FTC Guidelines regarding the use of the term 'Pearl'

[jshepherd]

Members,

I am gathering information and opinions of the Federal Trade Commission guidelines regarding the definition of the word pearl and the use of the word pearl. I personally feel that the information within the guidelines is outdated and in need of an update.

Take for example ? 23.18, sections (a) and (b)

(a) Pearl: A calcareous concretion consisting essentially of alternating concentric layers of carbonate of lime and organic material formed within the body of certain mollusks, the result of an abnormal secretory process caused by an irritation of the mantle of the mollusk following the intrusion of some foreign body inside the shell of the mollusk, or due to some abnormal physiological condition in the mollusk, neither of which has in any way been caused or induced by humans.

(b) Cultured Pearl: The composite product created when a nucleus (usually a sphere of calcareous mollusk shell) planted by humans inside the shell or in the mantle of a mollusk is coated with nacre by the mollusk.

I believe (a) and (b) need to be combined and rewritten.

1. In (a), as defined, a cultured pearl is not a pearl.

2. In (a), it describes the process of intrusion of a foreign body into the mantle of a mollusk as the cause of natural pearl formation. This would read to most as following the dispelled myth that a grain of sand forms a natural pearl. It also neglects all mention of parasitic invasion of the shell, or simple damage (not irritation) to the mantle tissue dislodging epithelial cells, which in turn grow a natural pearl.

3. In (b), it incorrectly describes the process of culturing pearls. The description attempts to reflect marine cultured pearl production, but makes mention of mantle insertion of a bead and not the gonad, while also leaving out the most important aspect of cultured pearl production - the insertion of donor mantle tissue.

4. Taking into account both (a) and (b), according to the FTC, a non-beaded cultured freshwater pearl is neither a pearl nor a freshwater pearl. If taking the guidelines in the literal sense, the way it is written, anyone selling a calcareous concretion from a freshwater bivalve is in violation of this guideline if calling them freshwater pearls or even cultured freshwater pearls.

Another portion that I feel needs to be updated is ? 23.19, section (b)

(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word "pearl" to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word "cultured" or "cultivated," or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.

This guideline was originally put into place to protect the natural pearl industry, and industry that is now nearly a mere bi-product of the fishing industry. It also puts nearly every pearl dealer in the United States in violation with FTC guidelines. It makes every pearl advertisement in magazines, both trade and consumer, as well as every story written about pearls in violation, because it clearly states that a cultured pearl is not a pearl.

In my opinion, the problem today is not the confusion whether something described as a "pearl" is a natural pearl. The confusion and the fraud begins when someone describes a cultured pearl as a natural. It would make a lot more sense for the guideline to be reversed and stipulate that all natural pearls should be referred to as such, and make it a violation to describe anything cultured or dyed as natural or natural color.

Feel free to comment with thoughts and opinions, and/or to pick apart any additional guidelines you may feel are in need of an update here:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/jewel-gd.shtm

 

[Caitlin]

88 years after the Rosenthal trial, who would have thought the definitions would need revision?

It is one of your best ideas, so far!!!!

OK, My Opinions:
I would allow people to say 'natural' or 'untreated' color.

I think people always understand that "wild natural pearls" covers the natural pearl base very nicely. I use it all the time and people get it without any definitions.

No one calls cultured pearls "wild pearls"; they are not, they are farmed pearls.

Maybe the change should be to something like "wild" and "farmed" because 'cultured' is a very misunderstood term. We are all very used to the term "pearl farms" LOL so why not 'farmed'

Also, cultured pearls are 'real' pearls as opposed to fake, faux or simulated and I don't know if we can change that perception, so I would be inclined to formalize it.

 

[jshepherd]

I think using the term farmed defeats the entire purpose of making a revision. It wouldn't change anything, and would only make the definition even more confusing. I am talking about getting rid of the confusion that the layman would face because the FTC guidelines no longer make sense.

