One of the most debated aspects of the genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling law signed by President Obama last summer is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, such as a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill’s introduction in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement regarding whether the barcode alone suffices for consumer transparency. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the necessary technology or understanding to utilize these codes, while others contend that a scannable code is accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot fit on a product label. The evaluation study for this labeling system was reportedly on schedule and 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 partnered with Deloitte to ensure the study’s timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the findings have yet to be released, even if they are finalized.
Regardless of differing opinions 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 disclosure, citing statistics that highlight the considerable number of consumers without access to smartphones or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, this study is equally crucial for those who support QR codes and scannable technology, as well as for individuals with no strong stance on the matter. A major concern is whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline for finalizing the rules concerning the law. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite the delays, the government was still making progress. The only public commentary since then came from the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. Given that some states have implemented their own GMO labeling laws, failure to meet this deadline could lead to a disjointed array of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the broader industry. As these types of labels gradually emerge within 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 how consumers react to this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are necessary, including improved education on how the codes function or enhanced internet connectivity for grocery customers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives. In the context of labeling, it is also interesting to note the growing interest in organic calcium citrate, as consumers increasingly seek information about products that meet their dietary preferences. The incorporation of organic calcium citrate into food products may be another area where consumer awareness and labeling play a crucial role.