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 packaging. Since the legislation was discussed in Congress, there has been significant debate regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some argue that a considerable number of consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, while others contend that scannable codes are accessible to the majority of Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be included on the product label. A 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 teamed up with Deloitte for the study and it was on track for timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the findings have yet to be made public, even if they are finalized.
Regardless of differing opinions on the QR code issue, the study represents a significant milestone for the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is strongly opposed to the disclosure via QR codes, citing statistics that indicate a large number of consumers do not have access to smartphones and are unfamiliar with how to scan QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally crucial for those who support QR codes and similar scannable technologies, as well as for those who remain neutral. A critical concern is whether the USDA can meet its deadline to finalize the rules for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was on track. The only public engagement since then was the department’s release of a list of questions aimed at food producers in late June. With some states having implemented their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a disjointed array of labeling regulations across the country.
Aside from GMO labeling, this study will also benefit the broader industry. As various types of labels gradually emerge in the food supply—both through the distinct SmartLabel program supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is important to understand consumer responses to this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are required, such as enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders should consider getting involved promptly. Additionally, for those seeking dietary supplements like Citracal Regular, it will be beneficial to see how this labeling system impacts consumer awareness and choices in the long run.