In my opinion, it makes a lot more sense to assume that one means "cultured pearl," when using the term "pearl." That is currently the assumption when used in advertisements, trade magazines, consumer magazines, here on PG, in nearly every book about pearls (including Strack) ... even the GIA Pearls course doesn't preface every use of the term "pearl" with the word "cultured" when discussing cultured pearls. On the other hand, when someones is discussing natural pearls, writing about natural pearls, describing the growth process of natural pearls or selling natural pearls, the word is universally prefaced with the word natural.

The FTC guidelines are backwards in today's world. They made sense back in Rosenthal's day when cultured pearls were the exception and natural pearls the rule. But today, the guidelines no longer make sense and because they don't make sense, they are very nearly universally ignored.

 

[pearlescence]

I tend to agree with Caitlin. When I am explaining about pearls over here people understand wild and farmed readily. cultured and natural are meaningless jeweller jargon to laymen. I agree too that just saying pearl can mean cultured/farm pearl by implication since there are so many more of these pearls by number.
I'm not aware of any specific trade regulations in the UK on pearl descriptions, although there is an onus on every seller to apply a proper trade description and not lie or deceive the customer.
This is perhaps one where current usage needs to lead the rules.
I think natural pearl is also misleading as it invariably gets used to mean real cultured pearl as opposed to fake or man made at least by laymen.
The problem is that we know what we are talking about when we talk about cultured pearls and natural pearls but our customers generally do not.

pearl or farmed pearl = cultured pearl
wild pearl = natural pearl
fake pearl = faux or shell pearl

 

[Caitlin]

I am not disagreeing with you, Jeremy. I agree the word 'cultured' should not have to be used to make the pearls legal. That is easy. We all know they are farmed, so farmed does not have to be in the legal guidelines anywhere; of course they were farmed.

But people misuse the word "natural pearl" all the time anyway and FTC regs will not change that.

Adding a word that has not yet been confounded by ignorance such as "Wild" added to "natural", whether required by regs or not, takes all the confusion out of it for even the least knowledgeable people. No reason why Wild could not be added to the definition.

There is already a convention that does use that word in herbals. Herbs are either wild-crafted or domestically grown and a huge number of people already know that. And generally, the farmed herbs do not say so, only the Wild-gathered herbs use the word to differentiate from any other method of growing.

I just don't think using the word "natural" improperly will change, even if the regs do change.

 

[pearlescence]

The FTC is your federal trade commission..yes? So what they want is for people to be clear on what we are all talking about. The trade definitions are not clear. natural means not manufactured in a factory to the lay person. It should go. I say wild to anyone and they understand instantly

 

[jshepherd]

This isn't about rewriting and adding words that we think would make sense to us, more of a purist, strictly pearl community. Could you imagine trying to re-educate the entire jewelry industry that the words farmed and wild are now the words to use in lieu of cultured and natural? It would never happen and just make a giant mess. It is about bringing the guidelines up to date with what is now happening in the industry, and where the industry has been for more than half a century.

What I am getting at is what I think you both are missing. The guidelines related to the use of the term "pearl" vs "cultured pearl" put nearly everyone dealing in pearls or even writing about pearls in violation of FTC (yes, Federal Trade Communication) guidelines. Both of your above answers were in violation of FTC guidelines for the specific reason that I don't think the guidelines should be in place the way they are. But these violations are unintentional because the intended meaning of pearl when non-prefaced is widely understood. When cultured is not the intended meaning, the term pearl is prefaced.

This isn't going to stop the abuse of the word natural. In fact, if we added "wild" to the FTC's guidelines, suddenly 10,000 pearl sellers on eBay would be selling "wild pearls." What would stop would be otherwise honest pearl dealers, educators and writers from inadvertently breaking federal guidelines within descriptions, consumer and trade publications and educational materials.

This is not actually a new debate. There was a similar debate in Vicenza two months ago during The World Jewellery Confederation's congress. One opinion debated is that "pearl" is now a term found in the public domain and nearly universally understood to mean cultured pearl. The debate began at the Pearl Commission meeting at the HK Jewellery and Gem Show last fall, and it will probably come up repeatedly until a decision on what to change and how to change it is reached. At that point, either the position of The World Jewellery Confederation will be in direct conflict with FTC guidelines, or the FTC will rewrite their definitions.

