The Common Sense Guide to “Organic” and Other Food Labels

Everywhere you look, food is trying to impress you with how natural it is, but the message is vague and often misleading. What does “organic” actually mean? What separates “grass-fed” from “free range”? We’re separating real, meaningful labels from eco-hype.

Photo by greenblog.

Even if you couldn’t care less about the growing media presence and consumer curiosity around food sourcing and handling, it helps to know what you’re getting when you’re forced to pay more for certain goods.

If it was just one government agency that offered semi-descriptive labels, a la the USDA’s meat grades, there wouldn’t be much to talk about outside the shop talk of butchers. But meat and produce carry a lot of labels and statements these days, ranging from very official imprints to generic terms. Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version of what you should look for.

The Word “Organic”

This is the biggie among food labels, and one of the most controversial. It’s a word that sounds black and white%u2014either it grew up naturally and was brought to you without chemicals, hormones, pesticides, or radiation, or it didn’t, you’d think. But under federal law, any product with “organic” anywhere on its packaging or display materials must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

To qualify as organic, those ingredients can’t contain, or be produced with, any of the following: chemical, additives, synthetics, pesticides, or genetically engineered substances. That’s the stated law, but, as you might imagine, those criteria can be subject to interpretation, and the USDA’s regulation of the “organic” label has come under questioning. Photo by Tim Psych.

That said, there are different grades of organic labeling in the U.S. Here’s how the Washington Post breaks down the differences:

“100 Percent Organic” products must show an ingredient list, the name and address of the handler (bottler, distributor, importer, manufacturer, packer, processor) of the finished product, and the name and seal of the organic certifier. These products should contain no chemicals, additives, synthetics, pesticides or genetically engineered substances.

“USDA Organic” products must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients. The five percent non-organic ingredients could include additives or synthetics if they are on an approved list. The label must contain a list that identifies the organic, as well as the non-organic, ingredients in the product, and the name of the organic certifier.

“Made With Organic” products must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The label must contain a list that identifies the organic, as well as the non-organic, ingredients in the product, along with the name of the organic certifier.

“Natural,” “Grass-Fed,” And Other Labels

When it comes to concerns and criteria that the USDA and other government or state bodies don’t regulate, the path to knowledge gets a lot more twisty.

In my research, the most comprehensive resource I’ve found to determining what a label really means comes from Consumer Reports’ Eco-Labels verifier, a search and index tool that covers a wide variety of labels. From generic labels applied in spirit to state-specific co-op certifications, there’s a really good chance anything you’re looking for is in there.

But most people don’t want to head to the store, write down labels, research them at home, then head back out again with a verified shopping list. So, with Consumer Reports’ permission, I’ve taken one of their food label report cards, and broken down the more widely seen labels into categories. You’ll find far more label-specific footnotes, research, and explanations at their full chart, but these labels, as applied to meat and other foods, have been vetted by Consumer Reports’ researchers and broken down by how meaningful, verifiable, and free of marketing double-speak they are.

Note: If these label ratings sound harsh, it’s because they are. They’re based on universal, verified labels, so use your good judgement when all else fails. If a trustworthy local rancher tells you his meat is free of antibiotics, hormones, and was raised naturally in humane conditions, he may be telling the truth, but not have federated labels to prove it. You should still buy that product. All the rest of this is related to larger-market labels you’ll find in bigger stores.

Weak or vague labels:

• Antibiotic free
• Free range
• Free roaming
• Hormone free
• Natural
• No chemicals

If the food you purchase carries one of the labels above, keep in mind that most of them don’t offer strong verification and sourcing chains, are used with inconsistent criteria, and don’t make plain-English standards widely available. In most cases, they were also developed without public or industry input.

Better, but not conflict-free labels:

• No antibiotics administered
• No hormones administered
• Raised without antibiotics

These labels are backed by organizations that have a consistent methodology and clear conditions for their labeling, and make their standards publicly available. In all cases, though, they weren’t developed by groups outside the selling chain, and lack for public input and examination.

Consistent, if flawed, labels:

• Grass fed (USDA)
• Salmon Safe

In the “grass fed” case, it’s held up by the USDA, but many have criticized the inconsistency of application, and the lack of outside review. Salmon Safe is mostly consistent and has set standards, but was similarly developed “in-house.”

