Key takeaways:
- QR codes are still relatively limited on-pack, but are primarily being used as marketing tools rather than to provide essential nutrition information.
- Consumers rarely scan QR codes unprompted, raising concerns about access if key product details shift off-pack into digital formats.
- As digital labelling grows, regulators are likely to scrutinise how QR codes are used to ensure transparency and prevent misleading claims.
For an industry that’s constantly fighting for space on-pack, QR codes have always looked like an easy win. They promise infinite storytelling, richer brand engagement and a way to bypass the physical constraints of the label. For product developers and marketers, they’re a neat bridge between shelf and screen.
But a new study published in Health Promotion International suggests the reality is less straightforward. While QR codes are still relatively limited in use, what they’re being used for – and what they’re not – is already raising questions.
The research, led by Laura Bathie and colleagues, analysed 483 breakfast cereals in Australia and found QR codes on just 16% of products. But the real story sits behind the scan.
Because while digital labelling is often framed as a way to add information, in practice it’s being used to reshape how that information is delivered – and, crucially, what gets prioritised.
That might not be a problem today. But it could become one fairly quickly, especially as regulators across Europe, North America and Asia explore digital labelling as a solution to everything from sustainability disclosure to ingredient transparency.
Marketing gateway
At first glance, the findings are almost reassuring. Every QR code in the study led to a brand-owned website.
However, none provided a full nutrition information panel. Instead, what consumers got was a mix of recipes, brand messaging, sustainability narratives and product claims. Useful, perhaps. Engaging, definitely, but not exactly filling an information gap.
According to the study’s authors, QR codes are “currently being used mostly as additional marketing space rather than to provide key nutrition information.” It’s a line that feels obvious once you read it, but it’s also revealing.
Because this isn’t misuse: it reflects how the industry is thinking about digital labelling.
QR codes give brands something they’ve never really had before on-pack – control without constraint. Content can be changed overnight, tailored to campaigns, layered with video, linked to e-commerce. It sits outside the tighter guardrails that govern what can and can’t be said directly on packaging.
And the industry is using that freedom exactly as you’d expect. In the study, 80% of QR-linked pages featured recipes; 71% carried health or nutrition claims; and over half referenced sustainability. A third went further, linking directly to purchase.
So while the code itself is small, what it opens up is anything but.
The risk of ‘invisible’ information
The concern isn’t what QR codes show; it’s what they might eventually replace. Right now, they’re an add-on. The core information – ingredients, nutrition panels – still sits on the pack, where regulation says it should. But that balance isn’t guaranteed to last.
There’s growing momentum globally to move more information into digital formats. The EU has already taken steps in this direction for wine, allowing some nutritional information to be provided electronically. Similar discussions are underway in other categories and regions.
In theory, this makes sense. Digital labels can carry far more detail than physical ones ever could. They can be updated, personalised, even interactive.
The issue is whether consumers actually use them. The study draws on existing evidence showing that shoppers rarely scan QR codes unprompted. One review found engagement rates below 25% across food categories. As the authors note, consumers “favour information that is immediately visually available,” with time, effort and technological barriers all reducing uptake.
That creates a fundamental tension. If critical information migrates off-pack and into digital space, there’s no guarantee consumers will follow. People tend to rely on what’s immediately visible. Anything that requires an extra step, however small, becomes optional – and optional information has a habit of being ignored.
Which means if key details ever shift fully into digital space, there’s a real risk they simply won’t be seen.
Digitised healthwashing and greenwashing
There’s another layer to this, and it’s less about access and more about influence.
The content sitting behind QR codes isn’t neutral. It’s curated and, in many cases, leans heavily on positive cues – whether that’s ‘wholesome ingredients’, ‘natural’, sustainability messaging or nutrient-based claims that may be technically permissible but lack clear definition or verification.
The study found that 71% of QR-linked pages included health or nutrition claims, while more than half referenced sustainability in some form. On-pack claims are tightly regulated in most jurisdictions. Digital content, by contrast, often sits in a grey zone – especially when it’s hosted on brand-owned platforms rather than the pack itself.
In fact, some products with relatively low health scores still featured positive-sounding claims via QR-linked content. “These ‘soft claims’ fall outside regulatory requirements… and could mislead consumers to perceive products as healthier or less processed than they are,” note the authors.
This isn’t a new challenge, but what’s changing is the scale. Instead of a single front-of-pack claim, brands can now build entire digital ecosystems around a product – layering messaging about provenance, sustainability and nutrition in ways that may influence perception without necessarily improving the product itself.
It raises questions about consistency, enforcement and fairness, because once content sits off-pack, monitoring it becomes that much harder.
A global regulatory inflection point
For now, QR codes remain a relatively small feature in the cereal aisle. One in six products isn’t nothing, but it’s far from dominant.
However, digital labelling is picking up pace across markets, driven by everything from sustainability reporting to supply chain transparency. Consumers are demanding more information and marketers are under pressure to do more with packaging – more storytelling, more engagement, more differentiation. At the same time, governments are grappling with how to modernise labelling frameworks without compromising accessibility. QR codes sit neatly at that intersection.
The study’s authors are clear on what’s at stake. “Regulatory oversight that prioritizes access to key nutrition information is important to ensure consumers can easily access the information required to make informed decisions.”
This isn’t just a compliance issue. Used well, QR codes can add genuine value. Used poorly, they risk undermining trust in a way that’s much harder to fix. The challenge now is to find a middle ground.
Studies:
L Bathie, MCL Chen, A Leahy, et al. Quick response codes in the breakfast cereal aisle: prevalence, landing page, and product characteristics, Health Promotion International, Volume 41, Issue 2, April 2026, daag044, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daag044
P Li, J Yang, AM Jiménez-Carvelo, SW Erasmus. Applications of food packaging quick response codes in information transmission toward food supply chain integrity, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 146, 2024, 104384, ISSN 0924-2244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104384
C Werle, H Nohlen and M Pantazi. Literature review on means of food information provision other than packaging labels, EUR 31206 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-56609-0, http://doi:10.2760/553871
M Bonioli, C Bazzani. Consumer behaviour toward “smart” food labels: A systematic literature review using the Technology Acceptance Model, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 165, 2025, 105256, ISSN 0924-2244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105256
