Don’t take our word for it. Here’s every fact on this site, with its evidence grade, its caveats, and a link to the source, so you can check us.
We start you on the strong ones: findings that have been replicated or come from one large, well-controlled study. Moderate and weak facts are here too, labeled for what they are. Use “Link to this fact” to share a single card.
The industry / Other evidence
Of the oral feeding studies in FDA's toxicology database, only 7% were graded as meeting FDA's own guidance and 47% failed its core standards, and about a third of oral studies were never published.
Moderate evidence: FDA grading was applied to the studies on file; many are decades old and older standards applied.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In a one-week-on, one-week-off field test in an upscale Belgian clothing store, a faint lemon-mint scent modestly raised shoppers' ratings of the store (6.01 to 6.17 on a 7-point scale) and its products (6.12 to 6.29).
Moderate evidence: Self-rated ratings, not sales; one store, one scent; some outcomes significant only at the authors' p < .10 one-sided threshold.
Source: Doucé & Janssens 2013, Environment and Behavior, Environment and Behavior Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Retailers set the scent level so shoppers do not spontaneously notice it: in this study the diffuser was turned down until no respondent noticed a smell unprompted but all could detect it when told.
Moderate evidence: One study's procedure; the paper reports no concentrations and does not claim this is universal practice.
Source: Doucé & Janssens 2013, Environment and Behavior, Environment and Behavior Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Of 18 veterinary homeopathy trials, 9 were marked as having a vested interest because a homeopathic pharmacy company funded the work or donated the remedies; only one trial (Holmes 2005) was clearly free of vested interest.
Moderate evidence: Vested interest was defined by the authors as pharmacy funding; the review does not show that funding changed results.
Source: Mathie & Clausen 2014, Vet Rec, Veterinary Record Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The industry's own worked example found that its probabilistic model gives about a quarter to a third of the exposure obtained by simply adding regulator-style high-end values (for 2-phenylethanol, 24.2 vs. 82.3 micrograms per kg per day; 58.9 vs. 223.6 mg/kg/day for product amounts).
Moderate evidence: Model built and funded by the fragrance trade body (RIFM); concentrations from two companies and single-point inclusion levels; authors say the numbers are illustrative.
Source: Safford et al. 2015, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Retailers deliberately diffuse scents through HVAC or stand-alone diffusers in stores, hotels, and banks to steer what shoppers do; scent marketing is a growing practice the paper describes as one of the few untapped sensory tools.
Moderate evidence: Practitioner claims about prevalence are cited from trade press, not measured here; names of firms are examples from the paper.
Source: Madzharov 2015, Journal of Marketing Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
The 2016 review of clothing-cleaning methods was funded by Australian Wool Innovation, the wool industry's research body, and a coauthor works there; wool is the fiber it says needs more research on wet cleaning.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Funding by a fiber-growers body, not a solvent maker; no competing-interest statement beyond the funding line. This is a disclosure of potential interest, not evidence of bias in any specific finding.
Source: Troynikov 2016, Journal of Environmental Management Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In the US, the flavor industry's own trade association (FEMA) runs the panel that decides whether most flavor ingredients are 'generally recognized as safe'; more than 3,000 ingredients have this status, and the authors call it 'by far the most common current pathway' to market, ahead of FDA's voluntary notification program.
Moderate evidence: Self-description by three FEMA staff, funded by FEMA; counts are the program's own.
Source: Hallagan 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The panel that grants FEMA GRAS status has 6 to 8 members, must be unanimous, is 'self-appointed' (members choose their successors), and is paid honoraria by FEMA for its work; applicant company names are kept from the members, and members declare consulting ties before each meeting.
Moderate evidence: The safeguards are the industry's own description and have not been audited by an outside party in this paper.
