Today the Environmental Working Group released their annual report about sunscreens, which called into question the safety of oxybenzone and some Vitamin A derived products when used in sunscreens. My complaint isn’t about whether they are right or wrong.
I find it perplexing that the EWG is making money off sunscreens they are claiming cause cancer and a host of other problems.
How is this happening? As of today, 05-24-10, the EWG.org website has a “buy from Amazon” link on pages of sunscreen they “rate.” When a user clicks on this links and buys the alleged “cancer causing product”, the Environmental Working Group gets paid. Simple, it’s called affiliate advertising. Likewise I find it odd that the EWG releases their “Best Sunscreen” list and then makes money off sales of those sunscreens under the affiliate program.
This sort of tactic calls into question the “independence” and “integrity” of an organization that claims to be watching out for the public. I understand that everybody, including the EWS, has to make money. But, making recommendations and then making money off of those recommendations (and making money off selling things that you claim cause cancer), - especially when we may or may not be talking about people getting cancer or not - really calls into question the intentions, policies, and decision making of the EWG. We aren’t taking about reviewing dvd players and then making money off sales of them. EWG is making some pretty bold claims about sunscreen safety here. Different ballgame.
Subscribe to mr.squeaky
Your post also had google ads to sunscreen. It is hard to control the links since they do not distinguish context. Google adsense is very rudimentary and gives poor control to the subscriber. Can you send me a link to their sunscreen report? It’s a very confusing topic.
Carolina on May 25th, 2010 at 9:46 am | Link
Environmental Working Group (EWG), like many nonprofits, participates in this program offered by Amazon.com as a way to help defray a small portion of the considerable costs in resources and staff time it takes to build our sunscreen and cosmetics databases. As part of the 2010 sunscreen guide we offer folks an easy way to purchase the products our researchers have determined are the safest and most effective for themselves and their families.
However, if people decide they would rather purchase a sunscreen or some other personal care product that we at EWG have concerns with, they are free - as an American consumer - to do so. We’ll use the small percentage of that sale to continue to fund our work that helps millions of other people shop around the known and probable carcinogens used as ingredients in products both children and adults apply to their skin on a daily basis.
Alex Formuzis, EWG on May 25th, 2010 at 1:53 pm | Link
Caroline,
The ads served by EWG are not google ads. They are Amazon affiliate ads purposefully placed there by EWG as Alex Formuzis stated.
Alex,
That is an interesting way to look at it. What you are saying is that, because americans have “free will,” EWG sees no problems profiting from the sale of sunscreens that EWG claims cause cancer - even when EWG purposefully placed those ads on the EWG website. EWG then justifies it by saying the sales help do important work that helps other people avoid products that EWG claims cause cancer. And then suggesting it is only a small amount anyway.
This philosophy sounds similar to creating a website that teaches about the dangers of smoking, putting affiliate ads to programs that sell cigarettes, taking a cut of the sales, and then claiming it all goes to helping people avoid cancer.
First off, there are no ads on our website promoting cancer-causing items for sale. And, while we do participate - like hundreds if not thousands of other nonprofits do - in this program offered through Amazon that allows supporters of EWG to purchase anything from sunscreen to a bulldozer, we try hard to steer consumers toward the products we’ve studied and believe are the safest.
But, if after all of our best efforts they choose to go with a product we at EWG have concerns with, that’s their choice. We operate under the laws of the United States, not North Korea.
Alex Formuzis on June 1st, 2010 at 9:37 am | Link
Alex,
Nobody is questioning your adherence to the law.
You say , “First off, there are no ads on our website promoting cancer-causing items for sale.”
In your May 28th 2010 letter to the FDA, Kenneth Cook, EWG’s president, states the following…
“Our review of the data shows that your completion of this assessment could not be more urgent. The data show that tumors and lesions developed as much as 21 percent more rapidly in lab animals coated in a retinyl palmitate (RP)-laced cream (at concentrations of 0.1 percent to 0.5 percent), compared to control animals treated with an RP-free cream.”