Certifications with clout:

• Aurora Certified Organic
• Certified Humane Raised and Handled
• Certified Organic, Inc.
• Demeter Certified Biodynamic
• Food Alliance (FA)
• Global Organic Alliance (GOA) – Certified Organic
• Guaranteed Organic Certification Agency
• Integrity Certified International
• International Certification Services, Inc.
• NMOCC – Certified Organic
• OneCert
• Quality Assurance International (QAI) – Certified Organic
• Quality Certification Services (QCS)
• USDA – Organic

Consumer Reports considers many of these food labels to lack for consistent meaning, but otherwise finds them certain, controlled, and developed by groups with both separation and public accountability. The USDA “Organic” certification is, as mentioned previously in this post, divided into sub-sets.

Other tools

We’ve previously mentioned the Beef Label Decoder as an interactive tool to help you figure out what the label on your USDA Organic beef label is trying to tell you. If you’re interested in finding out more about your milk, Where Is My Milk From? can answer exactly that question, if you type in the stamped code off the top of your carton.

Not included above are many state-wide and regional certification labels, which are, as previously mentioned, covered more in-depth at Consumer Reports’ big label chart and search tool.

That’s our take on slightly simplified food labels. We’re not farmers, ecologists, or food inspectors, but we gave it our best. If you’ve found another guide that’s easy to grasp and full of helpful detail, do share the link in the comments.

Send an email to Kevin Purdy, the author of this post, at kevin@lifehacker.com.

‘); jQuery.cookie(_cn, _cn_d, { path: ‘/’, expires: 365 } );

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

atrus123 11:06 AM

The wife and I used to do most of our shopping at a local food co-op (mostly because it was the closest grocery), but after we moved, we started going to big chains.

Enter Food Inc., which we saw a few months ago, and we’re now trying to eat local and grass fed, but I can see how it would be fairly difficult in a lot of areas. In our situation, we found an excellent local butcher, who sells nothing but local grass fed beef, buffalo, and real free range chicken. He also sells milk, yogurt, and ice cream from a local dairy farm. It’s more expensive there, but we feel it’s worth it. For one thing, it allows us to pump money more directly into the local economy, but it’s also allowed us to develop a relationship with the butcher and his staff. They know the type of stuff we like and will try to set items aside for us when they get them.

We still get most of our vegetables and fruit at the local Safeway or Giant, but once summer comes around, it’s usually easier to find more local produce. If we had a food co-op in our area, we’d likely use that, but there’s just nothing like that in our area. Reply

Edited by atrus123 at 03/09/10 11:07 AM

m2a3r5k7 11:03 AM

The parallels between the organic food movement and pseudosciences like alternative medicine are becoming more and more apparent to me. The hard-core organic food proponents are basing their claims on ideological beliefs that are not founded on good science.

There is this “Natural is Good” mentality that prevails in the whole movement. We only have to consider the examples of 100% all natural arsenic, lead, mercury, asbestos, and snake venom to see the fallacy. By no definition does “Natural” = “Good”.

Also, It is not a requirement of organic certification that fertilizes and pesticides can not be used. Organic alternatives to synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are allowed. Organic pesticides are less effective than their synthetic counterparts, so more of it has to be used. Organic fertilizers and synthetic fertilizers both break down into the same compounds… they have to or they wouldn’t work.

There is also no evidence to support the notion that organic food has greater nutritional value than its traditionally grown counterpart. Unfortunately beliefs that are not based on evidence in the first place can not be swayed with evidence.

Check out Brian Dunning’s critique of Organic Food:
[skeptoid.com]

No evidence to support Organic is best:
[www.eurekalert.org] Reply

penguiniator approved this comment

penguiniator 10:51 AM

By the looks of it, clear-sounding, straightforward labeling is unreliable. And vague, meaningless-sounding labeling is more trustworthy. The marketers have succeeded in confusing the public, and growers have failed to correct the situation with their nebulous certifications. What’s worse is that regulatory agencies have failed to do their job.

Regardless, every time I have ventured into a “health food” store, I have experienced a blitzkrieg of unverifiable claims of naturalness and organicness being used to justify prices that are 20% to 100% higher than the presumably inorganic food I buy in grocery stores ([www.nytimes.com]). Worse still, is that these stores are filled with customers that seem convinced of their own superior knowledge and that happily pay the extra money for this crap that these stores demand.

And the entire “whole foods” industry is predicated on the assumption that so-called organically grown food is better for you than inorganically grown food, with nothing to back it up other than the incessantly repeated claim that it is: “No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA %u2014 even though it certifies organic food %u2014 doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.” (source: [www.mayoclinic.com])

As far as I’m concerned, these stores are selling snake oil and performing parlor tricks to hypnotize their “audience” into buying it. Reply

OMG! Ponies! 10:10 AM

Just because something is organic doesn’t mean that you don’t need to worry about bacteria.

