One of the most debated elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law signed by President Obama last summer is the incorporation of a scannable barcode, such as a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill was discussed in Congress, there has been significant disagreement about the adequacy of using barcodes. Some contend that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others assert that scannable codes are accessible to the majority of Americans and can provide extensive information that cannot be accommodated on a product package.
The study evaluating this labeling system was reportedly on track 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 are finalized.
Regardless of differing opinions on the QR code matter, this study represents a significant milestone in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is staunchly opposed to QR code disclosures, citing statistics indicating that a large number of consumers do not have access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with scanning such codes. Nonetheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and scannable technology, as well as for individuals who hold neutral views on the subject. A critical factor in this discussion is whether the USDA will meet the deadline to finalize the law’s rules by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on track. The only recent public engagement was the department’s release of a list of questions directed at food producers in late June. Given that some states have implemented their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial to the broader industry. As these labels gradually emerge throughout the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel initiative supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—understanding consumer responses to this technology and their willingness to utilize it is crucial. If additional efforts are necessary, including enhanced education on how the codes function or improved internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may wish to engage in these initiatives promptly. This is particularly relevant for discussions surrounding nutrition, such as the role of calcium citrate without vitamin D, which is often highlighted in relation to dietary labeling. Thus, whether in the context of GMO products or other food items, the implications of this study are far-reaching, affecting how consumers interact with various labeling technologies and nutritional information, including products like calcium citrate without vitamin D.