That sounds like Mr. Cook is stating that EWG’s position is that retinyl palmitate, which is Vitamin A, causes or contributes to cancer development. If this is not EWG’s position, please feel free to correct me.
Alex, remembering that you just said that there are no ads on EWG website promoting cancer causing items for sale, I offer to you that your website states that Coppertone Kids Sunscreen Lotion contains Vitamin A, and that you currently have an Amazon ad selling that product.
http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/finding-the-best-sunscreens/230422/Coppertone-KIDS-Sunscreen-Lotion-SPF/
This is only one, of what is likely hundreds of products, that contain Vitamin A which are listed on your website that do, in fact, have ads to sell those products (assuming the EWG’s statement that 41% of sunscreens contain Vitamin A). And when sold, benefit EWG.
You can say it all you want, but your own website doesn’t support your claims.
First, to your point on retinyl palmitate and Vitamin A:
From our report’s FAQs:
Data from an FDA cancer study shows that retinyl palmitate (Vitamin A), a common sunscreen ingredient, may speed the growth of skin tumors. Vitamin A seems to spur cancer only when it’s combined with sunlight, a quality called “photocarcinogenic.”
The sunscreen industry adds Vitamin A to 41% of all sunscreens, in a synthetic form called retinyl palmitate. It is an antioxidant that hydrates skin and prevents skin aging. FDA has long been concerned about Vitamin A because of its increasing use in body care products, its ability to spur hyperplasia (excess skin growth) in anti-aging creams, and the fact that in sunlight it forms free radicals and damages DNA (NTP 2000).
In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21% sooner in lab animals coated in a Vitamin A-laced cream (0.1 and 0.5% Vitamin A) and exposed to the equivalent of just 9 minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day for up to a year, compared to animals treated with sunlight and a vitamin-free cream.
It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold in the final assessment, the sunscreen industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreen with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” on the label).
So, you are correct that EWG is concerned with the use of this form of Vitamin A as an ingredient in over 40 percent sunscreens, and we urge those who use this guide to go with products without it.
To your other concern about “ads”.
A common definition of an advertisement is ‘a form of communication used to influence individuals to purchase products or services…’
While there is an image of a Coppertone bottle and a link to Amazon where folks who choose to ignore our advice can go to purchase the product, it is clearly not an advertisement.
In fact, we’ve tried our best to get those who use the guide to go with other safer, more effective options; the exact opposite of what marketing and advertising department at Coppertone would do.
There isn’t a single sentence anywhere on the site where we try to influence or persuade the consumer into buying any product we have determined may be hazardous.
If I worked on Madison Avenue and was sent to land the Coppertone account, showing up with just an image of a bottle and link would likely result in me being shown the door, and fired once I returned to the office.
Alex Formuzis on June 3rd, 2010 at 9:57 am | Link
Yes, I was correct in stating that EWG is concerned that Vitamin A causes or contributes to skin cancer development.
Quote: “There isn’t a single sentence anywhere on the {EWG} site where we try to influence or persuade the consumer into buying any product we have determined may be hazardous.”
To be clear, at no point did I say that you are trying to influence or persuade anybody to buy a hazardous product. I have maintained that EWG makes money on products sold through Amazon links they place (or authorize) on their website, some of which EWG believes are implicated in cancer. I was pretty clear in saying that you had affiliate advertising and used the shorthand term “ads” to refer to them throughout my comments. Likewise, at no point did I compare you to the advertising department at Coppertone.
You chose the definition of advertising (of which there are many). We can argue about whether or not placing an affiliate ad is a form of advertising for the product or not. I can only assume that you are clarifying this for other readers. The definition is yours. I was not using your definition of advertising. I was speaking about your affiliate ads.
Quote: “In fact, we’ve tried our best to get those who use the guide to go with other safer, more effective options; the exact opposite of what marketing and advertising department at Coppertone would do.” “We try hard to steer consumers toward the products we’ve studied and believe are the safest.”
