One of the most contentious elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law signed by President Obama last summer is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, such as a QR code, on product labels. Since the legislation was debated in Congress, there has been significant disagreement regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some critics contend that many consumers lack the technology or understanding to utilize these codes, while others argue that scannable codes are accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be displayed on a product package.
The study assessing 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 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 crucial step in implementing the law. The Center for Food Safety is firmly against the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics about the substantial number of consumers who lack access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for those who hold a neutral stance. A major concern is whether the USDA will meet the deadline to finalize the rules for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, while there have been delays, the government was still on track. The only public commentary since then was the department’s release of questions for food producers in late June. Given that some states have implemented their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will benefit the broader industry. As these types of labels gradually integrate into the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel program endorsed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it’s essential to understand how consumers respond to this technology and whether they take advantage of it. If additional efforts are necessary, including enhanced education on how the codes function or improved internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, relevant stakeholders may need to engage in these initiatives promptly.
In this context, the debate surrounding the elemental calcium vs calcium citrate malate topic highlights the need for clear communication and understanding among consumers about new labeling technologies, ensuring they can make informed choices regarding their food.