Cibjo’s Synthetic Decision Was Necessary
Cibjo’s decision to adopt “synthetic” as the sole descriptive term for diamonds and gemstones with the same chemical, physical and structural properties as their natural equivalents was significant, and not without controversy.
At its Congress in Vicenza, the World Jewellery Confederation confirmed that it will revise its Diamond and Colored Stone Blue Books, replacing “laboratory-grown” and “laboratory-created” with “synthetic.” The decision followed a long period of consultation, although several trade bodies urged CIBJO to defer its final approval to allow for further discussion.
That debate was understandable. Terminology around synthetic diamonds has become commercially and emotionally charged. Yet the decision matters precisely because Cibjo is not simply another industry body offering an opinion on nomenclature. Its role is to harmonize standards across the international jewelry trade, from mining and manufacturing to wholesale and retail, with consumer confidence at the center of that work.
Its Blue Books are not legally binding, but they are an important reference point for the trade and for governments considering their own rules. Cibjo also has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, giving its standards additional weight internationally. The ruling therefore lays down a marker that other organizations and regulators will have to consider.
Technical Accuracy
The immediate objection from the laboratory-grown diamond sector is familiar. “Synthetic,” it argues, carries negative connotations, suggesting that the product is fake or an imitation. Gemologically, that is not correct. A synthetic diamond is not a simulant. It has the same chemical composition and crystal structure as a natural diamond, but is produced through a technological process rather than formed in the earth.
There should be no disagreement on that point. Synthetic diamonds are real diamonds. The question is how accurately they should be described.
Historically, “synthetic” was not a taboo term. Early scientists referred to their efforts to manufacture synthetic diamond, while General Electric described its breakthrough in the 1950s as the production of man-made diamonds. As synthetic diamond production developed for industrial use, the term was adopted by companies including GE and De Beers because it was technically precise.
The language changed only when gem-quality synthetics became a jewelry product. Producers needed to move the category beyond its industrial origins and into the fine-jewelry market. “Laboratory-grown” was simply more marketable than “synthetic.” It implied cultivation, presenting the product as something developed in a controlled environment rather than manufactured in a factory.
That distinction was commercially powerful. “Lab-grown” became the preferred language of retailers, who were aggressively expanding the category, attracted by its margins and its appeal to a new consumer. It quickly entered the consumer lexicon. Today, most consumers refer instinctively to lab-grown or lab diamonds.
Commercial Shift
The term also gained institutional legitimacy. In 2015, the International Organization for Standardization listed laboratory-grown among acceptable disclosures for synthetic diamonds. The US Federal Trade Commission followed with its revision of the Jewelry Guides in 2018.
The FTC’s position has often been misunderstood. It did not ban “synthetic.” It acknowledged that the term can accurately describe a diamond with essentially the same optical, physical and chemical properties as a mined diamond. However, it did not include synthetic among its examples of clear consumer-facing qualifiers, which included laboratory-grown, laboratory-created and manufacturer-name-created.
That distinction mattered. The FTC had received evidence that some consumers associated synthetic with imitation or fake products. The result was that laboratory-grown became the preferred commercial language, while synthetic became increasingly stigmatized.
That concern should not be dismissed. As Tom Chatham, chairman of Chatham Created Gems & Diamonds, pointed out in an email, in everyday consumer language, “synthetic” is often used for materials that imitate a natural original, such as synthetic leather or synthetic fabrics. That creates an obvious risk that consumers will understand synthetic diamond to mean fake diamond, even though that is not what the term means in gemology.
The issue, then, is not whether synthetic is technically correct. The question is whether technical correctness alone is enough when a large part of the public understands the word differently. An industry definition is only useful if consumers can understand it as intended.
That consumer perception has shaped the trade’s approach. CIBJO incorporated laboratory-grown and laboratory-created terminology into its Diamond Blue Book framework after similar terms had been accepted by the now-defunct International Diamond Council. De Beers used “laboratory-grown” when it launched Lightbox in 2018. The GIA renamed its synthetic diamond grading reports as Laboratory-Grown Diamond Reports in 2019, saying it was aligning with the FTC’s guidance.
With hindsight, those were serious errors.
They gave commercial legitimacy to the language that sellers of laboratory-grown diamonds wanted to use, while reinforcing the notion that “synthetic” was somehow derogatory or inaccurate. At the time, synthetics were seen by many natural diamond businesses as a profitable short-term opportunity. Less than a decade later, the category has gained far more market share than many expected, while the natural diamond market is under immense pressure.
The industry is now trying to correct a mistake that it helped create. Its long-term value remains tied to natural diamonds, yet it allowed a competing product to be framed in language that softened the distinction between the two categories and made the manufactured product more emotionally appealing to consumers.
There is also a technical issue. Laboratory-grown is not free of ambiguity either. It describes a setting rather than the process by which the product is made, and can imply cultivation rather than manufacture. The fact that it is more appealing language does not necessarily make it clearer language.
Laboratory-grown is not the most accurate description of how these diamonds are made. They are manufactured through controlled technological processes that replicate aspects of natural diamond formation in order to synthesize diamond crystal. “Synthetic diamond” is the more precise term, and it is the one scientists and industrial producers historically used for good reason.
There is no reason that should be a stigma. The colored gemstone trade has long used synthetic as a clear and accepted descriptor. The diamond industry has often been too reactionary on this issue, treating the term as a threat rather than explaining its meaning properly.
Consumer Clarity
Cibjo’s decision does not mean laboratory-grown will disappear. The organization acknowledged that laboratory-grown and laboratory-created remain accepted marketing terms in certain jurisdictions, and that national laws take precedence where they apply. Its Blue Books are guides, not regulations.
Russia and France have already taken clearer positions, requiring or accepting synthetic as the correct descriptor. Attention will now turn to the United States, where the FTC is scheduled to revise its Jewelry Guides in 2028.
The FTC is unlikely to follow Cibjo exactly. Its priority will be to remove consumer confusion, including the widespread misconception that synthetic diamond is prohibited in the US. It is not. A more realistic outcome would be for the FTC to recommend synthetic alongside laboratory-grown, laboratory-created and manufacturer-name-created.
That would be a sensible step. These issues may appear technical, but terminology has real consequences. It affects how consumers understand the difference between a natural diamond and a manufactured one, and whether the trade communicates that distinction with clarity or ambiguity.
Cibjo took a bold position, and perhaps one that was overdue. “Synthetic” is the most technically accurate and internationally unambiguous descriptor. The industry now needs to explain that distinction clearly, rather than allowing commercial language to blur it further.
This article was written with the assistance of ChatGPT, based on a summary of the original video transcript.
Comments