One of the most debated elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law enacted by President Obama last summer is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, like a QR code, on product labels. Since the bill was discussed in Congress, there has been significant disagreement over the adequacy of the barcode. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the technology or the skills to use these codes, while others contend that scannable codes are accessible to the majority of Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot fit on product packaging.
The 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 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 the stance taken on the QR code debate, the study represents a crucial step in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics that indicate a significant number of consumers do not have access to smartphones or are unfamiliar with how to scan these codes. Nonetheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and similar technologies, as well as for individuals who are neutral on the matter. A major concern is whether the USDA can meet the July 2018 deadline to finalize the rules for the law. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on track. Since then, the only public commentary has been the department’s release of a list of questions directed at food producers in late June. With some states already implementing their own GMO labeling laws, failure to meet the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the broader industry. As labels of this nature gradually emerge throughout the food sector—through initiatives like the unrelated SmartLabel program endorsed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified foods such as Arctic apples—it will be valuable to understand consumer reactions to the technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If improvements are necessary, including enhanced education on how the codes function or better internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may wish to engage in these efforts promptly.
Furthermore, as the industry navigates these changes, products like nature’s blend calcium citrate with D3 could benefit from the insights gained regarding consumer interaction with labeling technologies. Understanding how consumers respond to scannable codes may also influence the marketing strategies of health products, including nature’s blend calcium citrate with D3, ensuring they meet consumer needs effectively. Ultimately, whether concerning GMO labeling or nutritional supplements, such as nature’s blend calcium citrate with D3, the outcomes of this study will have significant implications for how the food industry communicates with consumers moving forward.