One of the most contentious 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 law was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing debate about whether the barcode is adequate. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, while others contend that a scannable code is accessible to the majority of Americans and can provide extensive information that cannot fit on the 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 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 later, the findings have yet to be released, even if they are finalized.
Regardless of the stance various groups take on the QR code issue, this study represents a significant milestone for the law’s enforcement. The Center for Food Safety is staunchly opposed to QR code disclosures, citing statistics about the substantial number of consumers who lack access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with QR code scanning. Nonetheless, the study is equally crucial for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for those who are indifferent. A significant concern centers on whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline to finalize the regulations for the law. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on track. The only public feedback opportunity since then has been the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. With some states having established their own GMO labeling laws, missing the deadline could lead to a fragmented system of labeling laws across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial for the wider industry. As these labeling types gradually emerge within 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 reactions to this technology and their utilization of it. If additional efforts are necessary, such as enhancing education about how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may need to get involved promptly. Moreover, the study could also contribute insights relevant to the calcium citrate USP monograph, as understanding consumer interactions with product labeling will be beneficial across various sectors. Thus, the implications of this study extend beyond GMO labeling and touch on the broader landscape of consumer products, including those that may reference the calcium citrate USP monograph in their nutritional information.