Source: Hallagan 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The panel passes cumin oil and cumin oleoresin on the grounds that Americans already eat 6 to 110 times more of the same material as a spice, and so skips the check on unidentified constituents, even though the oleoresin's unidentified fraction (85 to 259 micrograms a day) straddles the 90-microgram threshold; the paper itself says natural occurrence is 'no guarantee of safety'.
Moderate evidence: Reflects the panel's published procedure for food-dominant materials; spice intake is an assumed upper estimate from import data.
Source: Guengerich 2026 (FEMA Expert Panel), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Industry source
In the authors' tally, 94 of 104 government-funded low-dose BPA studies (90%) found significant effects but none of 11 industry-funded studies did; the authors blame an estrogen-insensitive rat strain (CD-SD), missing or failed positive controls, and variable feed.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Counts are the authors' own classification; funding split does not prove bias, and the paper itself poses both possible explanations. Coauthor Hughes served on the industry-funded HCRA panel it criticizes.
Source: vom Saal & Hughes 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The American Plastics Council-funded Harvard Center for Risk Analysis panel concluded in 2004 that low-dose BPA evidence was 'very weak' after reviewing 19 of the 47 studies available by April 2002 (7 of 9 industry-funded but 12 of 38 government-funded) and publishing 2.5 years late.
Moderate evidence: Critique of the HCRA report by authors opposed to its conclusion; the HCRA report itself is not in our evidence base and its own defense of its selection is not given.
Source: vom Saal & Hughes 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The first published FEMA GRAS list (1965) covered flavor ingredients numbered FEMA 2001 to 3124, chosen by a panel the flavor trade association created, and was written by the chairman of the association's own food additives committee (a flavor-company research director) and a contract-lab president serving as its consultant.
Moderate evidence: Industry's own account; the panel's members are not named in this document and the exact number of substances is not printed (roughly 1,100 by number range).
Source: Hall & Oser 1965 (FEMA GRAS 3), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The 1965 flavor industry GRAS list says the expert panel judged flavors 'generally recognized as safe' using 'all available data, including experience based on common use', and that because nearly all were used before 1958, common use was 'sometimes a major factor' in the final judgment.
Moderate evidence: The paper prints use levels from an industry survey and no toxicity data, so what else the panel saw cannot be checked from it; industry's own description.
Source: Hall & Oser 1965 (FEMA GRAS 3), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Environmental Working Group's own 2006 annual report names Ken Cook as President and Co-Founder and Richard Wiles as Executive Director and Co-Founder, and a staff biography says EWG was founded in 1993.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Self-published by the organization; the 1993 date comes from one staff bio (Chris Campbell 'since its founding in 1993') and Cook's '14 years later', not from a formal founding statement.
Source: EWG 2006 Annual Report, EWG annual report (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In 2006 EWG reported total revenue of $3,587,078, of which 78.6% ($2,818,950) came from foundation grants and 18.4% ($659,094) from individual donations; no corporate revenue line was shown.
Moderate evidence: Unaudited organizational summary for one year; says nothing about other years (see the Form 990 page) and does not show donor-level dollar amounts.
Source: EWG 2006 Annual Report, EWG annual report (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG reported spending 83.8% of its 2006 expenses on programs (Toxics & Health 52.1%, Water & Agriculture 22.8%, Natural Resources 8.9%), with 8.8% on management and 7.4% on fundraising.
Moderate evidence: Self-reported; program-versus-overhead classification is the organization's own choice.
Source: EWG 2006 Annual Report, EWG annual report (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The flavor industry's own expert panel counted 'more than 2,600' flavors with GRAS status in mid-2009, with about 200 candidates withdrawn and 11 revoked; it says it is appointed and supported by the trade association FEMA.
Moderate evidence: Industry's self-report; the panel is FEMA-appointed and four of twelve authors are FEMA staff; counts were not independently audited.
Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The 24th list added 236 flavors to the FEMA GRAS list in one batch, 'mostly of Japanese origin', after 185 in 2005 and 175 in 2007, and the authors say a four-year span raised the list by about 25%.