 

[pearlescence]

Ah, I think I see what you mean. the consultation is on droppnig the requirement to say cultured every time and just say pearl.
Presumably because just about every pearl is a cultured pearl.
I assume I am not bound to follow American rules however, although I would follow general industry rules/guidelines
Would either be law or industry rules or guidelines?
Amanda has access to a full England and Wales law library but I don't think there are particular laws/rules here

 

[jshepherd]

rl.
I assume I am not bound to follow American rules however, although I would follow general industry rules/guidelines

US law, no. But CIBJO, The World Jewellery Confederation, yes. Its membership is comprised of the different trade organizations from the European Union and other countries around the world.

The discussion, or even debate that I was trying to encourage, was on either dropping the term "cultured," or requiring the term "natural." Of course there are the other issues mentioned regarding the current definition of a cultured pearl.

 

[Caitlin]

I am not disagreeing with you, Jeremy. I agree the word 'cultured' should not have to be used to make the pearls legal.

That was my first sentence. the rest was trippery. My one reservation is that even if you switch it, that is cultured pearls no longer need the adjective to be legal, and on the other hand, wild pearls must use an adjective instead, as they are now the vast minority. The momentum against understanding the use of "natural" for pearls, does nothing to help the natural pearl.

Perhaps all pearls in which there is a trade, which have lived in a mollusk, or however that will properly be defined, should be called pearls, including the non-nacreous wild pearls;

then each type of pearl must be secondarily designated by a common and/or scientific species name: akoya, SS white, SS gold, freshwater, Tahitian, natural- Basra (or radiata), natural-pen pearl or latin name, natural Sea of Cortez or pteria sterna, conch pearl, natural p maxima gold lip, silver lip, and so on?

 

[jshepherd]

Using the secondary designation could work with the common name, such as akoya, Tahitian and South Sea - and I would submit that they already are. But I believe few people outside of this group know how to spell or pronounce the scientific names.

The only problem with this solution brings me back to the exact same point; what if you have a natural akoya, or a natural South Sea pearl? If a pearl is an akoya, we automatically assume it's cultured. It would need to be prefaced with natural.

 

[Caitlin]

I am wondering if it should be legal to call uncertified pearls "natural" unless it is clearly regarding the color?

So, if you see anyone use 'natural pearl', without an approved lab certificate, it means, "don't trust their word", ask for the certification.

I am just trying to protect genuine natural pearls from all the false claims. If we are going to try to change something, a protection for the use of the word "natural" needs to be built in. "Certified natural" can only mean one thing and ebay sellers can't claim that.

 

[jshepherd]

That would require an approval process for laboratories all over the world that examine pearls, and not all natural pearls are certified. There aren't cultured quahogs, for example. The only reason a lot of naturals are certified is because they are important finds. The natural pearl trade does not really concern itself with all the fake natural designations found on eBay or around the Internet. The only natural designations that rocked that industry were the so-called naturals that were natural-pearl beaded AND certified by approved labs.

 

[Caitlin]

You are saying, "don't worry about it as the true natural trade knows what they are doing and are above and beyond the public's lack of knowledge and the improper bandying about of terms?"

There is no way the FTC can actually address all the fraudulent claims of pearls being natural when they aren't?

What is the purpose of regulations that have no teeth? A gentlemen's agreement?

Were those the ones the labs called keshis? Or was that another big mistake?

 

[jshepherd]

That's not exactly what I'm saying. No matter what the FTC does, there will always be people selling glass and diamonds, dyed freshwater as Tahitians, flawed gems as flawless and gold plated jewelry as solid. We already know that the majority of auctions on eBay are breaking the law. But requiring a lab certification for naturals in order to call a pearl natural would affect the true natural trade - the people that follow the rules. It wouldn't affect the lawbreakers. Those rare pearls that could be cultured or keshi vs natural will be certified before being sold. That trade demands it. To them a questionable pearl is either cultured or keshi without the certificate - again, back to my original point. The FTC guidelines have it backward.

