One of the most debated elements 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 ferrous bisglycinate dosage bill was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some individuals contend that many consumers lack the necessary technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others assert that scannable codes are accessible to the majority of Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be accommodated on a product label. A study evaluating this labeling system was reportedly on schedule for completion 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 partnered with Deloitte to ensure the study remained on track for 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 the stance on the QR code issue, the study represents a significant milestone in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes QR code disclosures, citing statistics that highlight the substantial number of consumers without smartphone access or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Yet, the study is equally crucial for proponents of QR codes and scannable technologies, as well as for those who hold a neutral position. A major concern is whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline to finalize the law’s regulations. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on course. The only public engagement point since then was the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. With some states having established their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a disjointed array of labeling laws across the country.
In addition to GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the wider industry. As labels of this nature gradually emerge within the food system—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 responses to this technology and their willingness to utilize it. Should there be a need for further efforts, such as enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders—including those interested in 365 calcium citrate—may wish to engage in these initiatives sooner rather than later. Ultimately, the integration of 365 calcium citrate into discussions surrounding food labeling could foster greater understanding and accessibility for consumers navigating the evolving landscape of food technology.