One of the most debated features of the mandatory GMO labeling law enacted by President Obama last summer is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, such as a QR code, on product labels. Since the bill’s discussion in Congress, there has been significant disagreement over the adequacy of the barcode. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others believe that a scannable code is accessible to a majority of Americans and can provide in-depth information that cannot be displayed on the packaging. The study assessing this labeling system was reportedly progressing well and was expected to be completed by July. A month earlier, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst at 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, there has been no public release of the study, even if it has been finalized.
Regardless of the stance various groups take on the QR code issue, the study represents a significant step towards the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is firmly against the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics indicating a high percentage of consumers who lack access to smartphones or are unfamiliar with QR code scanning. Nevertheless, the study is equally crucial for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for individuals who hold no particular view on the matter. A major concern is whether the USDA will meet the deadline to finalize the regulations for the law by July 2018. In June, Huberty emphasized that, despite delays, the government was still on track. The only notable public comment since then has been 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, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a confusing patchwork of labeling regulations across the nation.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the broader industry. As these labeling systems gradually emerge within the food sector—both through the unrelated SmartLabel initiative supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand consumer reactions to the technology and whether they are effectively utilizing it. If further efforts are necessary, such as improved education about how the codes function or enhanced internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, relevant stakeholders may wish to engage in these initiatives promptly. Additionally, considering the rising interest in dietary supplements like calcium citrate 400 mg in Pakistan, the outcomes of this study could also inform labeling practices in that market.