The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic label is one of the most highly recognized seals among US consumers—but does the average shopper truly understand what it means and the products the seal can be applied to legally? When a word like organic is used elsewhere on a label and outside the food category—say on the front of a shampoo bottle or even on a mattress—there’s even more room for consumer confusion and the potential to water down a meaningful moniker, according to some stakeholders who voiced concerns at a recent open discussion about consumer perception of organic claims co-hosted by USDA ad the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Washington, DC.

At the event, held Oct. 20 at the US Constitution Center, staffers from FDA and FTC joined a variety of industry experts to discuss the merits of the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) organic label, concerns about how consumers perceive the term “organic” and future areas that the agencies might want to explore to protect, enhance, enforce and even expand the label’s reach.  

Panelists included Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs with the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Angela Aiello, associate director of conference and product development at the Organic Trade Association (OTA), and Laura MacCleery, vice president for consumer policy and mobilization at Consumer Reports, among other representatives from government agencies and academia.

The decision to host the roundtable following the August 2016 release of results of an internet-based study co-funded by the NOP and FTC on consumer perception of recycled content and organic claims. Specifically, FTC initiated the study to determine whether to recommend updates to the FTC’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (also known as the Green Guide).   

The study encompassed more than 8,000 consumers and studied items consisting either partially or entirely of non-agricultural components, which the NOP generally does not address. Specifically, the study focused solely on organic claims for shampoos, mattresses, or dry cleaning services.

According to the results, respondents were roughly equally split between those who believe that organic claims have the same meaning for non-food products and food products, and those who believe they have different meanings. Second, roughly 35% of respondents believed that organic claims for shampoos or mattresses imply that the product meets some government standard. About 30% of respondents believed that USDA certifies organic claims for these products.
 
Comparing Apples To….
In one example from the study that was highlighted during the roundtable, consumers were asked “Does the word ‘organic’ have the same meaning for this product as it does for an apple?

EWG’s Faber said the answers to the question “demonstrate that there is already a large amount of confusion among consumers.”

“In household cleaners, personal care, there is a lot of gray area and a lot of room for confusion among consumers,” noted Jagiello of OTA.  

According to panelist John C. Bernard, a professor in the department of applied economics and statistics at the University of Delaware, consumers have experience with USDA Organic label with food, but less so when it comes to non-food products. After all, for more than 15 years, the NOP has regulated and enforced rather strict organic standards for agricultural products.

The discussion also tapped into the idea of what an average consumer understands about the USDA label.

For example, Laura Koss, assistant director in the FTC’s division of enforcement, pointed to the fact that Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives the agency the authority to act upon deceptive claims based on how a “reasonable consumer” perceives claims, including claims in the organic realm.

Faber argued, “You can’t expect consumers to walk around with a deep understanding of what these claims mean in their heads.”

Koss noted that it is not FTC’s goal to change consumer perception.

The discussion also looked at the growing use of the word organic overall. Panelists suggested that the term “organic” often acts as a proxy for other claims, such as those that connote health and safety, or just the word alone can be perceived as “shorthand” for USDA’s Organic label.

“There’s a lot of gamesmanship around the products outside the regulatory framework,” said MacCleery. “Organic is being deliberately deployed because of the freight it has been given over the years.”

A question was posed about marketers being “bad actors” in terms of how they used the word organic.

“Sometimes they are just taking advantage of the fact that there’s no clarity around a term,” replied MacCleery.

According to Faber, in the absence of real rules, there’s no risk in using the term organic. “Why wouldn’t a marketer free-ride on all the enormous consumer trust?” he said.
        
Dollars and Values
According to many pundits, today’s consumers spend their money on products that reflect their values—such as buying organic fruits and vegetables for their kids or paying a bit more for an eco-friendly shampoo in a recycled bottle—and panelists suggested this means there’s an even greater need for education, clarity and enforcement.

“Consumers can’t use their dollars to reflect their values if they are being deceived,” said Faber of EWG.

Bernard of the University of Delaware said that “there is a lot more room for education” around the organic label.

OTA’s Jagiello said consumers have told her organization that when they buy organic food and non-food products, “they expect that the products are going to be regulated in the same manner—but there’s a huge oversight gap in this area.”
        
Toward the end of the discussion, MacCleery of Consumer Reports called roundtable a “powerful beginning” in what she hoped would be future moves in the right direction.

And a beginning it is; FTC still welcomes written comments on the subject of consumer perception of organic claims though Dec. 1, 2016.