On 16 December 2024, the European Commission approved a EUR 81 million (USD 85 million) financial grant for Diamond Foundry Europe from Spain. The grant will support the establishment of a new factory for the production of semiconductor-grade rough synthetic diamonds in Trujillo, Extremadura. The beneficiary is the Spanish subsidiary of an American company that manufactures synthetic diamonds using plasma reactor technology. Specifically, the project involves the construction of a carbon-neutral factory with an expected production capacity of 4 to 5 million carats per year. The total project investment will be around EUR 675 million.In this context, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, Teresa Ribera, noted: “Today’s decision enables Spain to support Diamond Foundry Europe in setting-up its first factory in Europe to produce semiconductor-grade rough synthetic diamonds. This will foster the transition to a decarbonised economy and competitiveness”. As of December 2024, the EC has not yet published its decision
In the U.S., lab-grown diamond sales jumped 16% in 2023 from 2022, according to Edahn Golan, an industry analyst. They cost a fraction of the stones formed naturally underground. Social media posts show millennials and Generation Zs proudly explaining the purchase of their lab-grown diamonds for sustainability and ethical reasons. But how sustainable they are is questionable, since making a diamond requires an enormous amount of energy and many major manufacturers are not transparent about their operations
Farlow said the choice of lab-grown makes her ring “more special and fulfilling” because the materials are sourced from reputable companies. All of the lab diamonds at Bario Neal are either made with renewable energy or have the emissions that go into making them countered with carbon credits, which pay for activities like planting trees, which capture carbon. But that’s not the norm for lab-grown diamonds. Many companies are based in India, where about 75% of electricity comes from burning coal. They use words like “sustainable” and “environmentally-friendly” on their websites, but don’t post their environmental impact reports and aren’t certified by third parties. Cupid Diamonds, for example, says on its website that it produces diamonds in “an environmentally friendly manner,” but did not respond to questions about what makes its diamonds sustainable. Solar energy is rapidly expanding in India and there are some companies, such as Greenlab Diamonds, that utilize renewables in their manufacturing processes. China is the other major diamond manufacturing country. Henan Huanghe Whirlwind, Zhuhai Zhong Na Diamond, HeNan LiLiang Diamond, Starsgem Co. and Ningbo Crysdiam are among the largest producers. None returned requests for comment nor post details about where it gets its electricity. More than half of China’s electricity came from coal in 2023. In the United States, one company, VRAI, whose parent company is Diamond Foundry, operates what it says is a zero-emissions foundry in Wenatchee, Washington, running on hydropower from the Columbia River. Martin Roscheisen, CEO and founder of Diamond Foundry, said via email the power VRAI uses to grow a diamond is “about one tenth of the energy required for mining.” But Paul Zimnisky, a diamond industry expert, said companies that are transparent about their supply chain and use renewable energy like this “represent a very small portion of production.” “It seems like there are a lot of companies that are riding on this coattail that it’s an environmentally-friendly product when they aren’t really doing anything that’s environmentally friendly,” said Zimnisky.
HOW ITS DONE
Lab diamonds are often made over several weeks, subjecting carbon to high pressure and high temperature that mimic natural conditions that form diamonds beneath the Earth’s surface. The technology has been around since the 1950’s, but the diamonds produced were mostly used in industries like stone cutting, mining and dentistry tools. Over time the laboratories, or foundries, have gotten better at growing stones with minimal flaws. Production costs have dropped as technology improves. That means diamond growers can manufacture as many stones as they want and choose their size and quality, which is causing prices to fall rapidly. Natural diamonds take billions of years to form and are difficult to find, making their price more stable. Diamonds, whether lab-grown or natural, are chemically identical and entirely made out of carbon. But experts can distinguish between the two, using lasers to pinpoint telltale signs in atomic structure. The Gemological Institute of America grades millions of diamonds annually.
