One of the most contentious elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law signed by President Obama last summer is the incorporation of a scannable barcode, like a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing debate over whether the barcode alone is adequate. Some argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to effectively use these codes, while others contend that a scannable code is accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be included on the packaging.
The study assessing this labeling system was reportedly progressing well and was 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 for the study, which was on schedule for timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the study has yet to be released, even if it has been completed.
Regardless of the stance different groups hold on the QR code debate, this study is a crucial step in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety opposes the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics indicating a significant number of consumers 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, or for those who hold neutral opinions. A significant concern is whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline to finalize the law’s regulations. Huberty emphasized in June that, although there were delays, the government was still on track. The only notable public engagement since then was the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. Given that some states have enacted their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet this deadline could lead to a confusing patchwork of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will benefit the wider industry. As these types of labels gradually emerge throughout the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel initiative supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand consumer responses to this technology and whether they make use of it. If additional efforts are needed, such as improving education on how the codes function or enhancing internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives soon. For those interested in health and nutrition, this study could also provide insights into how consumers perceive products like calcium citrate for sale, emphasizing the importance of effective labeling in enhancing public awareness and understanding.