The Hypocrisy Of Using Scare Tactics To Impact Public Policy

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John C. Hill on June 16, 2010 at 4:41pm

I agree with you opinions 100% about EWG. As a matter of fact, I did some very detailed research on them after they came out and stated that "using sunscreen can cause cancer".

Nothing could be further from the truth, when used properly, sunscreens can help prevent skin cancer. But, what is most interesting is that if you dig deep enough into this story, you will find that this misinformation is being driven by the liberal, progressive movement in the United States! Here is the proof:

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is well known to the cosmetic industry and the FDA. I am a member of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, Southern California Chapter, and the EWG is a standing joke! They back a website known as "Skin Deep" (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/). This web site is so full of misinformation, blatant lies, propoganda, and scare tactics that it is an embarrassment to all true cosmetc scientists world wide. It has powerful backing, and a google search on virtually ANYTHING cosmetic related always pulls "Skin Deep" up as the first hit. We (cosmetic chemists) actually poke fun at most of the things that Skin Deep says, and blow it off as juvenile at best. But, the average Joe Q. Public doesn't know the actual science, and truly believes the scare tactics used by Skin Deep and the EWG! The internet is a wonderful way to spread rumors and misinformation. And, it is also a wonderful way to "lead the masses" who don't know any better! More on that comment since it is critically important to the EWG's tactical and strategic plan...

Now, here is the connection between Skin Deep, the EWG, and the liberal progressive agenda in the United States that I assure you, very few if any people know about!

If you perform a search, and go to a website known as "Democracy in Action" (http://salsalabs.com/democracyinaction) with the tag line "wiring the progressive movement", you will find that they are directly linked to the EWG and Skin Deep!
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ewgroup/petit...

Now, exactly who is "Democracy in Action"?? Well, in their own words on their website they proclaim to be:

DemocracyInAction, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization itself, believes technology can be a decisive force for social change. We exist to empower those who share our values of ecological and social justice to advance the progressive agenda.

In other words, the agenda of Democracy in Action is to use the Internet ("wiring the progressive movement"), to spread misinformation (EWG and Skin Deep) to scare the masses into rejecting true scientific facts!! Essentially, they aim to decay the capitalist fair market system secretly, through the internet, by fearmongering. To say that sunscreens can actually cause cancer is misinformation AT ITS WORST!! Sunscreens can actually save lives when used properly, and should always be used during sun exposure. But, these groups aim to make "science" and big cosmetic corporations look to be evil, greedy, and non-caring. Again, nothing could be further from the truth!

Boycott EWG, SkinDeep, and Democracy in Action whenever and wherever you can, and tell everybody you can about their new age propaganda techniques.

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Goodman on June 16, 2010 at 6:28pm

This is important to know. Until now my attitude has been, sure the EWG's science is screwed up, but at least they're trying; they just need more expertise. If they're not acting in good faith, however, no amount of expert help or education would help them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Sawhill Apito on June 18, 2010 at 7:27pm

The Environmental Working Group sister organization, the Skin Deep database is perfectly named. Their data really does only scratch the surface...barely skin deep.

More and more professional organizations in the cosmetics industry have finally had enough, and are publically coming out against them and the vast amount of misinformation and misleading data on their website.

When you take a test and get a "ZERO"...you fail. The Skin Deep database rates a big ZERO...a solid failure!!

They have safe ingredients rated as hazardous, hazardous ingredient rated as safe, and generally are biased against commercial product lines.

Cropwatch: The Elephant in the Room: that ‘Not So Sexy’ CSC Report…

"Some of the fragrance ingredients identified in the CSC report are anti-oxidants or UV-absorbers, deliberately added to the product to prevent the (unlikely) generation of sensitisers from ingredients such as limonene and linalol - a fact which weakens the CSC argument surrounding sensitisers. The relative stability of linalol and its incorrect designation as a sensitiser is well-known (e.g. by Hostynek & Maibach 2008), but the CSC failed to reveal this balancing fact in their report. Similar arguments apply to substances like trans-anethole, previously deleted from a list of active principles of toxicological concern (CEFS 2005). Yet other ‘secret’ substances identified (alpha-pinenes, myrcene, limonene, gamma-terpinene, para-cymene, terpineol (no isomer identified) and alpha-cedrene) are all components of forest air and of natural essential oils."

"Millions of tons of monoterpenes, including alpha-pinene and limonene, are passed into the atmosphere per annum from biological materials (Schenk 1979, WHO 1998) for example from green leaves & therefore the needles of pine, fir, spruce & cedar trees"

Just because something can be identified by a chemical name does not automatically mean it is a threat or hazard!

"More surprising is the lack of IT knowledge collectively shown by the CSC report’s authors (i.e. how to go about accessing comprehensive toxicological data from the internet or from scientific libraries – the authors seem to have mainly relied on PubMed!), and the low level of analytical competence shown in the analysis of the chosen fragrances, which operates well below industry standard. Employing a couple of teenagers and giving them access to the internet for a few `weeks should solve the first problem, and paying a $100 dollars or so a time to a small perfume company for GC-Mass Spec analyses of the fragrances that they are interested in, should solve the second."

Read the full article in the Cropwatch newsletter...http://www.cropwatch.org/Cropwatch%20Newsletter%2018.pdf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Sawhill Apito on June 20, 2010 at 12:30am

I just read a fantastic article which addressed many of the issues with the Skin Deep database:

http://bubbleandbee.blogspot.com/2008/07/navigating-ewg-skin-deep-d...

I think this really will be a lightbulb moment for people when they read this - "Another case in point is aloe vera. "Aloe vera" gets a risk score of 2, and "aloe vera gel" gets a risk score of 1. While there really is no difference, the database somehow sees them as two different ingredients. The risk score of 2 that aloe vera receives may scare some people off, especially with the bad sounding "reproductive toxicity" and "cancer" risks. However, we have to take this rating with a grain of salt. Aloe vera is known to be one of the best things you can put on your skin. It has been used safely for hundreds--maybe thousands--of years to heal bruises, cuts, lesions, blisters, and so on. So why does it get a bad rating? First off, the database could be citing studies done on the effects of aloe taken internally, which has been controversial for years. All it takes is one study that says that aloe vera caused mutated cells in a lab and the database will flag aloe as a cancer risk. (There could be ten studies that conclude aloe cures cancer and it won't show up in the database because it only reports negative information. And who knows who funded the negative study!) "

That's why the ratings are so misleading...it now makes sense to me...only negatives (regardless of the negative is from internal use, misuse, etc.) are factored in but positives are not! There is no risk vs. benefit...only RISK! Thanks to the author of this article, Stephanie!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Goodman on June 20, 2010 at 8:40pm

An interesting side effect: the more an ingredient is studied, the higher its risk score is likely to be -- and the more an ingredient is used, the more often it's likely to be studied. Except of course that when they can't find anything at all on it, they assign a high score.

• ▶ Reply