I understand that is your position. Nevertheless, I went to your website to look into your recent claims regarding sunscreen safety. It seemed out of place to have links for the sale of products that you claim might cause cancer. This struck me as an odd position for a company that claims to be looking out for public health.
Basically, EWG’s position on the matter is that EWG is not disturbed by making money on products sold through their website that they claim cause cancer and health problems - a position which you have described above. A lot of health companies would not take *any* money from the sale of dangerous products. EWG does. Pretty simple.
It makes me wonder why EWG would not just delete the links to the sale of the thousand or so products about which they have serious health concerns, OR why they would not just substitute affiliate links for the products they do recommend as safe(r) throughout the EWG sunscreen guide. Either way, EWG would not be in the position of making money on the sale of sunscreens they claim cause cancer. Granted there may be some issues with people think you are “promoting and pushing” positive products, but comparatively that would be pretty easy to justify.
Mr.Squeaky, way to go! You can not make your point more clearer than you have, and it seems the rep from EWG wants to run in circles stating that they discourage the use of Vitamin A based products, but still offer them to their customers to make a profit. If you offer cancer causing products, how can you possibly say you are discouraging the use of those products?
Its the corporate run-around game, where they say one thing, but do another, in an effort to continue making money by supporting both sides. Most sheeple will never notice. I applaud you for not only making a very astute observation, but also for sticking to your guns and holding true to your original statement (and the use of proper grammar has made my day!).
Maqmed on June 9th, 2010 at 9:59 pm | Link
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Squeaky. I also find it ironic that the EWG rep claims that people can use free choice in deciding what they’re going to buy yet, EWG would like to promote more stringent legislation so much that people wouldn’t have free choice to buy what they wanted and instead be stuck with what EWG’s “scientists” believe is right.
Agree Fully on June 14th, 2010 at 10:35 am | Link
It’s difficult to reply directly to the comments posted by Agree Fully, considering they make no sense.
“EWG would like to promote more stringent legislation so much that people wouldn’t have free choice to buy what they wanted…”
What legislation?
EWG would just like the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to finalize the permanent sunscreen safety standards the agency first promised back in 1978 - the year Annie Hall won best picture.
You’d think in 32 years the FDA could manage to put in place some basic rules of the road for an industry that makes products designed to protect people from the harmful rays of the sun.
Wouldn’t it be nice to know that when a sunscreen company puts “waterproof” or “lasts all day” on the bottle that it’s actually true?
Right now manufacturers can say whatever they’d like without having to back up their claims with any evidence. I understand that companies, in their drive to market their products, take some license with how they do it, but to give people the impression they can stay out all day in the sun without having to reapply sunscreen is dangerous and can lead to serious skin damage.
Now, if the commenter was referring to actual legislation and just forgot to leave out the name of the bill, please let me know. I’d be happy to provide our position on the legislation if we have one.
Alex Formuzis on June 14th, 2010 at 11:21 am | Link
EWG, like millions of individuals, companies and other nonprofit organizations takes part in Amazon’s affiliate program.
Guidestar.org, which tracks and verifies charities, recommends groups participate in the program as a way to raise a portion of the resources required to fund their work. EWG is proud of our partnership with the company, and even more proud that many of those who use our research to help protect themselves and their families have decided to help us a bit by buying items through our Amazon link.
To mr. squeaky’s last comment (June 4):
As a non-profit organization that developed our own ranking system for toxic personal care items, we cannot ethically only link to the products that rank high in our research because that could be considered promotion of these brands. We feel our job is to educate folks on what is in the products they may use and recommend safer alternatives whenever possible.
We hope people will take our recommendations and purchase safer alternatives, but all EWG can do is provide the best information possible for consumers to make their own educated decisions.
