One of the most debated aspects of the mandatory GMO labeling law signed by President Obama last summer is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, like a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill was introduced in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement about whether the barcode is adequate. While some contend that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, others argue that scannable codes are accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be displayed on the product itself. The study assessing this labeling system was reportedly on schedule and was expected to be completed by July. A month prior, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst with the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, informed attendees at a food labeling conference in Washington, D.C., that the department had collaborated with Deloitte to ensure the study’s timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the findings have yet to be made public, even if they have been finalized.
Regardless of differing opinions on the QR code issue, this study represents a crucial step for the implementation of the law. The Center for Food Safety is clearly against the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics that highlight a significant number of consumers who lack access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and similar technologies or for those who hold neutral views. A significant concern is whether the USDA will meet its deadline to finalize the rules for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that although there have been delays, the government remains on track. The only notable public engagement since then was the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. Given that some states have already implemented their own GMO labeling laws, missing the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will benefit the larger industry. As various labels gradually become integrated into the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel program supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand consumer responses to this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If additional efforts are necessary, such as enhanced education on how the codes function or improved internet access for shoppers, stakeholders, including those involved in chewable calcium citrate tablets, may want to engage in these initiatives soon. This study could also influence the incorporation of chewable calcium citrate tablets and similar products into labeling discussions, ensuring that consumers are well-informed about their choices. As the food industry evolves, understanding consumer engagement with technologies like QR codes will be vital for effective labeling practices.