I completely agree about the fragrances. I hate them, and I'm happy to hear that it's getting better. > And EWG is one of the most competent, clear, and level

I completely agree about the fragrances. I hate them, and I'm happy to hear that it's getting better. > And EWG is one of the most competent, clear, and level-headed organizations working in this space. They provide scientifically supported, solid, and well-researched information in an easy to understand format. Like I said, they do some good work, but they do some really shoddy, clickbaity stuff too, and this detergent link is a good example. You can tell it was written by people with no knowledge of chemistry. > I don't think you are qualified to criticize them given what you wrote above. Instead of an ad-hominim, are you able to defend the EWG's assertions? For example, can you explain why the EWG says a tiny amount of nitric acid used to adjust pH is a hazard of any kind? Can you explain why they think that any nitric acid could possibly survive in the finished alkaline product, or why it would be a problem even if it did? Can you find any studies or evidence of any kind to back them up? How about the zinc? Or any of the others that I mentioned earlier? Honestly this isn't difficult. It's not advanced chemistry. It's chemistry 101. EWG has no excuse for not knowing better.