MARKETING COMPETITION
With lower prices for lab-grown and young people increasingly preferring them, the new diamonds have cut into the market share for natural stones. Globally, lab-grown diamonds are now 5-6% of the market and the traditional industry is not taking it sitting down. The marketing battle is on. The mined diamond industry and some analysts warn lab-grown diamonds won’t hold value over time. “Five to ten years into the future, I think there’s going to be very few customers that are willing to spend thousands of dollars for a lab diamond. I think almost all of it’s going to sell in the $100 price point or even below,” said Zimnisky. He predicts that natural diamonds will continue to sell in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars for engagement rings. Some cultures view engagement rings as investments and choose natural diamonds for their value over the long term. That’s particularly true in China and India, Zimnisky said. It’s also still true in more rural areas of the United States, while lab-grown diamonds have taken off more in the cities. Paying thousands of dollars for something that drops most of its value in just a few years can leave the buyer feeling cheated, which Golan said is an element that is currently working against the lab-grown sector. “When you buy a natural diamond, there’s a story that it is three billion years in the making by Mother Earth. This wondrous creation of nature … you cannot tell that story with a lab-grown,” said Golan. “You very quickly make the connection between forever and the longevity of the love.” “If we really want to get technical here, the greenest diamond is a repurposed or recycled diamond because that uses no energy,” Zimnisky said. Page Neal said she co-founded Bario Neal in 2008 to “create jewelry of lasting value that would have a positive impact on people and the planet.” All of the materials in her jewelry can be traced throughout their supply chain. The store offers both lab-grown and natural diamonds. “Jewelry is a powerful symbol … it’s a keeper of memories,” she said. “But when we’re using materials that have caused harm to other people and the environment to create a symbol of love and commitment or identity, to me it feels at odds. We want to only work with materials that we feel like our clients would be proud to own.”
-The most sustainable way to shop is to shop what already exists. Secondhand, pawn, inherited, even mined diamonds are more sustainable if you’re buying off of consignment rather than buying a newly created diamond. I’ve seen some beautiful diamonds being consigned through our local jeweler from rich local ladies so asking around is always an option.
-As explained in this video, the issue with that company is that they grade their own diamonds. I would be very skeptical of that.
-About 50.9%+ of china’s energy as of 2023 is renewable so if 100% of the energy being renewable is important enough to you to justify paying significantly more for a lower quality stone dollar for dollar, that’s a personal decision.
Reading through the VRAI website, it appears that they’re likely still sending their stones to india for the entire cutting process. “long-term working relationships with expert diamond cutters ” to me = india. If it was in the USA they would be headlining it in bold.
Realistically, the debate would primarily be centered around that 50% of non renewable energy used growing a Chinese lab diamond, since chinese companies and VRAI are still leveraging the same low-paid likely third world labor and logistics- unless they can prove otherwise (again, if they could, it would be right on their website, not glossed over). They’re still leveraging the same diamond supply chains both lab and natural stones use. Nobody’s hands are completely clean and many companies use greenwashing to fill in the blanks and create a “brand” image that may or may not be as ideal as you or I would want it to be.
I think it’s an honorable pursuit that still has a long way to go. Really VRAI probably can’t utilize stateside diamond cutting labor and still be in any way competitive/profitable. If they cared more about the environment than pricing/marketing they would be having them all cut stateside even if that meant a price increase of $200/ct. In my opinion that fact alone makes it easy to see where they draw the line between profitability and their environmentally friendly marketing image.
The term ‘smoke and mirrors’ could easily be applied to the lab-grown diamond industry’s environmental and social responsibility claims. Perhaps that’s being a bit harsh, but platitudes really don’t deserve a free pass in this day and age.
Whilst I’ve been involved in the jewellery business for over 12 years now, it’s only in the past two that I’ve become immersed in the machinations of the global industry.
As it happens, that was also about the same time lab-grown diamonds really started making waves as a serious competitor to mine-origin stones.
In particular I remember coverage of a red-carpet event in 2017 featuring Diamond Foundry jewellery. And honestly, my initial reaction was one of skepticism about the environmental claims being made.
My business partner (a gemmologist) and I had been aware of the existence of lab-grown diamonds long before this of course. But before 2017, lab-grown diamonds in jewellery were little more than a curiosity — in Australia anyway.
Then along came Diamond Foundry with bold claims about eco-friendliness and carbon neutrality, creating a whole new dialogue in the diamond retail space.