Moderate evidence: Self-reported by the panel; its Table 1 actually lists 237 FEMA numbers (4430-4666), a mismatch the article does not explain.
Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The report's authors and sponsors are interested parties: EWG describes itself as a research and advocacy organization, and the funders named are four foundations plus Environmental Defense Canada, with no industry money stated.
Moderate evidence: Funding statement is the report's own; EWG helps build the Skin Deep database used to judge the ingredients.
Source: Sarantis et al. 2010 (Not So Sexy, Canadian edition) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
After the NTP finding the flavor panel reaffirmed pyridine as GRAS in 2010, concluding that use as a flavor 'is not considered to produce any significant risk to human health' because humans detoxify it efficiently, the mouse tumors follow liver damage at high doses, the rat results are sex- and strain-specific, and the margin to the 90-day no-effect dose is 'at least 1,000'.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The panel's own reading of studies it did not run; a published units slip (0.007 mg/kg vs about 0.0001 mg/kg per day) means its stated '~1,000-fold' margin disagrees with its own formula (about 40,000-85,000-fold). Industry position, not a regulator's.
Source: FEMA GRAS 25 (2011), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The Expert Panel changed in 2010: Portoghese (retired May) and Waddell (retired October, both then Emeritus) were replaced by Hecht and Fukushima (joined September), giving a panel of nine named members including the Chairman Smith.
Moderate evidence: Panel listing is the paper's own; the paper does not say how members are chosen or paid.
Source: FEMA GRAS 25 (2011), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
FDA's 2016 rule says a published opinion of an industry-convened 'GRAS panel' counts only as secondary literature: it cannot make unpublished data 'generally available,' and an opinion by scientists 'without expertise appropriate to address the applicable safety questions' cannot show a conclusion is generally accepted.
Moderate evidence: Responses 10-11 (p. 54973-74). Case-by-case language, not a bright-line rule; applies to any GRAS panel, including FEMA's.
Source: FDA 2016, 81 FR 54960 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The FTC says homeopathic marketers should not undercut a 'no scientific evidence' disclosure with testimonials or other positive efficacy statements, and that the disclosure should sit next to, or be built into, the efficacy claim.
Moderate evidence: Guidance on how the FTC will review ads; it does not itself set penalties.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Before the recall letter the company had said it would stop making and shipping the teething tablets (Oct 2016) but then refused to recall product already on shelves (Jan 2017), saying the public was 'amply protected'.
Moderate evidence: The company's side is known only from FDA's account and one quoted phrase.
Source: FDA requested recall letter, 7 Apr 2017, FDA letter (7 April 2017) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
After inspecting a New York homeopathic drug maker (HomeoCare Laboratories) in January 2017, FDA cited four manufacturing-quality violations: no validation of manufacturing processes, no real in-process uniformity control, no identity test on each ingredient, and no annual product review ever done.
Moderate evidence: One firm, one regulator's letter; it summarizes observations and gives no assay data or lot counts.
Source: FDA warning letter 521717, 7 Sep 2017, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 521717), 7 September 2017 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The firm told FDA that homeopathic attenuations 'do not come with a certificate of analysis' and cannot be tested; FDA called this inadequate and said every component, attenuations included, needs at least an identity test, with periodic validation of any supplier certificates relied on.
Moderate evidence: The firm's position is known only through FDA's quotation; the letter gives no analytical method for attenuations.
Source: FDA warning letter 521717, 7 Sep 2017, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 521717), 7 September 2017 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The maker of these teething tablets did not test incoming components for identity, used its first validation batch as the reference standard, and used expired component in released lots, according to FDA's inspection.
Moderate evidence: FDA's account of one firm's inspection; the firm's responses are only summarized by FDA.
