Who is ewg environmental working group

The organization advocates against the use of common household products that use Teflon and other manmade materials. The group is deeply involved in the movement to advance organic food.

Mainstream scientists have criticized Environmental Working Group for some of its campaigns. A poll of experts in toxicology—the study of the effects of potentially damaging chemicals—found that those familiar with EWG believe it overstates the risks of chemical uses. Environmental Working Group was certainly willing to entertain the widely debunked view, most prominently espoused by disbarred British ex-physician and alleged fraudster Andrew Wakefield, that vaccines produced before caused autism.

Each year, EWG releases a report based on U. Department of Agriculture testing results on the twelve fruits or vegetables with the highest pesticide residues; EWG presents the results as a reason to switch to organic food. Environmental Working Group is one of the leading pressure groups opposing modern agricultural practices including the use of gene technology to improve crop performance.

While EWG claims the safety of these technologies is not proven, the National Academy of Sciences has found no difference in safety between ordinary foods and those produced using these technologies. Partial Credit: There has been a diversion of assets within the last two years and the charity has used Schedule O on the Form to explain: the nature of the diversion, the amount of money or property involved and the corrective action taken to address the matter.

In this situation, we deduct 7 points from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score. No Credit: There has been a diversion of assets within the last two years and the charity's explanation on Schedule O is either non-existent or not sufficient. In this case, we deduct 15 points from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score. More Audited financial statements provide important information about financial accountability and accuracy.

Partial Credit: The charity's audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant, but it did not have an audit oversight committee.

In this case, we deduct 7 points from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score. No Credit: The charity did not have its audited financials prepared by an independent accountant. More Making loans to related parties such as key officers, staff, or Board members, is not standard practice in the sector as it may divert the charity's funds away from its charitable mission and can lead to real and perceived conflict-of-interest problems.

This practice is discouraged by sector trade groups which point to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act when they call for charities to refrain from making loans to directors and executives. And the IRS is concerned enough with the practice that it requires charities to disclose on their Form any loans to or from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and other "disqualified persons.

Furthermore, it is problematic because it is an indicator that the organization is not financially secure. Less Documents Board Meeting Minutes More An official record of the events that take place during a board meeting ensures that a contemporaneous document exists for future reference.

Charities are not required to make their Board meeting minutes available to the public. As such, we are not able to review and critique their minutes.

For this performance metric, we are checking to see if the charity reports on its Form that it does keep those minutes. In the future, we will also track and rate whether or not a charity keeps minutes for its committee meetings. Less Distributes to Board Before Filing More Providing copies of the Form to the governing body in advance of filing is considered a best practice, as it allows for thorough review by the individuals charged with overseeing the organization. The Form asks the charity to disclose whether or not it has followed this best practice.

If the charity has not distributed its Form to the board before filing, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. Less Compensates Board More The IRS requires that any compensation paid to members of the charity's governing body be listed on the Form Furthermore, all members of the governing body need to be listed whether or not they are compensated. It is not unusual for some members of the board to have compensation listed.

The executive director of the organization frequently has a seat on the board, for instance, and is compensated for being a full time staff member.

However, it is rare for a charity to compensate individuals only for serving on its Board of Directors. Although this sort of board compensation is not illegal, it is not considered a best practice. Policies Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form , or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization has these policies in place.

More Such a policy protects the organization, and by extension those it serves, when it is considering entering into a transaction that may benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the organization. Charities are not required to share their conflict of interest policies with the public.

Although we can not evaluate the substance of its policy, we can tell you if the charity has one in place based on the information it reports on its Form If the charity does not have a Conflict of Interest policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score.

Less Whistleblower More This policy outlines procedures for handling employee complaints, as well as a confidential way for employees to report any financial mismanagement.

Here we are reporting on the existence of a policy as reported by the charity on its Form Less Records Retention and Destruction More Such a policy establishes guidelines for handling, backing up, archiving and destruction of documents. These guidelines foster good record keeping procedures that promotes data integrity. If the charity does not have a Records Retention and Destruction Policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score.

More This process indicates that the organization has a documented policy that it follows year after year. The policy should indicate that an objective and independent review process of the CEO's compensation has been conducted which includes benchmarking against comparable organizations.

We check to be sure that the charity has reported on its Form its process for determining its CEO pay. Less Donor Privacy More Donors have expressed extreme concern about the use of their personal information by charities and the desire to have this information kept confidential.

Privacy policies are assigned to one of the following categories: Yes: This charity has a written donor privacy policy published on its website, which states unambiguously that 1 it will not share or sell a donor's personal information with anyone else, nor send donor mailings on behalf of other organizations or 2 it will only share or sell personal information once the donor has given the charity specific permission to do so.

Opt-out: The charity has a written privacy policy published on its website which enables donors to tell the charity to remove their names and contact information from lists the charity shares or sells. How a donor can have themselves removed from a list differs from one charity to the next, but any and all opt-out policies require donors to take specific action to protect their privacy. No: This charity either does not have a written donor privacy policy in place to protect their contributors' personal information, or the existing policy does not meet our criteria.

Transparency Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form , or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization makes this information easily accessible.

Our analysts check to be sure that the charities complied with the Form instructions and included this information in their filing. Less Board of Directors Listed on Website More Our analysts check to see if the charity lists Board members on its website.

Publishing this information enables donors and other stakeholders to ascertain the make up of the charity's governing body. This enables stakeholders to report concerns to the Board. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the Board members listed on the website with that reported on the Form , because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends. In that time, the charity's Board members may have changed, and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website.

Less Key Staff Listed on Website More It is important for donors and other stakeholders to know who runs the organization day-to-day. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the leadership listed on the website with that reported on the Form because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends. In that time, the charity's leadership may have changed and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website.

In other words, since the Form isn't especially timely, it can not be used to verify the leadership information published on the charity's site. Less Audited Financial Statements on Website More We check the charity's website to see if it has published its audited financial statements for the fiscal year represented by the most recently filed IRS Form It is important for donors to have easy access to this financial report to help determine if the organization is managing its financial resources well.

We currently rate charities on whether or not they publish their audit on their website. Less Form Available on Website More We check the charity's website to see if it has published its most recently filed IRS Form a direct link to the charity's on an external site is sufficient.

Additional Information. The EWG would prefer that we all suffer an increased risk of dying in a fire in order to eliminate a completely theoretical and unlikely risk from fire retardants.

Everybody agrees that lead is bad. Why is the EWG still raising money on it? The EWG misleadingly states , "Mercury exposure from eating fish carries serious health risks. Most fish is perfectly healthy. The FDA has published a handy chart , depicting which fish we should eat and which we should avoid.

The EWG, of course, distorts this information. For example, EWG says that pregnant women "should limit or avoid" canned light tuna. The FDA disagrees, saying that pregnant women can safely eat 2 to 3 servings per week.

This is like saying "chemicals. Nonstick materials. The EWG is conducting a war on Teflon and other nonstick materials. They don't like the molecule perfluorooctanoic acid, which is possibly toxic and used to make Teflon.

The same will be true of other polymers and the PFCs polyfluorinated compounds from which they are derived. The EWG misleadingly calls perchlorate a component of "rocket fuel.

The FDA recommends that drinking water contain less than 15 ppb perchlorate, and it also says that a study showed that people's perchlorate consumption was less than the current EPA reference dose i. The EPA will set additional guidelines by the end of October Both conventional and organic pesticides are safe, as long as they are applied at or below approved levels.