case, I know what's there when I get there, vs what I can bring.
I tend to stay outside of Lahaina on Maui, and there's a CVS pharmacy (long's drugs), a Walgreens, and a Safeway. all of them tend to carry the same mass-market greasy sunscreen with low spf values. my skin does not do well with that, and I end up extremely sunburnt. bringing my own ends up being a better value proposition.
editing to add: if I'm on vacation, I'm checking a bag, so taking extra liquids is no problem. if I'm traveling for work, I have a bag already packed with everything within TSA requirements, so no need to try to track down a store to walk or ride to somewhere near my hotel.
I tend to stay outside of Lahaina on Maui, and there's a CVS pharmacy (long's drugs), a Walgreens, and a Safeway. all of them tend to carry the same mass-market greasy sunscreen with low spf values. my skin does not do well with that, and I end up extremely sunburnt. bringing my own ends up being a better value proposition.
editing to add: if I'm on vacation, I'm checking a bag, so taking extra liquids is no problem. if I'm traveling for work, I have a bag already packed with everything within TSA requirements, so no need to try to track down a store to walk or ride to somewhere near my hotel.
So the first thing you do when you arrive at any destination is load up and go shopping? Sounds very inconvenient to me and that's assuming you are probably travelling alone or with a companion. Add kids to the mix and things get worse. I take things in 3 oz bottles and can't remember the last time anything exploded due to altitude. At most, some might squeeze out into the ziploc. I guess occasionally, lodging will have a little kiosk open until 6pm that will sell you a small bottle of sunscreen for $13.
It really isn't that big of a deal. I don't pack "essentials" either, unless I know that a place won't have what I need (stick deodorant is a good example of this).
Most people will check into their hotel first-thing anyway. A 10 minute diversion to stop at a convenience store isn't as bad as you might think.
Most people will check into their hotel first-thing anyway. A 10 minute diversion to stop at a convenience store isn't as bad as you might think.
What do you do with the things you buy? Dump them in the trash when you leave?
I can buy a 3 pack of sunscreen at BJ’s for $10. The same sunscreen in a smaller bottle was $13 a CVS on the Maine coast.
If it's a vacation, that's not a significant expense compared to the other vacation activities, a rental car or taxis, meals out, etc.
Have you considered the possibility that some people are able to afford a vacation only because they are thrifty? Your comments are very close to "let them eat cake" levels of detachment (and yes, I know that quote is apocryphal).
[deleted]
My idea of a vacation isn’t trudging to a busy CVS to buy sunscreen and personal care items.
I'm with you- but I always pack as lightly as possible. It seems we may be the exception!
American sunscreens don't work as well. Thanks, FDA.
Yeah, I've heard that. Would love to hear recommendations on what better foreign sunscreens I can buy.
Along related lines: zinc-based sunblock has gotten a lot nicer to use in recent years. Worth checking out as an alternative.
Transparent zinc sunblock utilizes nano zinc particles which are toxic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3781714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26531873
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3781714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26531873
..and as the first paper says, ZnO nanoparticles are NOT toxic if silica coated, so devil is in the details here. It should also be noted that no in vivo toxicity has been demonstrated from non-coated nanoparticles, although there's a theoretical potential for it.
In the second study ZnO nanoparticles were injected DIRECTLY INTO THE BLOOD of rats with no control for non-nano particles. Crazy they even got it published.
In the second study ZnO nanoparticles were injected DIRECTLY INTO THE BLOOD of rats with no control for non-nano particles. Crazy they even got it published.
"In humans OMC(octinoxate) exposure has minor, but statistically significant effects on the levels of testosterone and estradiol [19].
Moreover, some studies suggested that OMC can interact with the hypothalamo-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis [63]."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615097/ [19]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15191542 [63]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15458794
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615097/ [19]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15191542 [63]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15458794
This is horrible "feel good" legislation that relies on bad science, and doesn't address any of the major root causes of coral degradation, such as agricultural and industrial run off, ocean temperature, and acidity etc. One can easily disprove these studies with even basic high school concepts such as density, and at what level is something a poison. The idea that sunscreen diluted in the ocean at levels approaching a couple parts per trillion is toxic is laughable. One can easily think of a myriad of ways to test and disprove this hypothesis. The people of Hawaii should be ashamed of their political leadership and inept legislation without addressing true root cause.
i am highly skeptical of the science of this, let alone the fact that the ocean massively dilutes, a very small amount of sunblock off of people.
Here's the relevant paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00244-015-0227-...
Short summary is that beaches where sunblock is used a lot show much higher concentrations of the relevant chemical compared to beaches where sunscreen is less common or beaches that saw fewer swimmers, and that heightened levels of these chemicals can be observed up to 600 meters out from these beaches. The observed correlation between high concentrations of these chemicals in the water and the lack of coral growths is very strong.
Short summary is that beaches where sunblock is used a lot show much higher concentrations of the relevant chemical compared to beaches where sunscreen is less common or beaches that saw fewer swimmers, and that heightened levels of these chemicals can be observed up to 600 meters out from these beaches. The observed correlation between high concentrations of these chemicals in the water and the lack of coral growths is very strong.
How much will this actually do for the corals? As far as I know they're effectively doomed due to warming waters and changing pH thanks to all the carbon dioxide we're pumping out.
Why anyone except babies need sunscreen?
To help prevent sunburn and decrease risk of skin cancer. I've seen people who spend lots of time in the sun without any kind of protection. It's not something I hope to achieve.
Perhaps this photo of a man with significant sun exposure on only one side of his face will help explain how real sun damage is https://www.livescience.com/20743-photo-sun-damage-skin-canc...
Come to New Zealand, you’ll find out
And then replaces them with human harming chemicals.
It's unfortunate that they are giving credence to EWG as it damages the credibility of the article. EWG amounts to an anti-science pro-organic industry group that uses pseudoscience to push their agenda.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scien...