EWG continues to give Lead-contaminated products high-ratings in 2025 — See our social media post here

| | | | | | | | | |

  



For those new to the Lead Safe Mama website:

Tamara Rubin is a multiple-federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety, and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her four sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in 2005).


Published March 11, 2025 — Tuesday:

The image featured (below) is from a communication within the Lead Poisoning Prevention with Lead Safe Mama Facebook Group, linked here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/leadsafe

If you have not yet read our article (written in 2022!) discussing our concern with the fact that EWG has awarded high-ratings (and now, as we’ve discovered with Davids Toothpaste, even the “EWG Verified badge”) to heavily Lead-contaminated products, please check out this link: https://tamararubin.com/2022/12/cognitive-dissonance-several-lead-contaminated-products-have-received-1-ratings-from-ewg/

Thank you!

The article cited above includes a link to a template (also written in 2022!) for you to write your own letter to EWG and demand change in this area. Here’s the direct link to that letter template: https://tamararubin.com/2022/12/template-letter-for-lead-safe-mama-readers-to-use-to-write-ewg-asking-them-to-remove-lead-contaminated-products-from-their-site/

shop lead free banner

Never Miss an Important Article Again!

Join our Email List

2 Comments

  1. Interesting. Another example of EWG turning a blind eye to ingredients known to cause health issues. I’ve always found it odd that EWG doesn’t pursue other, *known* carcinogens either, like toxic molds that, while not ‘ingredients,’ are contaminants that can be found in common foods (certain nuts and spices, some grains, and so on). EWG could help by getting the word out about these things (heavy metals, molds in foods) that we know WILL impact their health in a negative way and nudge them closer to cancer. Instead, EWG focuses only on certain chemicals, some of which are of questionable concern. It’s basically the nature fallacy in action, where anything natural is automatically considered safe/harmless even though it’s not (think: lead, cadmium, arsenic, mold), while anything created by humans (‘chemicals’) is considered automatically unsafe. Neither one of these is true, but it’s a knee-jerk reaction many of us have. I still do. I used to look to EWG for guidance on what’s safe but now take their info with a grain of salt.

  2. Thank you for the recent reports and follow up to show that these products are on the EWG recommended list. It is discouraging to see that EWG recommends these products without testing them. I sent an email to EWG asking them to verify the lab results and take action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *