The Truth Behind Food Labels

It can be confusing trying to make sense of all the environmental claims plastered on food products lining grocery store aisles.

Take a look at your local grocer鈥檚 shelves and you鈥檒l see food with stickers and packages promoting an array of feel-good, environment-friendly assertions鈥攆rom 鈥渃age free,鈥 鈥渉ormone free,鈥 and 鈥渁ll natural鈥 to 鈥渙rganic,鈥 鈥渇air trade,鈥 and even 鈥渂iodynamic.鈥 There鈥檚 a reason for all this green branding. Since 2003 U.S. organic food sales have more than doubled, to roughly $25 billion. The booming demand for organic foods is making greenwashing more tempting鈥攁nd more lucrative鈥攖han ever before. One study found that about a third of all new food products launched in 2008 claimed to be 鈥渘atural.鈥

With all the different green food labels鈥攖here are about 100, depending on how you choose to define them鈥攆iguring out which ones are the most meaningful can be challenging. The mother of all eco-labels is, of course, 鈥渙rganic.鈥 Experts say this one showed the way in terms of defining methods of growing food that are gentler on the landscape. But even 鈥渙rganic鈥 has its limitations. For one, organic certification addresses neither working conditions for farm workers nor impacts on wildlife habitat or water quality.

What this all means is these days, you really have to do your homework to know what you鈥檙e buying, even if the packaging does have an eco-friendly seal. The following lists aim to peel back the labels.

In the Bag
Third-party certification is the best means for determining whether a label鈥檚 claim really makes the grade. These designations are authentic, with a few caveats.听听

USDA Organic听
Since 2002, when it first went into effect, the U.S. Department of Agriculture鈥檚 organic seal has been considered the gold standard of organic food. To earn the label, foods must be produced without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, sludge, irradiation, or genetically modified seeds, according to the agency. Cows must have access to pasture a minimum of 120 days per year. There are four tiers of 鈥渙rganic鈥 defined by USDA guidelines. When 100 percent of the ingredients and methods are organic, the product can be classified 鈥100% organic鈥 and stamped with the USDA Organic seal. When 95 percent or more of the ingredients fit the bill, the item can be labeled 鈥渙rganic鈥 and also display the seal. When at least 70 percent of a product鈥檚 ingredients are organic, the package can state 鈥淢ade with organic,鈥 but it cannot include the official seal. Products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients cannot carry the seal, although specific ingredients that are organically produced can be identified as such on the ingredients list.

Fair Trade听
This certification looks at economic, social, and environmental criteria: Farmers are paid living wages and have safe working conditions; child labor is prohibited. Fair trade premiums are invested in community development, such as training and organic certification. Most pesticides and all GMOs are banned in favor of environmentally sustainable farming methods that protect both habitat and farmers鈥 health. In the United States, coffee, tea, herbs, cocoa, chocolate, fresh fruit, sugar, rice, and vanilla are available with this ethically minded label.

Rainforest Alliance听
The independent certification overseen by the Rainforest Alliance aims to reduce water pollution and soil erosion, protect human health, conserve wildlife habitat, improve livelihoods, and reduce waste. More than 84,500 farms totaling upwards of 1.8 million acres鈥攊n South America, Southeast Asia, and Africa鈥攈ave been Rainforest Alliance certified. The chief products include coffee, cocoa, tea, nuts, and fruits.

Food Alliance听
This logo requires that certifiers assess a farm or ranch in five areas: soil and water conservation; safe and fair working conditions for employees; limiting pesticide use and toxicity with integrated pest management; animal welfare; and habitat conservation. Industry experts give it high marks. To date, the Food Alliance has certified almost 350 food producers鈥攁 number that鈥檚 grown nearly 79 percent in the past four years.

Demeter Biodynamic听
This label also takes a whole-farm approach. Not only does it require that foods be produced organically, without the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or animal by-products, it also prohibits the use of genetic engineering. It requires that 10 percent of a farm鈥檚 total land be set aside for fostering biodiversity and the humane treatment of animals. The focus is on whole-farm certification instead of on a particular crop or area.

Salmon-Safe听
Some certifiers promote a very specific form of sustainability not covered under the organic umbrella鈥攍ike protecting salmon streams in the Pacific Northwest from farm runoff, chemicals, and erosion. Salmon-Safe certification is often combined with USDA Organic to provide a 鈥渂eyond organic鈥 certification. To date it has accredited more than 60,000 farm acres and more than 200 vineyards.

Bird Friendly听
Developed by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, this label independently certifies organic shade-grown coffee. Tree canopy height, plant diversity, shade coverage, and streamside plant borders must all meet specific criteria. Certified shade-grown coffee farms provide important sanctuaries for migrating birds. About 1,400 producers grow Bird Friendly coffee, and sales reached more than $3.5 million in 2008.

Certified Humane Raised and Handled听
This certification, endorsed by several animal welfare and food safety organizations, including the ASPCA, focuses on humane animal care standards, from birth through slaughter. For example, animals must be free to move about and听
鈥渆ngage in natural behavior.鈥 This means that chickens have room to flap their wings and pigs have space to move around and root. Cages, crates, and tie stalls are prohibited, as is the use of growth hormones and prophylactic antibiotics.

FishWise听
This is a three-tier system of color-coded听 labels that ranks seafood products according to sustainability criteria. The catch location and the fishing method鈥攍ongline or hook and line鈥攁re also included on the label. FishWise is a program from Sustainable Fishery Advocates, a nonprofit founded by two graduate students in the Ocean Sciences Department at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Its researchers work with the Monterey Bay Aquarium to evaluate sustainability. Each report is externally reviewed for scientific content and accuracy.

Non-GMO Project Verified听
This seal, one of the newer labels on food shelves, grew out of the public鈥檚 frustration that GMO foods do not require labeling in the United States. Although many products have touted GMO-free claims, there鈥檚 been little consistency in the labeling and scant assurance that the products were actually tested. Foods carrying the label are made following 鈥渂est practices of GMO avoidance,鈥 claims the nonprofit. (Because of cross-contamination and pollen drift, it can鈥檛 guarantee that a food is entirely free of genetically modified ingredients.) Certification also requires genetic testing, to guarantee that a product contains no more than 0.9 percent biotech material. That鈥檚 the same threshold as in Europe, where GMO labeling is required.听

Healthy Grown Potatoes
Many farmers are primed to make a change from conventional farming but aren鈥檛 ready to go completely organic, much less sustainable on multiple fronts. For starters, they might try to avoid the most harmful pesticides. That鈥檚 what a group of Wisconsin potato growers decided after an especially toxic chemical called aldicarb started showing up in the local groundwater. Working with the University of Wisconsin, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Crane Foundation, and Defenders of Wildlife, the growers adopted a plan to reduce their overall use of chemicals and eliminate the highly toxic ones. To earn this certification, farmers must also restore some of their farmland to prairie or wetlands.

Buyer Beware
Many of the environmental claims are riddled with loopholes. Compounding the confusion is that numerous foods are regulated by different or multiple government agencies. The following labels are weaker.听

Raised Without Antibiotics听
Some industry experts are adamant that 鈥渘o antibiotics鈥 should mean no antibiotics鈥攁t any stage of production. Often, however, that鈥檚 not the case. One of the most egregious examples: Tyson Foods, the second-largest U.S. chicken producer, was labeling some of its chickens as 鈥渞aised without antibiotics鈥 despite the fact that it was injecting the eggs with an antibiotic and was using a non-human one in its chicken feed on a daily basis. After several lawsuits, Tyson removed all antibiotic claims. While 鈥渘o antibiotics administered鈥 and 鈥渞aised without antibiotics鈥 are considered acceptable by the USDA, there is no verification system in place鈥攚hich is what enables a company like Tyson to make false claims. The specific 鈥渁ntibiotic free鈥 claim is considered 鈥渦napprovable鈥 by the USDA.

