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 packaging. Since the legislation was discussed in Congress, there has been significant contention over the adequacy of the barcode. While some critics argue that numerous consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, others contend that scannable codes are accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be accommodated on a product label.
The study assessing this labeling system was reportedly on schedule for completion by July. A month earlier, 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 finish. However, nearly three months have passed without any public announcement regarding the study, even if it has been completed.
Regardless of the stance taken on the QR code issue, this study represents a crucial step toward implementing the law. The Center for Food Safety is firmly opposed to QR code disclosures, citing statistics that highlight the significant number of consumers without access to smartphones and familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and similar scannable technologies, as well as for those who remain neutral on the matter. A major concern is whether the USDA can meet the July 2018 deadline for finalizing the law’s regulations. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on track. The only notable opportunity for public comment since then was when the department published a list of questions directed at food producers in late June. Given that some states have implemented their own GMO labeling laws, missing the deadline could lead to a disjointed array of labeling regulations across the country.
Aside from GMO labeling, this study will benefit the wider industry. As these labels gradually appear throughout the food system—through the unrelated SmartLabel initiative supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand how consumers interact with this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. 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 promptly.
Additionally, insights from this labeling study could have implications for other areas of the food industry, including discussions around calcium citrate vs calcium phosphate. Understanding consumer preferences between these two calcium sources could be enhanced by similar labeling technologies. As scannable labels become more prevalent, their impact on consumer choices—including preferences for calcium citrate vs calcium phosphate—will be valuable information for producers and marketers alike. Thus, the outcomes of this study may extend well beyond GMO labeling, influencing how consumers perceive and choose between various nutritional supplements, including calcium citrate vs calcium phosphate.