
Lab-grown diamond advocates the Diamond Producers Council said it rejects the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) recommendation that jewelers use the word synthetic, calling CIBJO’s decision “biased and deceptive.”
In its Oct. 20 statement shared on its website and with media, Diamond Producers Council representatives said they are asking the jewelry industry to continue using the terms lab-grown diamond, lab-created diamond, or [brand-]created diamond to disclose the origin of non-mined diamonds.
This statement puts the lab-grown versus synthetic terminology debate back into the jewelry industry’s spotlight when some might have thought the matter was settled. The council’s concerns also come at a critical time for diamond miners and marketers. There is still no concrete timing as for the sale of De Beers Group, which its parent company has said it wanted to divest from its portfolio since May 2024.
And the Natural Diamond Council in September changed its name to The Diamond Collective, its attempt to move the larger consumer and industry conversation away from lab-grown diamonds and to reclaim the singular word diamond as a reference to natural diamonds.
At its Centenary Congress in Vicenza, Italy, in September, CIBJO’s board of directors took comments and reports from its Diamond and Coloured Stone Commissions to remove the lab-grown or lab-created terms from its Blue Books. Instead, it mandated synthetic as the sole official descriptor of man-made gemstones.
In an email interview with JCK, a council representative says it advocates for truth in marketing of diamonds and giving consumers “a fair and honest choice”:
“CIBJO crossed a red line with its biased advocacy that led to the creation of this organization and mobilized measures being taken now. Consumers should not be talked into unnecessary expense by being told that a laboratory grown diamond is fake or not real. Synthetic has a technical meaning in gemology. The issue is what a customer understands at the jewelry counter,” the representative said.
JCK reached out to CIBJO; no further comment had been received as of press time.
Diamond Producers Council concerns
“CIBJO’s decision is particularly troubling because synthetic can suggest an imitation rather than diamond material,” the Diamond Producers Council said. “A lab-grown diamond is diamond. Cubic zirconia, moissanite, and glass are different materials. Consumers must not be confused about this distinction.”
It cites a 2016 Opinions Ltd. survey submitted to the FTC by the International Grown Diamond Association, which found that 56% of respondents understood synthetic diamond “to mean an imitation or fake.” It also notes that the Federal Trade Commission warned against using synthetic to imply falsely that a competitor’s lab-grown product is not diamond.
“CIBJO’s Blue Books are voluntary recommendations, not regulations,” the Oct. 20 Diamond Producers Council statement said. “DPC calls on the industry to put consumer understanding and interests first.”
The Diamond Producers Council also decried CIBJO’s Diamond Commission report for asking the industry to explore “every way possible” to restrict the use of the 4Cs marketing to natural diamonds. This potentially prevents lab-grown diamonds “from being described to consumers using the same familiar measures of carat, color, clarity, and cut,” the council said.
The Oct. 20 statement also indicates the Diamond Producers Council will step up to work with regulators, standards organizations, and consumer-protection authorities “to defend clear, truthful language. When appropriate, it will pursue legal and regulatory remedies when terminology rules or industry practices could mislead consumers or distort competition.”
Lab-grown diamond groups
There are multiple lab-grown diamond groups that seek to regulate this part of the jewelry industry. The Diamond Producers Council formed in October 2026 and said it represents producers of more than 20 million carats of lab-grown diamonds annually.
Another group is the Lab Grown Diamond Council (LGDC), which debuted in May 2019 as a New York City–based industry group aimed at building consumer and retailer awareness of lab-grown diamonds as a product. Its leadership includes cofounders Stanley Wong of Hong Kong and Thomas “Tom” Chatham, chair of the board at Chatham Created Gems & Diamonds.
There’s also the Lab Grown Diamond and Jewellery Promotion Council, which is said to have started in 2016. It has an Instagram account and a LinkedIn profile, but has no online presence otherwise as its website, LabGrownIndia.com, appears to be null and void.
Finally, the Grown Diamond Trade Organization is a trade group that says it represents the lab-grown diamond industry. Its head, Marty Hurwitz, also is CEO of Austin, Texas-based MVI Marketing. He says its expansion has been slow but steady despite limited membership and funding.
What’s in a word?
On the Diamond Producers Council website, it said its goal is to help consumers “assess the marketing claims they encounter and choose the diamond they want with confidence.” It does not list its funding, its membership, or its location.
At least one diamond industry insider tells JCK its membership includes Diamond Foundry, a San Francisco–based technology company that produces lab-grown diamonds. It was founded in 2012 by Martin Roscheisen and Jeremy Scholz, and investors are said to include actor Leonardo DiCaprio as well as engineer, investor, and so-called “father of the iPod” Tony Fadell.
The Diamond Producers Council website also lists an extensive Myths & Truth section. For example, it counters the myth that lab-grown diamonds are not real diamonds with a quote from GIA director Matthew Hall, who it quotes as saying, “[Lab-grown diamonds] are real diamonds.”
Myth 2 is “lab-grown diamonds are synthetic,” to which it responds that “calling a lab-grown diamond synthetic can be—and is often intended as—deceptive marketing, which is illegal. DPC recommends using unbiased terminology and giving consumers a true choice.”
The council lists Myth 3 as jewelers have to follow CIBJO. “No, they do not,” the council said. “CIBJO is a pro-mining shop, not a government regulatory. Its Blue Books are voluntary recommendations.”
CIBJO itself noted that is true, in that governments have higher power over its recommendations or Blue Books during its September congress.
“The CIBJO board of directors acknowledged that laboratory-grown and laboratory-created are consumer marketing terms accepted in certain jurisdictions, and recognized that national law or regulations take precedence in the jurisdictions where they are relevant,” CIBJO said in a statement. “However, CIBJO recommends that, when communicating to an international audience, synthetic be used as the most unambiguous term of description.”
During that meeting, CIBJO told participants it had considered shifting its language back to synthetic from lab-grown or lab-created for more than a year, asking its work groups to consider the change.
That conversation to change the Blue Books got heated during the September CIBJO congress as president Dr. Gaetano Cavalieri said the organization had received letters from lab-grown producer groups such as LGDC including asking it to pause its discussion on recommending synthetic as the preferred term. Cavalieri refused, saying if they wanted to be part of the discussion, these protestors could have attended the event.
Multiple countries and industry organizations from Russia to France to CIBJO now recommend synthetic as the primary term for man-made diamonds. The latest addition is the London Diamond Bourse, which said on Sept. 2 it adopted synthetic as “best practice” for all members.
“Existing U.K. guidance permits three, synthetic, laboratory-grown, and laboratory-created, and treats them as equally acceptable. The Bourse’s position is that of the three, synthetic is the most technically accurate, historically established, and internationally understood,” the London Diamond Bourse said in a statement.
(Photo: Getty Images)
- Subscribe to the JCK News Daily
- Subscribe to the JCK Special Report
- Follow JCK on Instagram: @jckmagazine
- Follow JCK on X: @jckmagazine
- Follow JCK on Facebook: @jckmagazine