Shortly thereafter De Beers announced their intent to launch their own lab-grown diamonds product line (Lightbox). And almost out of nowhere, lab-grown diamonds exploded onto the mainstream jewellery scene.
As it turns out Diamond Foundry have proven true to their word, but they appear to be one of the few.
The actions (or rather, inactions) of almost all other lab-grown diamonds producers have left me more than a little disillusioned and more than a little frustrated.
What’s the problem?
Two years ago my initial negative gut reaction to lab-grown diamonds was in response to the marketing hyperbole surrounding the product.
Having been in the sales and marketing space since the early ’90s, I’m immediately dubious about claims that sound too good to be true.
Curious though, I did my research to try and find out whether or not these claims of superior eco-friendliness were legitimate.
Unfortunately that research didn’t turn up much useful information. The International Grown Diamond Association reported that lab-grown diamonds had a carbon cost some 1.5 billion times less than mine-origin stones. That definitely sounded too good to be true, but there was very little else to go on.
It’s well known amongst the gemmological community that producing lab-grown diamonds is a very energy-hungry activity. But due to the proprietary nature of most manufacturing techniques, specific information about how much energy has never been readily available.
My problem is, two years down the track, that situation hasn’t changed much.
We now know that many lab-grown diamond producers have sited their factories in India, China and Singapore — all of which rely heavily of fossil fuels for electricity generation.
But it’s not just about electricity consumption. The whole supply chain seems to be cloaked in secrecy.
It’s not just me
Very recently I had a conversation with the managing director of a diamond and jewellery wholesale business who, like me, has become very frustrated with the lack of transparency in the lab-grown production world.
Despite being one step closer to the point of origin, he has found it extraordinarily difficult to get meaningful information about the environmental and social credentials of lab-grown diamonds — even the ones his business wholesales!
Lab-grown diamonds — a ‘black hole’ when it comes to environmental and social responsibility credentials
Being active in forums like LinkedIn and Medium means I get frequent approaches from producers and wholesalers wanting our business to prefer their lab-grown diamonds.
Interestingly, all I have to do to make most of them go away is ask about where their diamonds are manufactured and cut. I don’t even have to ask about environmental and social responsibility issues. It seems the where and by whom questions are too difficult, too revealing or perhaps too compromising to risk answering?
Whatever the reason, it’s both perplexing and concerning.
Surely it isn’t so for the big industry players?
I wish I could say it’s different for the larger producers, but it isn’t. Trying to learn anything specific about the environmental and social aspects of lab-grown diamond production is like peering into a murky pond. You can’t see more than a few millimeters below the surface.
Try perusing the websites of the larger organisations looking for detailed information and you’ll almost certainly come away disappointed.
Some make sound-bite comparisons with the diamond mining industry raising concerns about environmental damage, water consumption and conflict funding.
Some claim ecological friendliness simply because they don’t dig holes in the ground. Others claim vegan-friendliness as a virtue, or that access to wind-generated power makes them ‘greener’ than their mine-origin counterparts.
And then there are those that make no mention whatsoever of any environmental or social issues. (At least these producers aren’t trying to jump on the ethical bandwagon.)
Why no detailed back-story?
The reality is lab-grown diamond producers don’t really need to tell the whole story to win over new customers. They already have several distinct advantages, namely:
- they have a clear price advantage over mine-origin for what is technically an identical product;
- they’re well clear of the stigma attached to the diamond mining industry’s history; and
- because they don’t dig holes in the ground, they avoid the baggage that goes with that kind of activity (namely things like habitat destruction, pollution, water consumption, human rights abuses etc. etc.)
In other words, lab-grown can (and often do) win over new customers simply by running a negative campaign. By highlighting the ‘bad’ things associated with mine-origin diamonds they’re able to earn themselves brownie points simply by saying; “We don’t do those things”.
For a lot of people, this is enough.
Many consumers have such a negative perception of the diamond mining industry that vague claims about being more environmentally friendly coupled with glossy images and bright and shiny technology is sufficient to win them over.
It’s no wonder the US Federal Trade Commission has started to crack down on claims that border on puffery.