Source: FDA warning letter 17-NWJ-09, 20 Jun 2017 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The FEMA panel judges each new flavor by comparing estimated 'eaters only' intake (for example 0.2 to 0.7 micrograms per person per day for several synthetic flavors, but 4,400 for enzyme-modified stevia) with thresholds of 1,800, 540, or 90 micrograms per day, plus Ames tests and rat studies on the substance or a related one.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Panel's own method; much of the supporting toxicology is unpublished company or lab reports given to the panel; many NOAEL margins use a structurally related substance rather than the one evaluated.
Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2018 (GRAS 28), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In GRAS 28 the panel states an intake of 100 micrograms per person per day for the Cordyceps fermentation product is 'below' the 90 micrograms per day threshold for the highest-concern class, and rates (E)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[2-(4-methoxyphenyl)ethyl]acrylamide as GRAS at 240 micrograms per day 'above' that threshold using related-substance NOAEL margins.
Moderate evidence: The Cordyceps sentence is internally inconsistent as printed (100 is not below 90); it is the industry's text and may be a typo, but it is how the panel's document reads.
Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2018 (GRAS 28), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
GRAS 28 is authored by seven members of the FEMA Expert Panel, the group FEMA appoints and pays to decide which flavors are generally recognized as safe; it is the industry affirming its own substances, not an FDA review.
Moderate evidence: Independence is disputed; see the register entries on the panel's independence.
Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2018 (GRAS 28), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
King Bio kept distributing Lymph Detox lot 010118BE after it failed microbial limits and antimicrobial effectiveness tests, and recalled three contaminated lots only after FDA contacted it, according to FDA.
Moderate evidence: FDA's characterization; the firm's response is not public in this document.
Source: FDA warning letter to King Bio, 20 Mar 2019, FDA warning letter (20 March 2019) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
FDA says King Bio's purified-water system had recurring bacterial results beyond limits from March 2017 through June 2018, and the firm kept making water-containing drugs; it recalled all water-containing drugs after an FDA call on 23 Aug 2018.
Moderate evidence: Based on the firm's own test results as summarized by FDA; limits are redacted.
Source: FDA warning letter to King Bio, 20 Mar 2019, FDA warning letter (20 March 2019) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The EU committee's 2021 opinion on benzophenone-3 in sunscreens (not safe at 6% in body products) conflicts with the cosmetics industry panel's 2021 'safe as used' conclusion, which excluded sunscreen use of BP-3 and measured only the 0.5% stabilizer use.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The two bodies answered different questions (the CIR panel is industry-funded and scoped out sunscreens); the SCCS agrees the 0.5% stabilizer use is safe, so the conflict is on sunscreen use only.
Source: SCCS 2021 (BP-3 opinion), SCCS final opinion (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In May 2024 the flavor industry's own safety panel (FEMA) removed estragole, a tarragon and basil constituent it describes as having genotoxic and carcinogenic properties in rodent liver, from its GRAS list when added as such, pending data on DNA damage in human cells.
Moderate evidence: Industry panel's own decision; no date given and no FDA or EU action is described. Says nothing about estragole inside natural oils.
Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2024 (GRAS 31), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Environmental Working Group's main nonprofit (a 501(c)(3), EIN 52-2148600) reported to the IRS revenue of $16,366,034 and expenses of $19,283,285 for 2025, after $21,753,184 in revenue in 2024.
Moderate evidence: IRS-filed figures republished by ProPublica; unaudited here; excludes the separate EWG Action Fund; the page does not itemize donors or contributions.
Source: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, EWG Form 990 filings, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's yearly revenue grew from about $5.6 million in 2010 to $16.4 million in 2025 (peak $21.8 million in 2024); its own 2006 annual report put 2006 revenue at $3.6 million, about a fourth of the 2025 figure.
Moderate evidence: 2006 figure is self-reported, 2010+ is IRS-extracted, so they come from different sources; growth reflects total revenue, not any one funder.
Source: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, EWG Form 990 filings, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's president Ken Cook was listed with $374,703 in compensation for 2025 and $374,723 for 2018 on the organization's Form 990 filings.
