Environmental Working Group (EWG) harnesses the power of databases to publish vital information

Katie Donnelly

In some cases where the government doesn’t keep track of data, citizen groups have stepped in to report and disseminate information. For example, The Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental awareness and activist organization, serves as public media 2.0 by publishing a host of reports, databases and interactive tools. The nonprofit organization’s mission, according to their website, is “to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment.”

The Environmental Working Group’s site contains a host of environmental information, including many large-scale research reports on topics such as agricultural subsidies, mining, pesticide use and toxicity in consumer products. It also offers various kinds of social media tools, including blogs and some fun, simple calculators that address questions like “How much tuna can you eat in a day?” and “How much are you being gouged by gas prices?” Video content is unfortunately lacking, as evidenced by EWG’s sparsely-populated YouTube channel.

But some of the site’s most powerful features are its databases, which effectively combine multiple layers of data with human-interest elements. As described in Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics, “Deep wells of data and imagery are increasingly valuable for reporting, information visualization, trend-spotting, and comparative analysis. Databases also now serve as powerful back-ends for managing and serving up digital content, making it available across a range of browsers and devices.”

Each of the Environmental Working Group’s databases connects to larger project. For example, as part of their work on farm subsidies, EWG launched a searchable database of farm subsidies for all 50 states over a span of 12 years. Users can search by city, zip code, recipient’s name, or business name. The database also has an accompanying blog dedicated to agricultural issues.

Perhaps the most well known of the Environmental Working Group’s is Skin Deep, a huge database that tracks ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. The effort is part of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, group of concerned environmental and women’s organizations whose founding members include: Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, National Black Environmental Justice Network, National Environmental Trust and Women’s Voices for the Earth.

The Environmental Working Group created the Skin Deep database because the FDA does not review ingredients in cosmetics or require safety testing of cosmetics before sale. As of early October, the database provided safety ratings for 50,782 products and 8,742 ingredients (representing nearly a quarter of personal care products currently on the market). Users can search for specific products or ingredients, or browse through the lists of products that are ranked numerically according to their hazard levels. A section for user-generated content (including product reviews) is currently in beta form.

My search for Crest’s clean mint whitening toothpaste yielded a hazard score of seven (out of 10). According to the database, which lists every ingredient’s potential risk factors, its ingredients are linked to cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, persistence and bioaccumulation, organ system toxicity, irritation, enhanced skin absorption, contamination concerns, occupational hazards, and biochemical or cellular level changes. But much about these ingredients is still unknown. For each item, Skin Deep assigns a “Data Gap” percentage. In the case of this toothpaste, it’s 68 percent. This number represents how much more research is needed in order to properly ascertain an appropriate hazard level.

EWG’s U.S. mining database uses mapping tools to track mining claims in 12 Western states. (As defined on the site: “A mining claim gives a company or individual the right to mine metals on public land. Claims may become large, destructive mines. Companies can stake claims for as little as $1 per acre.”) Many of these claims are located in proximity to national treasures, including national parks. For example, there are currently 815 claims within five miles and 2,297 claims within 10 miles of the Grand Canyon. Users can search for claims by state or zoom in to particular “treasures.” A great amount of detail is provided: users can identify individual mines and owners, as well as ownership of claims, plans, and notices, and whether or not the owners have a specific interest in uranium.

There is also the National Tapwater Quality Database, which lets users search for their tapwater quality by city, state, county, water company, or specific contaminant. The Bottled Water Scorecard ranks specific brands of bottled water. (The highest-ranked received a grade of “B.”)

The Auto Asthma Index ranks smog levels in specific U.S. cities as well as the pollutant levels of specific vehicles. There is also a tool for users to rate the polluting factor of their own vehicles and compare makes and models.

Most recently, EWG has worked on issues of cell phone radiation. This tool allows users to look up radiation levels for specific models (although not all models are currently represented).

The Environmental Working Group has also collaborated with Commonweal on the Human Toxome Project. According to the site:

Just as scientists raced to define the human genome, the Human Toxome Project (HTP) at Environmental Working Group is working to define the human toxome—the full scope of industrial pollution in humanity.

Using cutting edge biomonitoring techniques, the HTP scientists, engineers, and medical doctors test blood, urine, breast milk and other human tissues for industrial chemicals that enter the human body as pollution in food, air, and water, or from exposures to ingredients in everyday consumer products.

The HTP uses its unmatched understanding of pollution in people to foster collaboration between scientists and institutions working to uncover the links between environmental contaminants, genetics and disease. The HTP conducts research to understand the influence of exposure timing, and the synergies of mixtures that collectively manifest in the full spectrum of human disease. The Project also works to educate the public through innovative online data tools.

Here, Environmental Working Group president and cofounder Ken Cook describes testing for toxins:

As these examples suggest, EWG actively supports efforts to make policy and industry changes. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetic’s Online Action Center for instance, prompts users to sign petitions, send informational e-cards, write letters to the editor, contact cosmetic companies and the FDA and inspire similar change in their communities.

Unsurprisingly, Environmental Working Group frequently draws criticism from industry groups. Most commonly, they are accused of exaggerating data to promote a political agenda. In response to the charge that their lobbying and public information campaigns are too often commingled, the Environmental Working Group launched a separate lobbing arm, the EWG Action Fund, in 2002. However, the nonprofit and the lobbying group share the same website, and this certainly adds fuel to their critics’ fires.

Additionally, EWG has received some criticism for their scientific methodology, which often relies on collecting and comparing vast amounts of data from multiple different sources.

However, others appreciate EWG’s efforts to catalyze policy change through disseminating information in a format that is tangible and empowering for users. Clearly, their success at making data engaging has much to do with their embrace of Web 2.0 features.

Want to learn more about Public Media 2.0? Read our white paper: Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics.