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, such as a QR code, on product labels. Since the legislation was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement regarding the adequacy of this barcode. Some critics argue that many 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 be included on a product’s packaging.
The study evaluating this labeling system was reportedly on schedule for completion by July. A month prior, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst at 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 have passed, and the study has yet to be made public, even if it has been completed. Regardless of the varying opinions on the QR code issue, this study represents a crucial step in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is firmly opposed to QR code disclosures, citing statistics indicating a significant number of consumers who do not own smartphones or are unfamiliar with how to scan QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally important for those defending QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for individuals who are neutral on the matter.
A key concern is whether the USDA will meet the deadline to finalize the regulations for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government remained on track. The only public engagement since then 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 fragmented landscape of labeling laws across the country.
Aside from GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the wider industry. As these labels gradually appear throughout the food supply—both through the unrelated SmartLabel program endorsed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand how consumers respond to this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are needed, including improved consumer education on how these codes function or enhanced internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives promptly.
Additionally, as consumers educate themselves about various products, it’s important to consider health-related questions such as “what is the difference between calcium magnesium and calcium citrate?” Understanding these distinctions can inform purchasing decisions, especially for those interested in nutrition. As more consumers seek clarity on product ingredients and their health implications, addressing such questions will be increasingly relevant.