One of the most contentious 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 ongoing debate over the adequacy of the barcode. Some contend that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes, while others argue that a scannable code is accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be displayed on the package.
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 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 their stance on the QR code issue, the study is a significant milestone for the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety is notably opposed to the use of QR codes for disclosure; their lawsuit references statistics indicating a high number of consumers without access to smartphones or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally critical for those who support QR codes, other scannable technologies, or remain neutral. A major concern revolves around whether the USDA will meet its deadline to finalize the rules for the law by July 2018. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government remained on track. The only public feedback opportunity since then was the department’s release of a list of questions aimed at food producers in late June. Given that some states have already implemented their own GMO labeling laws, failing to meet the deadline could lead to a fragmented landscape of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will benefit the broader industry. As these labels gradually appear 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 how consumers engage with the technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are necessary, including enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to participate in these initiatives soon.
Moreover, it is important to consider the nutritional implications of these products. For instance, products labeled with a QR code could potentially provide information on the presence of ingredients like calcium carbonate and citrate, which are relevant to consumer health. As the study unfolds, insights about consumer responses to the technology, including information about calcium carbonate and citrate, will be invaluable. This knowledge could guide future labeling practices and educational campaigns to ensure all consumers are informed and empowered in their purchasing decisions.