Being an ethical consumer isn’t easy
If you want to claim the ethical high ground, promoting yourself by bagging the competition is undeniably an effective way to go about it. But it’s only half the story.
As far as I’m concerned if you’re not also being transparent about your own credentials whilst busily attacking your competitors about the same thing, then you’re being disingenuous at the very least.
As a dedicated ethical consumer (and an ethical business operator), I can’t just take your word for it that you’re better than the next guy.
For all we know, lab-grown diamond producers might be consuming hideous amounts of electricity sourced from old technology, coal-fired power stations that belch enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Similarly, their workforces could be underpaid and the people cutting and polishing their rough product might work in appalling conditions.
In many ways, the lab-grown diamond industry could be very ugly. We just don’t know for sure.
Why the mystery?
Truth is, I don’t really think the lab-grown industry is as bad as I’m making it out to be — at least not for the majority of producers. But the lack of transparency does raise questions.
As I’ve already mentioned, lab-grown don’t really need to go all out to succeed. They already have a meaningful price advantage and they certainly have the edge when it comes to issues like habitat destruction and water consumption.
But what I want to understand is why all the secrecy surrounding actual energy consumption, point of origin and social responsibility actions?
For us as a bespoke, ethical jewellery company trying to be as transparent as possible with our customers, it’s frustrating. Trying to get meaningful information from potential suppliers is like pulling teeth.
You don’t necessarily have to be better to be thought of as the best
Imagine you wanted to buy a car and fuel efficiency is one of your most important decision criteria.
You go and question a bunch of different dealers about the performance of their vehicles in this regard and they all come back with the same response: “Our cars are much more fuel efficient than our competitors’.”
Unsatisfied, you press them further with; ‘Yes, but how efficient?”
How would you feel if the answer repeatedly came back as: “Well, we can’t be specific, but our cars are a LOT more efficient.”?
I expect your trust levels would be quite low.
Now imagine if you then came across a dealer who answered your question with: “Our cars typically use around 8 litres of fuel per 100 kilometers. And we’ve had this figure verified by this particular independent organisation.”
The thing is, that fuel economy figure may or may not be a good one relative to the competition. Who knows?
But when no one else will give you a straight answer, who are you going to trust — the evasive dealers or the up-front one?
This is what it’s like being in the ethical jewellery space right now.
There are plenty of people who want us to buy their lab-grown diamonds, but it seems few are prepared to do more than pay lip service to the issues of environmental and social responsibility.
Turning up the heat
If it sounds like I’m being hard on the lab-grown diamond industry, good. That’s my intention.
The majority are riding on the environmental coat tails of a few industry leaders.
By the way, none of this is to say I prefer mine-origin stones. I don’t. What matters is what customers want. My preferences are irrelevant.
Mine-origin have their own stories to tell and their own crosses to bear, but it’s easy to see why the mine-origin industry is becoming increasingly vocal and critical of the so-called eco-friendliness of their lab-grown opposition.
And in the absence of any meaningful proof to the contrary, it could be the mine-origin criticisms are more than justified.
Perfection isn’t necessary — but transparency is
Apart from not needing to, I wonder if part of the reason lab-grown producers are reluctant to tell the whole story is because they know they’re not perfect?
This is the crazy part. They don’t need to be perfect. All they need to do is be better than mine-origin.
If it turns out the carbon footprint of the average lab-grown diamond is about the same as, or even worse than mine-origin, then so be it. A known carbon footprint is relatively easy to compensate for — assuming you’re willing to bear the cost. The problem is being kept in the dark.
In any case, lab-grown have several other equally, if not more powerful selling propositions. So their not being dramatically better on the carbon cost front isn’t a deal-breaker.
What is becoming a deal-breaker though — for those of us in the ethical space — is the persistent use of weak, unverified claims about being environmentally and socially responsible.
The thing is if you want to grow and prosper in an ethical marketplace then guess what, you must behave in an ethical manner. That includes telling the whole story. Warts and all.
the FTC, is “is a bipartisan federal agency with a unique dual mission to protect consumers and promote competition.” In other words, these are the people who come after companies when they are using unfair business practices in their advertising, including straight up lying. If you claim to be “all-natural” on your label, you better believe the FTC is going to double-check to make sure you really are.
