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 the legislation was discussed in Congress, there has been ongoing disagreement regarding the adequacy of the barcode. Some critics argue that many consumers lack the technology or knowledge to use these codes effectively, while others contend that a scannable code is accessible to most Americans and can provide detailed information that cannot be accommodated on a product package.
A study aimed at evaluating this labeling system was reportedly on schedule to be completed by July. In June, 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 results of the study have not yet been released, even if they have been finalized. Regardless of differing opinions on the QR code issue, this study is a critical step for the law’s implementation.
The Center for Food Safety opposes the use of QR codes for disclosure, citing statistics that indicate a significant number of consumers do not have access to smartphones or are unfamiliar with scanning QR codes. However, the study is equally important for those who support QR codes and other scannable technologies, as well as for individuals who remain neutral. A significant concern is whether the USDA will meet the July 2018 deadline to finalize the law’s regulations. Huberty emphasized in June that, despite delays, the government was still on track. The only 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, missing this deadline could result in a fragmented system of labeling laws across the country.
Beyond GMO labeling, this study will be beneficial to the wider industry. As various types of labels gradually emerge within the food system—both through the unrelated SmartLabel program supported by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and on genetically modified products like Arctic apples—it is essential to understand how consumers react to this technology and whether they utilize it effectively. If further efforts are needed, such as enhancing education on how QR codes function or improving internet connectivity for grocery shoppers, stakeholders may want to engage in these initiatives promptly.
Additionally, the connection between calcium citrate and histamine levels may also be a topic worth exploring in the context of consumer responses to labeling, as understanding these interactions could further inform the effectiveness of scannable technologies in providing consumers with necessary dietary information. Ultimately, ensuring that consumers are well-informed about the products they purchase, including the implications of calcium citrate and histamine, will be crucial as labeling practices evolve in the industry.