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, such as a QR code, on product labels. Since discussions began in Congress, there has been contention over the adequacy of the barcode. Some argue that a significant number of consumers lack the necessary technology or understanding to use these codes, while others contend that scannable codes are accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be displayed on traditional packaging.
The evaluation of this labeling system was reportedly on schedule for completion 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 on the study, which was on track for timely completion. However, nearly three months later, the study has yet to be released, even if it has been completed.
Regardless of the stance organizations take regarding the QR code, the study represents a crucial step in the law’s implementation. The Center for Food Safety strongly opposes QR code disclosure, citing statistics that highlight the significant number of consumers without smartphone access or familiarity with scanning QR codes. Nevertheless, the study is equally significant for advocates of QR codes and other scannable technology, as well as for those who remain neutral.
A central concern is whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline for finalizing the law’s rules. In June, Huberty emphasized that, despite delays, the government was still on course. The only public engagement since then has been the department’s release of a list of questions for food producers in late June. Given that certain states have implemented their own GMO labeling laws, missing the deadline could lead to a fragmented system of labeling laws across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will benefit the wider 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 such as Arctic apples—it is crucial to understand how consumers react to the technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If additional efforts are required, such as better education on how the codes function or enhanced internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to become involved in these initiatives soon.
Furthermore, it’s essential to consider how such labeling can impact consumers’ understanding of products, including those that contain calcium citrate. Understanding qué beneficios tiene calcium citrate in relation to food choices can help consumers make informed decisions. Thus, the study’s findings could provide valuable insights into how consumers perceive and interact with food labeling technologies, including the implications for products featuring ingredients like calcium citrate. Ultimately, the study will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of food labeling and consumer education, particularly regarding the benefits of calcium citrate and other key ingredients.