Diamond Foundry Lawsuit
According to Yahoo! Finance, the FTC issued warning letters for misleading advertising practices to eight lab-grown diamond companies, one of which is Diamond Foundry- a diamond company backed by Leonardo DiCaprio. Leonardo DiCaprio is not only an award-winning actor but also a well-known environmentalist and conservationist. Diamond mining has been known to have a negative impact on the environment as it causes issues like earth displacement, deforestation, and energy as well as water usage. Lab mined diamond companies are intend to be the more “eco-friendly” option, which makes DiCaprio the perfect investor and consequential face of such a brand. The issue is, however, that Diamond Foundry, and the seven other lab mined companies, have advertised their diamonds in ways that might lead consumers to believe that the diamonds are mined instead of lab-made and are more environmentally friendly than those that are actually mined. Confusing, right? How could these companies claim to have more environmental benefits than those diamonds that are mined but also claim to be mined diamonds? Yeah, I’m definitely confused.
FTC Explains How To Be in Compliance When Utilizing “Green Marketing”
The FTC directed these green marketing companies to their Green Guides that advises brands on how to market and “quantify their claims to avoid deceiving customers,” according to Forbes (for more information on green marketing, click here). What the FTC wants is for these companies to prove that their diamond sourcing is more eco-friendly than that of mined diamonds. Regarding the mining issue, the FTC noted that these brands needed to clearly disclose in their advertising that these diamonds are in fact made in a lab, not mined. Ada Diamonds specifically was flagged by the FTC because of its advertising campaign that featured a lab diamond hashtag, which is not enough of a disclosure that is compliant with FTC standards. Most of the companies in question responded positively to the letters from the FTC, which is good PR on their parts. “The DPA welcomes the FTC’s warning to synthetic diamond manufacturers against misleading consumers with their marketing tactics,” The Diamond Producers Association said in a statement reported by Yahoo! Finance, “This warning is an important step toward transparency and consumer protection.”
Other companies found issue with the FTC’s letters. Alex Weindling, the founder of Clean Origin, which has not yet received a warning letter, said in a statement published by Yahoo! Finance, “I happen to believe that when you dig a crater that is visible from space that it is less environmentally thoughtful than growing a diamond — just my opinion,” adding that the publicity from these letters will further mining companies’ interests in eliminating lab-grown diamonds.“We are about 1% of the [diamond] industry, but we are about 90% of their focus.” Weindling said.The companies that have received these warning letters have 10 days to address how they will make changes with the issues mentioned within their advertising, according to Yahoo! Finance
April 22, 2021 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that the Natural Diamond Council discontinue certain advertising claims comparing mined diamonds with man-made diamonds, including the carbon emissions associated with diamond mining compared with diamond manufacturing, the scarcity of mined diamonds, the resale value of mined diamonds versus man-made diamonds, as well as claims that described mined diamonds as “real”, in contrast to man-made diamonds.
The claims at issue, which appeared on the Natural Diamond Council’s website and in marketing assets that the advertiser makes available to retailers, were challenged by Diamond Foundry, Inc., a manufacturer of laboratory-grown diamonds (LGDs).
The mined diamonds recovered and sold by Natural Diamond Council members are found in some of the most remote places on the planet and require significant investment and technical expertise to locate and recover. In recent years, man-made diamonds have entered the marketplace to compete with mined diamonds. Manufacturers of man-made diamonds such as Diamond Foundry rely on technological innovations which allow diamonds to be created in a laboratory, rather than extracted from the earth.
Diamond Foundry challenged claims made by the Natural Diamond Council that carbon emissions associated with LGDs are three times greater than those associated with mined diamonds. NAD determined that the advertiser’s evidence was not sufficiently reliable to support its comparative carbon emissions claims. Further, NAD was concerned that such claims conveyed a broader implied message about the overall environmental benefits of mined diamonds versus man-made diamonds, a message that was not supported.
