Comments on: Lobbying Group Poses as Consumer Group to Attack Environmental Group over Sunscreens http://cleantechnica.com/2010/08/18/lobbying-group-poses-as-consumer-group-to-attack-environmental-group-over-sunscreens/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:22:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: krissy http://cleantechnica.com/2010/08/18/lobbying-group-poses-as-consumer-group-to-attack-environmental-group-over-sunscreens/#comment-12402 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:10:16 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=14179#comment-12402 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.

]]> By: Tina Casey http://cleantechnica.com/2010/08/18/lobbying-group-poses-as-consumer-group-to-attack-environmental-group-over-sunscreens/#comment-12401 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:57:31 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=14179#comment-12401 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.

]]> By: Dr. Chad http://cleantechnica.com/2010/08/18/lobbying-group-poses-as-consumer-group-to-attack-environmental-group-over-sunscreens/#comment-12400 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:26:19 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=14179#comment-12400 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.

]]>