Natural听
This is one of the most egregiously abused labels, since it doesn鈥檛 have to mean anything. And yet in the supermarket it鈥檚 lumped together with 鈥渙rganic.鈥 The USDA has defined the term only for use on fresh meat. In this case, it is defined as nothing added to the cut of meat itself. As a result, you could have a cloned animal eating genetically modified food and being fed antibiotics every day and the product could still be labeled 鈥渘atural.鈥

Free Range听
When it comes to 鈥渇ree range鈥 and 鈥渇ree roaming,鈥 all a poultry farmer needs to show is 鈥渢hat the poultry has been allowed access to the outside,鈥 according to the USDA鈥檚 Food Safety and Inspection Service. The animals may get only short periods outside in a cramped area鈥攖he USDA considers five minutes adequate to approve use of the claim. There are no restrictions regarding what the birds can be fed. Such inhumane practices as forced molting through starvation鈥攖o increase egg production and therefore profitability鈥攁re permitted. There is no third-party auditing. Lax regulation has allowed producers to keep animals closely confined, even if they鈥檙e not actually in cages. When it comes to beef and egg-laying hens, the term is completely unregulated.听

United Egg Producers Certified听
The logo, devised by the United Egg Producers, falsely implies that the chickens have been treated humanely. Think cramped cages, starvation-based molting, dehydrated birds, denial of veterinary care. (This designation replaces the even more misleading Animal Care Certified, which was banned by the Federal Trade Commission.)

American Humane Certified听
A program of the American Humane Association, this label permits both caged and cage-free options for egg-laying hens. A caged hen can be crammed into a space the size of a sheet of paper. Forced molting through starvation is prohibited, but beak cutting is allowed.

Dolphin Safe听
This is a partially certified claim because the National Marine Fisheries Service verifies only tuna caught from a specific region鈥攖he eastern tropical Pacific Ocean鈥攁nd not all tuna. Tuna from this designated area might bear a label that includes the additional phrase 鈥淯S Department of Commerce.鈥 Tuna caught outside this area and labeled 鈥渄olphin safe鈥 has not been independently substantiated. To muddy the waters further, the dolphin-safe label is not licensed by any single organization, so there are no universal standards in place and most companies have developed their own logos.

Grass Fed听
This label would seem to mean that a cow ate only grass. But all cows eat grass when they鈥檙e young. So unscrupulous greenwashers can legally put this label on beef from conventional feedlot cattle. Make sure the label states 鈥100% grass fed.鈥 Better yet鈥攂ecause verification of the claim is voluntary鈥攁lso look for the USDA Process Verified shield. The agency has defined the label to mean that the cows were fed a lifetime diet of 100 percent grass and forage, with no grains or grain products. The cows must also have access to pasture during most of the growing season.

Nutri Clean Residue Free Certification听
This label, from the Scientist Certification System鈥檚 Nutri Clean program, implies that a food bearing this label is free from pesticide residue, which isn鈥檛 entirely accurate. The program merely tests products for pesticide residue and sets limits for the detection of specific ones. It also doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean that there were no pesticides used to grow the food. In fact, some of the residue limits are the same as the ones set by the EPA; in those cases, the label really offers nothing more than its conventional counterpart.

Marine Stewardship Council听
The MSC got its start as a noble initiative between the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, a major fish retailer. In 1999 both organizations withdrew from all management, and the MSC became an independent nonprofit (see 鈥淕one Fish,鈥 page 94). Today it鈥檚 considered one of the biggest seafood certifiers. However, it鈥檚 come under attack by some top-tier ocean scientists who say it鈥檚 a scheme that fails to protect the environment and needs radical reform. In particular, they question the sustainable certification of several fisheries that in recent years have experienced massive declines. These include the important U.S. trawl fishery for pollock in the eastern Bering Sea. The MSC has also pronounced many destructive bottom-trawl fisheries sustainable. Furthermore, critics say, the MSC鈥檚 methodology and assessment can lead to an 鈥渋nconsistent application of standards.鈥 Last, the program receives financial contributions from corporations that sell MSC-labeled seafood, posing a conflict of interest.

False Advertising
Some common labels are so vague as to be utter nonsense. The terms below have no standards or definitions, or any method of verification. Thus the producer can use them in any way it sees fit, with no repercussions.

Cruelty free
Cage free听
Environmentally friendly
Nature鈥檚 friend
No chemicals
Vegetarian fed


This story originally ran in the March-April 2011 issue as "Peeling Back the Label."