A recent investigation reported by CNN highlights new research from the charity Environmental Working Group claiming that more than 100 chemicals have entered the U.S. food supply without undergoing formal safety review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to the report, companies can exploit a long-standing regulatory exemption known as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), which allows manufacturers to determine the safety of certain food ingredients themselves without notifying the FDA. The decades-old law was originally intended for familiar ingredients such as salt or yeast, but critics argue it now allows novel additives to reach consumers with limited independent oversight.
The analysis cited in the CNN coverage identified 111 substances introduced through this “self-affirmed GRAS” pathway, with 49 appearing in thousands of products listed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s branded foods database. These include various plant extracts and supplement-like ingredients used in beverages, snack foods and other packaged products. Researchers emphasize that the presence of these ingredients does not necessarily mean they are harmful, but they argue the current system lacks transparency because companies may determine safety internally and keep supporting data private. The report calls for reforms requiring greater disclosure and stronger FDA oversight of new food additives.
Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a Washington, D.C.–based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that conducts research and advocacy on issues including toxic chemicals, agricultural practices, drinking water contamination, and consumer product safety. Founded in 1993, the organization publishes reports, consumer guides, and databases intended to influence public policy and help consumers make health-related decisions about food, household products, and environmental exposures.
Based on our recent analysis of EWG’s 2024 audited financial statements and IRS tax Form 990, CharityWatch assigned Environmental Working Group an “A” rating on our “A+” to “F” rating scale. We found that EWG spent 80% of its cash expenses on programs and only $11 to raise each $100 of cash support.
EWG also meets CharityWatch’s governance benchmarks for having a sufficiently large and independent board of directors, for maintaining good governance policies, and other factors. The organization also maintains a donor privacy policy reflecting that it does not share donor information with outside parties. However, EWG fails CharityWatch’s transparency benchmark due to not posting a recent copy of its audited financial statements on its website.
NOTE: Environmental Working Group, subsequent to the date this article was originally published, has posted its recent audited financial statements on its website and has now met all of CharityWatch’s criteria for Top-Rated charity status.
Will you help CharityWatch continue our important work?
As the only independent charity watchdog organization in the United States, CharityWatch relies on your support to fund our in-depth research and analysis in order to bring you the unbiased charity ratings and other information you rely on to help you make more informed giving decisions. We are not directly or indirectly funded by nonprofit industry interests.
We hope you will consider making a donation today so that we can continue to speak openly and critically and call out wrongdoing when we see it without concern for special interests cutting our funding. CharityWatch is a small organization and your donations are noticed, needed, and greatly appreciated. Thank you for giving wisely!
| Charity | |
|---|---|
| Environmental Working Group |