Alex Formuzis on June 14th, 2010 at 12:51 pm | Link
You may also be interested in an in-depth analysis of the usefulness (or otherwise) of the Skin Deep database lauded by EWG:
http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/05/skin-deep-scratching-below-the-surface/
Dene Godfrey on June 15th, 2010 at 9:17 am | Link
I am a little surprised that Alex Formuzis has not responded to the posting of the link above. I suspect that he has either not bothered to read it, or he has read it and realised that the claims made for Skin Deep are untenable and has left the EWG to pursue a more rewarding career option. Skin Deep’s ratings bear NO relation to the safety of ANY cosmetic product.
Dene Godfrey on June 24th, 2010 at 11:33 am | Link
A simple salient observation made by the original poster and easy for even the simple minded to understand - yet rigorously defended by EWG. The practice is unethical - period. Especially when they are funded by donations. I think most responsible business owners understand this principle. Our website has affiliate links to books at Amazon - they are all about health, wellness, soapmaking, etc. - directly related to what we do and the products we sell. We actually go a step further and don’t even offer a link to a book that we personally haven’t read and found useful. Could we offer links to romance novels and make money doing so - probably and it would most likely be more lucrative, but we don’t. I don’t think it’s difficult to understand and EWG needs to change a lot of what they do. For six years now this behemoth of misinformation has been allowed to run wild without anyone questioning their validity. I for one and very thankful for those of you who have taken the time to respond and most especially thankful for the scientifically-based information I’m finding on http://www.personalcaretruth.com - oh, and they don’t ask for donations.
Ann @ Wingsets on June 24th, 2010 at 12:38 pm | Link
People should know that Vitamin A (retinol) is not the same as retinyl palmitate, which is an ester of retinol. If you use the terms Vitamin A and retinyl palmitate interchangeably, you are guilty of imprecision. That will lead to confusion at best and errors of fact. These two substances have different properties and information about those differences is taken into account by people formulating products containing either of these substances.
Chris Flower on June 25th, 2010 at 1:55 am | Link
Hey y’all -
I’d like to introduce you to Personal Care Truth, which I co-founded with Kristin Fraser Cotte.
Personal Care Truth is not about scare tactics, generalizations, fear mongering, or hopping aboard what’s considered trendy at the moment.
Personal Care Truth is about education, facts, questions, research, sharing knowledge, and empowering consumers to make the choice that’s right for their families. We believe it is more powerful to provide information to educate and empower YOU, the consumer, as opposed to scaring you with information that has not been backed by science.
Our post today is ‘Straight From the Horse’s Mouth’, that includes audio of Susan Roll, testifying as the Vice Chair of The Women’s Lobby of Colorado during the legislative session of the Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act, which did not pass. Ms. Roll was asked by Representative Daniel Kagan, “Where are the independent scientific studies”?
Visit this link to listen for yourself: http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/straight-from-the-horses-mouth/
Have a great day!
Lisa M. Rodgers
Personal Care Truth
Lisa M. Rodgers on June 25th, 2010 at 6:58 am | Link
I would like to invite you to sunputty.com to look over our ingredients and lack of fillers in our SPF and Restore products. There is also no vitamin A in the SPF. With all the talk and research about sunsceen and cancer we all need a natural products that will help to protect and care for our skin. Sun Putty is a new up and coming company that is making a mark already in NY and LA. “Good for You, Good for the Earth”
Mary Vasquez on July 18th, 2010 at 10:48 pm | Link
I took up Mary’s invite to visit sunputty.com, and I wonder if she is reading the same discussion as me. The suncare product on offer is being sold mostly on the basis of the approval of the EWG and Skin Deep. This discussion is mostly questioning the tactics and morality of EWG (and the usefulness of Skin Deep), so I don’t think this was the best forum for introducing her advertising. Also, the product seems to be sold mainly on the fact that it is natural and, therefore, automatically safe. Natural does NOT equal safe.
Dene Godfrey on July 19th, 2010 at 1:15 am | Link
we don’t need these type of website like amazon.
amazon all the time focuses on traffic like FFA that is free for all traffic
rayzz review on August 10th, 2010 at 4:43 am | Link