One of the most debated elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law, which President Obama signed into effect last summer, is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, such as a QR code, on product labels. Since the legislation was discussed in Congress, there has been considerable disagreement regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, while others assert that scannable codes are accessible to a majority of Americans, offering the potential to provide detailed information that cannot be displayed on the product packaging. A study assessing this labeling system was reportedly on schedule and expected to be completed by July. Just a month earlier, 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 teamed up with Deloitte to ensure the study was on track for timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the results of the study have yet to be released, even if they are finalized.
Regardless of differing opinions on the QR code issue, the study represents a significant step towards the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes QR code disclosures, citing statistics indicating that a large number of consumers do not have access to smartphones and lack familiarity with scanning QR codes. Conversely, the study is equally critical for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies or those who hold neutral views. A key 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 remained on schedule. Since then, the only public commentary has been the department’s release of a list of questions directed at 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 patchwork of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will provide valuable insights for the broader food industry. As these types of labels gradually make their way through 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 react to this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are needed, such as improving education on how the codes function or enhancing internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders might want to engage in these initiatives soon. Moreover, as consumers increasingly look for products that offer health benefits, including laxative calcium citrate and other dietary supplements, understanding their perceptions of scannable labels will be crucial in aligning product offerings with consumer needs.