That RFID adoption has been slow on the up-tick is not big news. But two reports published this week by respected voices in the industry show surprising candor as to why RFID technology adoption is slogging.

Health Industry Insights, an IDC-owned research firm, released a survey April 18 detailing why RFID adoption has failed to thrive in the pharma industry - despite some backing by the FDA. And an April 19 newsletter by AIM Global, the trade association for RFID, bar code and other "smart" technologies, debunks "myths" surrounding RFID.

While AIM Global's RFID Connections editor Bert Moore tries the old reverse-psychology method of pointing out RFID's positives by concentrating on its perceived negatives, to me just acknowledging that issues exist is enough of a barometer that there are, in fact, issues.

Rather than try and recap Moore's list, I'll replay it here almost in its entirety:

Myth 1: RFID has "matured." Untrue. Even bar code technology is still evolving more than 30 years after it was introduced in retail grocery. In fact, AIM's Technical Symbology Committee is currently working on two new symbologies. RFID is a technology that continues to improve and evolve. Rather than "mature," it should be considered to be "stable" insofar as there are numerous international standards defining different RFID technologies.

Myth 2: Data on RFID tags/cards is secure. Untrue. In fact, there is little today that is truly "secure." Inherently, public domain RFID tags/cards that conform to international standards can be read by any conforming reader. Many tags/cards can also be written to using the appropriate equipment. But that's the whole idea behind the use of RFID in an open system. However, RFID tags/cards can be made secure by the use of authentication, encryption and a growing list of other techniques or technologies.

Myth 3: RFID poses no threat to privacy. Untrue. Any technology can be misused or applied in an unthinking manner. Deploying long-range or unsecured "open system" RFID tags/cards for applications that contain personally identifiable information (PII) could expose the holder to identity theft. Measures to secure access to the data on the tag/card must be employed (see Myth 2).

Myth 4: RFID prevents counterfeiting. Untrue. RFID can be used to help prevent counterfeit, adulterated or "gray market" goods from entering the supply chain but unless there are systems in place to allow distributors, retailers or end users to verify the validity of the data on the RFID tag, data on the tag is meaningless.

Myth 5: RFID is non-line-of-sight readable. Misleading. Most people interpret the non-line-of-sight statement to mean that RFID can "read around corners." While low frequency RFID can read tags on the inside of a pallet, for example, in general, the higher the frequency, the less capable RFID is of reading through obstructing materials. And it's difficult to truly "read around corners." It's true that some higher energy signals can be reflected off surrounding materials so that signals from tags that are, in fact, "around the corner" can be received by the reader -- but this is typically an undesirable event and one that cannot generally be exploited intentionally.

Myth 6: RFID tags cannot be counterfeited. Half truth. Many RFID chips are programmed at the factory with a unique Tag ID that contains a code representing the manufacturer and manufacturer-assigned serial number. This code is separate from any encoded header or user data. If this unique Tag ID is read by the system, it can prove the authenticity for the tag -- as long as the Tag ID is recorded in the system. (This does not validate the data, however. Data must be locked to provide security.) However, some Gen2 UHF tags that conform to the EPCglobal standard contain only a manufacturer code and lot/batch number. These tags can be used to duplicate a damaged or disabled tag but they can also be used to counterfeit valid tags.

The Health Industry Insight survey reports the two top reasons, tied for first place, for the lack of RFID adoption in the pharma industry to be cost of implementation and a demonstrated lack of return on investment. This seems to be the same story I hear every time I attend an RFID conference, with only a few top organizations (Wal-Mart, DoD, P&G) pushing the technology's benefit.

Cost and lack of ROI issues were followed closely by a lack of an item-level frequency standard. The fight still rages on as to whether UHF [ultra high frequency] or HF [high frequency] works best. Both sides have compelling reasons why their frequency works best, and there seems to be no overriding party that can establish a standard. Other reasons, in order of importance, include the ever-present security and privacy concerns with potential RFID data breaches, lack of pressure from the FDA, and unreliable read rates - despite seeming technological advances with tags and readers, the percentage of RFID tags that can be accurately read in a certain period of time is still, it seems, too low.

The report concludes that only 16 percent of companies surveyed are currently evaluating RFID. Even fewer companies, less than 15 percent, are actually adopting the technology.

I'll be at RFID Journal Live April 29-May 1 to suss out my own details of what actual RFID users are finding.