Moderate evidence: Reported compensation only; no benchmark to comparable nonprofits on the page, so it does not show over- or underpayment.
Source: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, EWG Form 990 filings, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG Verified's banned list draws on IARC, NTP, Prop 65, EU Annex II, Health Canada, and IFRA prohibitions, and its restricted list inherits limits from IFRA, RIFM, and CIR (industry bodies) alongside governments.
Moderate evidence: The lists themselves are separate PDFs not in this document, so which fragrance materials are banned or limited cannot be read from it.
Source: EWG 2026, EWG program criteria (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The flavor industry's trade association (FEMA) told FDA about every one of its GRAS determinations (2,648 from 1960 to June 2009), unlike most company determinations, so GAO said its process reaches a level of disclosure and agency notification similar to FDA's own notification program.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Disclosure to FDA of the substance and its basis is not the same as independent review; the 2,648 figure is the association's own count. Safeguards (COI form, applicant anonymity) are as described by the association.
Source: GAO 2010, GAO-10-246 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
GAO recorded two features of the flavor industry's own GRAS panel: a standing panel of eight academic experts who complete a financial conflict-of-interest form and do not know which company submitted a substance; and about 70 member companies that 'generally do not seek review through FDA's voluntary notification program'.
Moderate evidence: Procedures as described by FEMA to GAO and not audited by GAO; compare C427 for the structural critique.
Source: GAO 2010, GAO-10-246 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In 2010 the UK Government could not say how much the NHS spent on homeopathy because spending 'has never been routinely collected'; estimates ranged from £4 million a year to £12 million over 2005-08, plus £20 million for refurbishing the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.
Moderate evidence: Estimates came from a minister's oral answer, a newspaper and a trade body; none audited. Pre-2010 figures only.
Source: UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy (HC 45), Feb 2010 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In 2010 the UK Government could not say how much the NHS spent on homeopathy: it said the data 'have never been routinely collected', most Primary Care Trusts did not routinely commission it, and gathering detail would be a disproportionate use of resources.
Moderate evidence: No figure given; the PCT survey results are described only as 'the majority', not counted.
Source: UK Department of Health, Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', Cm 7914 (July 2010), Command Paper Cm 7914 (July 2010) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
NHMRC's homeopathy committee had no homeopath, by design: NHMRC treated the work as a health technology assessment (methods experts), not a clinical guideline, and rejected one member's recorded dissent on the point.
Moderate evidence: Only NHMRC's side of the dispute is printed; the dissenting member's full reasons are not given.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Administrative Report on the homeopathy review (CAM02B) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
One committee interest was declared in the report: Professor Peter Brooks belonged to Friends of Science in Medicine from January to April 2012 and stepped down as Chair of the homeopathy committee; no formal management plan was applied.
Moderate evidence: Single printed declaration; the report does not say whether he stayed on as a member, or list other members' interests.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Administrative Report on the homeopathy review (CAM02B) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
NHMRC states it 'expects that the Australian public will be offered treatments and therapies based on the best available evidence.'
Moderate evidence: A statement of agency expectation, with no enforcement mechanism in this document.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Statement on Homeopathy (CAM02) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG describes Skin Deep as a free database of over 130,000 products whose ingredient scores use 10 human health endpoints plus ecotoxicity, impurities, absorption, and data availability, on a 1-10 scale, and says use form such as a spray or powder can raise a score.
Moderate evidence: Self-description by the scorer; weighting of endpoints, handling of fragrance and missing data are not on this page; the Boston hair study describes 17 categories.
Source: EWG 2025 (Friedman & Huang), EWG news (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG says it raised $22.3 million in 2024: about 49% from individual donors, 31% from foundations, 9% from licensing and consulting fees (EWG Verified), 8% in-kind and miscellaneous, and 3% from events.
