Little else is more important than selecting the right kinds of food to eat when caring for the health of your mind, body, and world. In order to make smart food decisions, we rely on labels to guide us to the healthiest options.

While some food labeling systems are extremely reliable, others may falsely advertise the nutritional and environmental benefits of what we perceive to be mindful, health-promoting foods. These misleading health food labels may be causing many of us to blindly make decisions that are hurting, rather than helping, our bodies and world.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines the term organic as food that is, “produced using sustainable agricultural production practices. Not permitted are most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients, or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation”.

Judging from this definition, organic practices are beneficial not only to our bodies but to our environments as well. Organic production is meant to eliminate harmful practices that infect our bodies and pollute our surroundings. However, many foods that are labeled as organically certified could be hiding harmful secrets that would upset the countless consumers who choose to pay the extra cost for organic products in order to support their health.

According to Tammie Myrick, a member of the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s (FSIS) Labeling and Consumer Protection’s staff, the FSIS is responsible for making sure that all food products under the watch of the USDA are accurately labeled.

“FSIS enforces the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, which require Federal inspection and regulation of meat, poultry, and processed egg products prepared for distribution in commerce for use as human food,” she said. “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services has jurisdiction over all other foods, such as fruits, vegetables, fish, shell eggs, and dairy products.”

Although meant to promote health, the USDA’s practice of labeling organic products can also be confusing. Labels like “100% Organic,” “Organic,” or “Made with Organic Ingredients” may all seem like they mean the same thing when in fact they do not.

“100% Organic” means just that, according to Consumer Reports, the American consumer resource that offers product and service reviews based on laboratory testing.

“No synthetic ingredients are allowed by law,” the company shares. “Also, production processes must meet federal organic standards and must have been independently verified by accredited inspectors.”

The report also says that, although “Organic” may seem like it has the same meaning, the lack of the “100%” means that the product can only promise that 95% of its ingredients were organically produced. As well as with “Made with Organic Ingredients” that can only promise 70%.

Besides the mixed wording that organic products feature, another issue that Ms. Myrick presents is that, while the USDA requires prior label approval for all food products within their jurisdiction before they are sold in retail outlets, the FDA does not. This conundrum could lead to reasons why some Consumer Reports investigations of popular food labels are coming back with unpleasant results.

When Consumer Reports shares the results of food labeling investigations, it does so by providing a type of report card for a specific labeling system. Their “Greener Choices Eco-labels Center” rates labels by how meaningful they are, and whether or not they are verified. The center also determines if the labels are consistent, publicly available, free from conflict, and developed with broad public and industry input.

Notably, the Center’s investigation of “free range” labels presented results that would cause animal lover’s to cringe. The report rated the use of “free range” labels on meat and poultry products as not meaningful, verified, or consistent. The standards of the label as well as information about the organization in charge of implementing it were also cited as not publicly available.

A “free range” label is meant to assure conscious consumers that their meat and poultry products came from animals that were treated humanely and allowed to roam in their environments at their own free will. Instead, the lack of supporting standards for the label reveals that even if the doors of cages animal were cramped inside were opened for undetermined amounts of time each day, the product produced from that animal could be legally labeled as “free range”.

Reports such as this, both concerning and reassuring, can be accessed on the Consumer Reports‘ “Greener Choice’s Eco Labels Center” webpage. Just as selecting healthful food is beneficial to mind, body and environment so is becoming educated on the labels that may or may not accurately promote the beneficial nature of certain food products. Education, like food, fuels the body and may help to lead us in making smarter consumption choices.