Lobbying Group Poses as Consumer Group to Attack Environmental Group over Sunscreens

August 18th, 2010 by Tina Casey

Now that the age of newspeak is firmly upon us, it’s not suprising that an organization with a seemingly straightforward name like “Center for Consumer Freedom” is not a consumer protection group. CCF is a lobbying group that has, among other things, worked for the tobacco industry to thwart smoking bans. Its latest target is the Environmental Working Group, and the subject is EWG’s recent report involving the use of vitamin A in sunscreens.

[social_buttons]

According to SourceWatch, CCF’ usually positions itself as an authority on an issue and then undermines the credibility of scientific research on that topic. They’ve used this approach to attack research on issues ranging from obesity and mercury poisoning to pharmaceuticals and pesticides, and the vitamin A issue looks like a textbook case of their methodology.

Vitamin A and Sunscreens

CCF’ put out a press release on August 16 that starts off with a general attack on EWG’s entire body of work before declaring that “Not even vitamin A is safe from EWG’s poison pen.” Basically they’ve set EWG up to look laughable for making us scared of vitamin A. Well actually, something you take orally can have very different effects if you slather it on your skin. More to the point, the stuff used in some sunscreens is a form of vitamin A (not just plain old “vitamin A”), and there are other forms of vitamin A such as retinol that work as a skin irritant, and any decent online health adviser will warn you to avoid the sun when using skin products that contain retinol, so no, it is not laughable to take a look at research from the Food and Drug Administration that explores the potential health impacts of overusing skin products that contain a form of vitamin A, which is what EWG did.

Pitting Scientists Against Each Other

CCF also declares, without citation, that 70 percent of the members of the Society of Toxicology have a general problem with EWG. Setting aside the question of how reliable that figure is (and what it actually means), a quick search of the ol’ tubes reveals bad blood between the Society and EWG on an unrelated matter, so it’s not entirely clear that a survey of Society members is a reliable indicator of EWG’s professional standards.

The takeaway: when reporting on science issues, it’s a cop-out to seek two opposing sides and give each equal credibility. Instead of achieving journalistic objectivity, the failure to investigate and weigh sources is itself a powerful form of bias, which plays right into the hands of front groups by providing one side’s position with a force that is not borne out by the facts.

Image: Sun on skin by Jessica Rabbit on flickr.com.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Center for Consumer Freedom, Environmental Working Group, lobbying, sunscreen, vitamin A

About the Author

Tina Casey Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.

krissy

I wouldnt wear sunscreen again. Id prefer a hat and long sleeve shirts. The stuff is toxic. I’ll hate to say I told you so in 20 years, but many studies proving it have already been out there for a while.
Dr. Chad

Here’s the proof for the Society of Toxicology’s opinion about EWG.

http://www.toxicology.org/pr/AreChemicalsPR.pdf

Just because somebody’s a front group doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Heck, seen through another lens, EWG is a front for progressive foundations and the trial lawyers who file “toxic tort” lawsuits.

Glass houses. Just saying.
- Tina Casey
  
  Dr. Chad, thank you very much for providing the link to the survey that was apparently cited by CCF, but it does not appear to support your point regarding CCF’s use of the survey to undermine the credibility of EWG. I’m not going to render an expert opinion on the meaning of the survey’s findings as they relate to the credibility of any one particular group, but the author issues this caveat regarding the findings: “There were considerable variations in the number of respondents who were familiar enough with the various organizations to rate their accuracy. To insure that the comparisons are commensurable, the percentages exclude “don’t know” responses.” Follow the link to the table and you will see that only 51% of the respondents knew enough about EWG to issue an opinion, which means that if CCF really did cite this report they seriously misrepresented the findings (CCF claims that at least 70% of the members of the Society did not give EWG a credible rating). The study’s author also does not clarify whether there was a methodology for assessing how many of the other responses were based on incomplete knowledge of the group’s work, were based on opinions regarding issues outside of the respondent’s area of expertise, or simply mistaking one group for another. Again, I appreciate your interest in adding information to the conversation but in this case the details of the survey only highlight CCF’s tactics.