One of the most debated elements of the mandatory GMO labeling law that President Obama signed last summer is the inclusion of a scannable barcode, like a QR code, on product packaging. Since the bill was under discussion in Congress, there has been significant disagreement over the adequacy of the barcode. Some contend that numerous consumers lack the technology or knowledge to utilize these codes, while others argue that scannable codes are accessible to most Americans and can provide comprehensive information that cannot be displayed 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 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 was on track for timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the study has yet to be made public, even if it has been completed.
Regardless of the stance groups take on the QR code discussion, the study represents a crucial milestone in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes QR code disclosures, citing statistics indicating that a significant number of consumers do not have access to smartphones or are unfamiliar with scanning QR codes. Nonetheless, the study is equally important for those defending QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for those who remain neutral on the matter. A major concern is 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 visible opportunity for public feedback since then was the department’s release of a list of questions for 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 disjointed array of labeling regulations across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will benefit the broader industry. As such labels gradually emerge throughout the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel initiative backed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it’s essential to understand how consumers respond to the technology and whether they utilize it. If additional efforts are required, such as enhancing education on how the codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives promptly. Additionally, consumers seeking the best calcium citrate supplement may also benefit from clearer labeling that could be influenced by the findings of this study, ensuring they are well-informed in their purchasing decisions related to health products like supplements. Understanding consumer reactions to scannable barcodes may also play a role in guiding how health-related products, including the best calcium citrate supplement, are labeled and marketed in the future.