[5][15] Quackwatch has included EWG in its list of "questionable organisations,"[16] calling it as one of "[t]he key groups that have wrong things to say about cosmetic products".

[17] Environmental historian James McWilliams has described EWG warnings as fearmongering and misleading, and writes that there is little evidence to support its claims:[18] "The transparency of the USDA’s program in providing the detailed data is good because it reveals how insignificant these residues are from a health perspective.

"[19] According to Kavin Senapathy of Science Moms, the EWG "frightens consumers about chemicals and their safety, cloaking fear mongering in a clever disguise of caring and empowerment."

Her main criticisms are its use of "fundamentally flawed" methodologies for evaluating food, cosmetics, children’s products, and more, and that it is "largely funded by organic companies" that its shopping recommendations benefit.

[9] The EWG promotes an annual list ranking pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables called the "Dirty Dozen", though it does not give readers context on what amounts regulatory agencies consider safe.

[23][20] A 2011 analysis of the USDA's PDP data[24] by Steve Savage found that 99.33% of the detectable residues were below EPA tolerance and half of the samples contained less than a hundredth those levels.

[26][27][28] EWG has collaborated with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University to publish a map showing detections of PFAS in water samples across the USA.