How could the FTC require a certificate to claim a pearl natural anyway? Who would regulate it and approve the labs? What about all those tiny natural abalones we see at the Tucson show? What about the natural pearls from Bahrain that you have? What about the millions of natural pearls in the museum in Dubai and the thousands of natural pearls at museums around the world? The abalones we know are natural because they couldn't be cultured, and provenance is proof of the latter two.

IMHO, cultured being passed off as natural is not the issue with the FTC guidelines, because the trade is now in cultured. The ones from the lab that I was referring to were the pearls cultured with natural-pearl nuclei so that they passed laboratory examination. That was fraud and it did affect the natural pearl trade. But the FTC's definition of what a natural pearl is vs just a pearl or cultured pearl is would also protect against this sort of fraud.

 

[GemGeek]

I am also working on this. I'm on the Accredited Gemologists Association committee to submit a proposal. You might be interested to see what the FTC asked for regarding pearls:

"Third, the Commission seeks comments regarding several issues relating to pearls.

Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on whether it should amend the Guides to address
disclosures concerning freshwater pearls. Comments submitted in the 1996 review suggested
that use of the term ?cultured? in reference to freshwater pearls would create confusion because
consumers tended to associate the term ?cultured pearls? with pearls that were round, and
freshwater pearls were often irregularly-shaped and smaller than other cultured pearls. Since
then, developments in the culturing process have effected changes in the shape, size, quality, and
color of the resulting product, such that freshwater cultured pearls may, in many respects,
resemble saltwater cultured pearls in appearance. The Commission thus seeks comments on
whether it should amend the Guides to recommend any specific disclosures relating to freshwater
pearls.

In addition, the Commission seeks comments on whether the Guides should advise the
disclosure of treatments to pearl products, such as dyeing techniques that artificially color the
final product."

 

[Marianne]

Yes, yes and yes again!

 

[pearlescence]

The best rules keep it simple so i would plump for dropping the requirement for cultured.
It is hardly ever used in real life and commerce and when it is it is usually misunderstood by consumers anyway
sample conversation
me'these are all freshwater or Tahitian pearls' (iindicates display)
snotty customer to friend (insert sniff) ' oh freshwater..I have cultured pearls at home' (she's wearing shell/fake pearl earrings but I bite my lip)

 

[jshepherd]

I am also working on this. I'm on the Accredited Gemologists Association committee to submit a proposal. You might be interested to see what the FTC asked for regarding pearls:

"Third, the Commission seeks comments regarding several issues relating to pearls.

Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on whether it should amend the Guides to address
disclosures concerning freshwater pearls. Comments submitted in the 1996 review suggested
that use of the term ?cultured? in reference to freshwater pearls would create confusion because
consumers tended to associate the term ?cultured pearls? with pearls that were round, and
freshwater pearls were often irregularly-shaped and smaller than other cultured pearls. Since
then, developments in the culturing process have effected changes in the shape, size, quality, and
color of the resulting product, such that freshwater cultured pearls may, in many respects,
resemble saltwater cultured pearls in appearance. The Commission thus seeks comments on
whether it should amend the Guides to recommend any specific disclosures relating to freshwater
pearls.

In addition, the Commission seeks comments on whether the Guides should advise the
disclosure of treatments to pearl products, such as dyeing techniques that artificially color the
final product."

I am very curious to know who they queried in 1996. I would be surprised if Devin Macnow, the ex-executive director of the Cultured Pearl Information Center, was not a part of that. This NYC group was financed by the Japan Pearl Exporters Association. How else would the FTC guidelines be written in such a way to entirely eliminate freshwater pearls? According to the guidelines, freshwater pearls cannot be called pearls and they cannot be called cultured pearls. But now we are debating whether they can because they're round? Even Mikimoto's pearls in the early days weren't round. The nacre was too thick. Yet he was the one that won the dispute over the word pearl in the first place in 1924.

I submit that the guidelines need to be completely rewritten and rewritten by someone like Doug Fiske or Elisabeth Strack; two people who are experts yet have no financial ties to the industry.

 

[Caitlin]

Do you think that could ever happen? Obviously freshwater pearls are a fact of life.