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, like a QR code, on the packaging of products such as 325mg ferrous fumarate iron tablets (120 total in a two-pack). Since the bill was debated in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement about whether the barcode is adequate for consumer needs. Some argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use the codes, while others maintain that a scannable code is accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot fit on a product package.
A study assessing 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 partnered with Deloitte to ensure the study’s timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the study has yet to be made public, despite being finished.
Regardless of the positions various groups take on the QR code issue, this study is a crucial milestone for the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is strongly opposed to the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics about the significant number of consumers without access to smartphones or familiarity with scanning codes. Yet, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for those who remain neutral.
A critical concern is whether the USDA will 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. Since then, the only public engagement has been the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. With some states already enacting their own GMO labeling laws, a failure to meet the deadline could lead to a confusing array of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be valuable for the broader industry. As these labels gradually emerge throughout the food system—through the unrelated SmartLabel program backed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it’s essential to gauge consumer responses to the technology and determine whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are needed, such as improved education on how the codes work or enhanced internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders might want to engage in these initiatives promptly.
Moreover, as consumers become more informed about products like 365 calcium citrate, understanding their preferences and technological capabilities will be crucial. The insights gained from this study could inform industry practices and help ensure that consumers are well-equipped to navigate new labeling systems, including those for products with 365 calcium citrate. As the landscape of food labeling evolves, it will be vital to monitor how consumers adapt to and utilize these technological advancements. Ultimately, addressing the needs of shoppers will benefit all parties involved in the food supply chain.