Moderate evidence: Self-reported by the advocacy group, not independently audited on the page; EWG's 2024 revenue is 2.5% above the IRS-extracted figure on ProPublica.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG says it does receive financial and in-kind support from companies, including organic food, personal care, and financial-services companies, plus licensing fees from its EWG Verified program ($2.05 million of licensing and consulting revenue in 2024).
Moderate evidence: No company names or corporate-support amounts are given; the licensing line may also include consulting fees.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's foundation grants fell from about 79% of its revenue in 2006 to about 31% in 2024, while individual donations rose from about 18% to about 49%.
Moderate evidence: Compares two self-published documents; categories may not be defined identically across 18 years.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's page names no foundation, corporate donor, or major donor; who funds EWG by name has to come from its Forms 990 or older annual reports.
Moderate evidence: Absence on one web page, not evidence that donors are hidden; the page links annual reports and 990s that were not opened.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Journalism
The Skin Deep database draws on about 60 sources including IFRA and the industry's own Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, the EU banned-fragrance list, and the SCCNFP fragrance-allergy opinions, with reference dates running to about 2009; the page does not state whether sources are refreshed.
Moderate evidence: Source list from the page's own references; the live database may use newer data.
Source: EWG Skin Deep methodology page (2026 capture) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Skin Deep's own FAQ says its product hazard ratings do not account for how much of a chemical you are exposed to or how sensitive you are, so they describe ingredient hazard, not your actual risk.
Moderate evidence: EWG's own description of its method; no independent audit. The score is still a label-based proxy.
Source: EWG, Skin Deep FAQ (web page, accessed 2026-10-16), EWG web page (Skin Deep FAQ) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Companies supply the product ingredient lists in Skin Deep: they email EWG to be added or updated, EWG says it cannot handle every request, products are flagged at 3 years and dropped at 6, so coverage depends on company participation and EWG's selection.
Moderate evidence: Self-described process; no counts of listed, rejected or removed products are given.
Source: EWG, Skin Deep FAQ (web page, accessed 2026-10-16), EWG web page (Skin Deep FAQ) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG VERIFIED products must score in Skin Deep's green range and are listed first in Skin Deep search results, so the mark EWG licenses is promoted inside the database EWG scores.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
EWG is an advocacy nonprofit with an interest in the mark; the page states no fee and no independent certifier ('No. … EWG does not use or have accredited third party organizations').
Source: EWG, Skin Deep FAQ (web page, accessed 2026-10-16), EWG web page (Skin Deep FAQ) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The only revenue source EWG names on its Skin Deep FAQ is a 'nominal percentage' commission from Amazon affiliate links; the page says nothing about donors, industry funding, or advertising.
Moderate evidence: Absence from one FAQ page is not evidence of absence elsewhere; see the Form 990 page for revenue.
Source: EWG, Skin Deep FAQ (web page, accessed 2026-10-16), EWG web page (Skin Deep FAQ) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's own FAQ says EWG Verified is a paid program: typical fees are an application fee plus an annual licensing fee, varying by company size and number of products, but it publishes no amounts.
Moderate evidence: Publisher's own description (EWG); no fee schedule, revenue figure or number of licensees is given, so the size of the payments is unknown.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG says the fees paid by Verified companies fund its product and ingredient reviews, compliance work, standards development, and other efforts to help consumers find safer products.
Moderate evidence: EWG's self-description; not checked against its financial filings, and the page does not say how much of EWG's budget this is.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The EWG Verified FAQ says nothing about how EWG manages being paid by the companies whose products it certifies and scores; no firewall, recusal, or independent oversight is described.
Moderate evidence: Absence of a statement on one page; EWG may describe safeguards elsewhere. The claim is about this page only.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG tells prospective licensees that Verified products will 'show up first in EWG's databases and EWG's Healthy Living app' and can share in EWG events, gift boxes, and PR campaigns.
Moderate evidence: EWG's marketing text; how placement is implemented was not checked. Whether it affects Skin Deep scores is not stated.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.