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, like a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill was discussed in Congress, there has been significant contention regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, while 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 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 partnered with Deloitte to ensure timely completion of the study. However, nearly three months have passed without any public announcement regarding the study’s findings, even if it has been finalized.
Regardless of where various groups stand on the QR code debate, the study represents a crucial step toward implementing the law. The Center for Food Safety firmly opposes the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics indicating a significant number of consumers without access to smartphones or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally important for those defending QR codes and other scannable technologies and for those who remain neutral. A key concern is whether the USDA will meet the deadline for finalizing rules related to the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on track. The only public input observed since then was the department’s release of a list of questions directed at food producers in late June. Given that some states have already passed their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Aside from GMO labeling, this study will also be beneficial to the broader industry. As these labels gradually emerge in the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel initiative supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified foods such as Arctic apples—it is important to understand consumer responses to this technology and their usage rates. If additional efforts are necessary, such as enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders might want to get involved swiftly in these initiatives. Furthermore, as consumers increasingly seek information on products containing ingredients like calcium citrate malate, vitamin D3, and folic acid, it will be crucial for the industry to gauge how effectively these technologies cater to consumer needs and preferences.