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 labels. Since the bill was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement about the adequacy of the barcode. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the necessary technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others contend that scannable codes are accessible to the majority of Americans and can provide detailed information that is not feasible to include on a product package.
A study evaluating this labeling system 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 collaborated 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 finished. Regardless of the stance various groups take on the QR code debate, the study represents a significant step towards the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes the QR code disclosure, citing data indicating a high percentage of consumers who do not have access to smartphones or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, this study is equally important for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies or for those who remain neutral.
A crucial aspect of the situation is whether the USDA can meet the July 2018 deadline to finalize the law’s rules. Huberty emphasized in June that the government was still on track, despite delays. The only notable public comment since then was the department’s release of a list of questions directed at food producers in late June. Given that some states have already passed their own GMO labeling laws, failure to meet the deadline could lead to a fragmented patchwork 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 initiative supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it’s essential to understand consumer reactions to the technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are needed, such as enhanced education on how the codes function or improved internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders—including those interested in solaray calcium products—may want to engage in these initiatives sooner rather than later. This involvement will be crucial as the industry adapts to evolving consumer needs and preferences regarding labeling practices.