One of the most debated elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law that President Obama signed last summer is the incorporation of a scannable barcode, like a QR code, on product labels. Since the bill was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing contention about the adequacy of the barcode. 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 most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be included on the packaging. The evaluation study for this labeling system was reportedly progressing well and was expected to be completed by July. A month prior, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst at 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 their stance on the QR code, the study is a crucial step for the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is firmly against the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics that highlight the significant number of consumers without access to smartphones or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nonetheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for individuals who remain neutral. A significant concern is whether the USDA will meet the deadline for finalizing the law’s regulations by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was on track. Since then, the only public comment from the department was the release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. With some states implementing their own GMO labeling laws, missing the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, the findings of this study will benefit the broader industry. As various labels are gradually introduced into 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 engage with this technology and whether they leverage it effectively. If further efforts are necessary, such as enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to take action quickly.
Additionally, as consumers increasingly seek information about food products, the integration of items like bariatric advantage chewable calcium may become relevant in discussions around labeling, highlighting the importance of transparency and accessibility in food choices. Understanding consumer responses to these technologies, including those related to bariatric advantage chewable calcium, will be pivotal as the industry continues to evolve.