With bagged salad and spinach, regardless of whether it is organic (and regardless of whether it says it’s been washed), you should wash all leafy greens. The E. coli outbreaks of Fall 2006 were both the result of contaminated produce. Washing won’t get rid of the bacteria per se, but it will lessen the risk somewhat.

Remember, much of the nation’s produce comes from California. While it comes from a variety of growers, much of that goes to a handful of processors. This allows for cross-contamination. If one grower has contaminated produce, all produce from that plant may become contaminated.

Do not let small children drink unpasteurized juices or raw milk. Pasteurization kills bacteria – bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. And, while it’s too early for apple picking, never buy apples from farms or orchards that also have cattle. This is how the Odwalla poisonings happened in 1993.

Finally, on the subject of E. coli, when possible, have the butcher at your market grind a sirloin or chuck steak into ground beef instead of buying the prepacked ground beef. Ground beef is the leading source of E. coli poisoning because of how prepackaged ground beef is made.

When a cow is slaughtered, it voids its bowels. Cow dung is the primary vector for E. coli 0157:H7. The carcass is hosed with 160* water, occasionally sprayed with lactic acid, and sometimes flash steamed as well.

Noticeable parts that have feces are trimmed off and discarded. The sides are cut into cuts of beef and during this process, extra trimmings are leftover. In spite of all of this, there is still a chance that there is E. coli on the surface of the meat.

At the processing plant, all of the trimmings are ground and packed into large “chubs”. The grinding “makes the outside the inside” and spreads the E. coli throughout the meat evenly, where it can further reproduce.

Conversely, on a steak, the chance of E. coli is lower because there is far less exposure to cow dung.

Again, for small children (and the elderly or anyone with a compromised immune system), beef should be cooked to a core temperature of 170*. Reply

See 3 replies Hide 3 replies

jonny6pak 09:30 AM

I need to rant. I understand the point of organic food, but at this point, it seems like it’s become a marketing buzz rather than a real effort for healthy living. Yes, there is a subset of the population who use organic food to live a truly healthier life, but many people think that organic automatically means healthy. Even at my place of employment, when we do healthy living events, someone always talks about eating the most fattening crap ever and thinks it’s going to help them lose weight or be generally healthy because it’s organic. They then go on to drink a can of diet Coke and live using a lot of other man-made-chemical-based personal care items (not that I’m against the use of non-organic goods). It’s like they believe “organic” is some magic word that cures diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. That’s just not the case.

I feel that the Lifehacker community is well versed on these topics, but a lot of the U.S. has bought into marketing hype over actual healthy living (be that with man-made chemical or organic products). It just seems odd to me that the U.S. society has built such a strong brand around food being organic when a large chunk of the population doesn’t apply the same scrutiny to everything else, or can’t even apply the scrutiny to food in an appropriate manner. While this post points out the ineffectiveness of current labeling standards, good labels do nothing to educate the public on what significance organic products actually have on a diet. I just wish the overall population could make healthy decisions rather than act on marketing hype (not that the concept of organic food is hype). With that being said, this was a solid post. Thanks Kevin. /End rant. Reply

See 5 replies Hide 5 replies

icemanforever 09:30 AM

Kevin, excellently researched post!

I suppose this is another place where the Sixth Sense tech that was showcased on TED would be useful. lookup instantly if the ‘organicity’ ( ) of a certain product in a store is ok for you. Reply

AtomFury promoted this comment

Adam Pash approved this comment

See 1 reply Hide 1 reply

Bill Clark 09:14 AM

Kevin, excellent post! As someone who works for a natural foods company that has been actively involved developing and maintaining organic standards in the US, it’s refreshing to see a “media outlet” actually get the information correct. Reply

See 5 replies Hide 5 replies

roemerman 09:07 AM

If it has carbon in it, it’s organic! I hate that we have taken a word that has specific meaning and changed it to something without meaning. Reply

jeffk approved this comment

See 3 replies Hide 3 replies

Earlier discussions | Other discussions | Show all discussions | Show featured discussions only | Expand all replies Collapse all replies
Start a new discussion

Over half a million votes were cast to decide Barbie’s newest career. But even though Computer Engineer Barbie was developed in consultation with the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering, the new doll’s appearance has sparked controversy.

While some have embraced coder Barbie, others have attacked the concept, saying that her pink laptop, sparkly leggings, and trendy glasses are “too feminine” to be realistic.

The critics imply that real coders aren’t feminine, and feminine coders aren’t real. But women shouldn’t feel like they have to stop being feminine to work in technology.