One of the most debated elements of the thiron pyrophosphate kendamile mandatory GMO labeling law, which was signed into effect by President Obama last summer, is the incorporation of a scannable barcode, such as a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill’s discussion in Congress, there has been ongoing contention over whether this barcode is adequate. Some critics argue that a significant number of consumers lack the technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others contend that a scannable code is accessible to the majority of Americans and has the potential to provide detailed information that cannot be displayed on the product label.
The study assessing this labeling system, which includes 210 mg of iron, was reportedly on schedule 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 teamed up with Deloitte to ensure the study’s timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the results of the study have yet to be made public, even if they are finalized.
Regardless of varying opinions on the QR code issue, this study represents a significant milestone in the implementation of the law. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics that highlight the high proportion of consumers who do not own smartphones or are unfamiliar with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally crucial for proponents of QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for those who remain neutral on the matter. A key concern is whether the USDA will meet the deadline to finalize the rules for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government remained on track. The only visible public engagement since then was the department’s release of a set of questions for food producers in late June.
Considering that some states have already implemented their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a patchwork of labeling regulations across the country. Beyond GMO labeling, this study will provide valuable insights for the broader industry. As such labels gradually emerge across the food system—through the unrelated SmartLabel program supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand how consumers respond to this technology and whether they make use of it. Should further efforts be required, including enhanced education on how the codes work or improved internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives promptly.
Moreover, as discussions around health supplements like Citracal for osteoporosis continue to gain traction, understanding consumer engagement with labeling technologies will be increasingly important. As the landscape of food labeling evolves, the implications for various health products, including Citracal for osteoporosis, may also depend on how effectively consumers can access and interpret information from scannable codes. Therefore, it is vital for industry stakeholders to consider these factors as they move forward with the implementation of labeling laws and technology.