One of the most contentious 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 ongoing debate about whether the barcode alone is adequate. Some critics argue that numerous consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, while others contend that a scannable code is easily accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be included on the product packaging.
A study evaluating this labeling system was reportedly on schedule to conclude 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 of the study have yet to be made public, even if they are complete. Regardless of differing opinions on the QR code issue, the study represents a significant step in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is clearly opposed to the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics regarding the considerable number of consumers who lack access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with scanning QR codes. Nonetheless, the study is equally crucial for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, or for individuals who hold no particular stance on the matter.
A major concern is whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline for finalizing the law’s regulations. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government is still on track. The only public comment opportunity since then was 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 patchwork of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond the GMO labeling issue, this study will also be beneficial for the broader industry. As these types of labels gradually emerge throughout the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel program backed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products such as Arctic apples—it is essential to understand how consumers react to the technology and whether they utilize it. If further efforts are needed, including improved education on how the codes function or enhanced internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives soon, especially considering the potential benefits of supplements like calcium citrate and vitamin C that could be highlighted through better labeling practices.