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 bill was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some argue that a significant number of consumers lack the technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others contend that scannable codes are accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot fit on a product label.
A study designed to evaluate 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 collaborated with Deloitte for the study and was on track for timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the findings have yet to be made public, even if they are finished. Regardless of opinions concerning the QR code issue, the study is a significant milestone for the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes QR code disclosures, citing statistics about the considerable number of consumers who lack access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with how to scan QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes, other scannable technologies, or those who remain neutral on the matter.
A critical aspect of the situation is whether the USDA can meet the deadline to finalize the rules for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, although there were delays, the government was still on track. The only indication of public feedback since then was 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, missing the deadline could lead to a confusing patchwork of labeling regulations across the country.
Aside from GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the broader food industry. As these labels gradually emerge throughout the food system—both via the unrelated SmartLabel program supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—understanding consumer responses to this technology and their willingness to engage with it is essential. If further initiatives are needed, such as enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders, including those interested in calcium citrate interactions, may want to engage in these efforts soon. This is particularly relevant as the implications of calcium citrate interactions could influence consumer choices and perceptions regarding food labeling.