Therefore, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the implied claim that mined diamonds are better for the environment than man-made diamonds, and express claims that:
- “… recent third-party research reveals that natural diamonds produce 3X less carbon emissions per carat than lab-grown diamonds, equal only to the carbon emissions required to produce 3 iPhones . . . .”
- “Estimated carbon emissions of laboratory-created diamonds is 3 times more than natural diamonds.”
- “While ‘modern diamond miners produce 160 KG of carbon emissions per carat of polished diamond,’ man-made diamonds produce 511 KG of carbon emissions per carat of polished diamond.”
Further, NAD determined that claims in the Natural Diamond Council’s online advertising which emphasize the increasing scarcity of natural diamonds create a sense of urgency about the supply of natural diamonds that is not supported by the evidence. NAD noted that while it may be likely that supply issues will someday influence the consumer market for natural diamonds, the challenged advertising reasonably conveys a message that consumers might become “priced out” of the diamond market and unable to purchase natural diamonds in the future, and that they must therefore act now.
Because NAD concluded that the Natural Diamond Council did not have a reasonable basis for claims that diamonds are increasing in scarcity, it recommended that the advertiser discontinue claims that:
- “…full carat and larger natural diamonds are becoming rarer by the day as supply continues to decrease and no significant deposits have been found in decades.”
- “Natural diamonds are finite and rare. The number of recovered diamonds peaked in 2005 and will decrease significantly over the next decade. Diamonds are becoming rarer every day because no new discoveries have been made in about 30 years.”
NAD noted that nothing in its decision precludes the advertiser from making truthful and non-misleading claims about the global supply of natural diamonds, including their relative availability.
Diamond Foundry also challenged the advertiser’s claims relating to the resale value of mined diamonds versus the resale value of LGDs.
NAD noted that while it is not misleading for the Natural Diamond Council to generally refer to mined diamonds as deriving value because they are “rare” or “unique,” the advertiser’s references to “resale” value reasonably convey an unsupported message about the resale value of man-made diamonds. NAD determined that the Natural Diamond Council may claim that “Natural diamonds obtain their value from their uniqueness and rarity as billion-year-old precious gems older than life itself,” provided such claim is not connected to a message about resale value of man-made diamonds.
However, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue implied claims that mined diamonds are more financially valuable than man-made diamonds because they are rare and old, and express claims that:
- “Lab-grown diamonds are currently sold at a slightly reduced price compared to natural diamonds, but the cost continues to decline due to mass production. Therefore, they have little to no resale value.”
- “A laboratory created diamond has no resale value and its price is falling rapidly.”
- “[M]ass-produced lab-grown diamonds are sold at comparable prices, but have little to no resale value because they can be endlessly replicated.”
Finally, NAD determined that, in the context in which it appeared, the advertiser’s use of the word “real” to describe its diamonds reasonably conveys the unsupported message that LGDs, like Diamond Foundry’s, have different physical and chemical properties than mined diamonds. LGDs have the exact same physical characteristics as mined diamonds due to their identical atomic composition and tetrahedrally-crystallized carbon structure. NAD was concerned that in the context of the challenged advertising, consumers may incorrectly conflate LGDs such as Diamond Foundry’s with imitation diamonds like moissanite and cubic zirconia, which do not share the same physical properties as mined diamonds.
Therefore, NAD recommended that the Natural Diamond Council discontinue the implied claim that man-made diamonds are not “real” diamonds, and express claims that:
- “Today, there are many laboratory-grown and synthetic diamonds on the market. These are also made of carbon, but without the Earthly origins of real diamonds, they lack the unique qualities infused by nature.”
- “The difference between a real diamond and a lab-grown diamond is simple . . . A real diamond is unique and rare, formed one hundred miles below earth’s surface up to 3 billion years ago. Real diamonds undergo extraordinary environmental circumstances, bursting towards the earth’s surface through volcanic eruptions. They are miracles of nature.”
In its advertiser statement, the Natural Diamond Council stated that it “agrees to comply with the NAD’s recommendations.” Further, the advertiser stated that it is “grateful for the NAD’s constructive feedback about its substantiation and will incorporate NAD’s suggestions as it collects additional data to support its advertising claims.”
All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.
###
About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.
About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business