No ads. No brand influence.Powered by members like you.
Methodology
The Product Report is designed to avoid scary, context-free scoring. A score should show its receipt: what evidence was used, where it applies, what is still missing, and whether a correction changed the public result.
We do not turn a food into one universal good-or-bad answer. Nutrition, processing, additive evidence, lab exposure, consumption guidance, personal fit, and data confidence are shown as separate signals.
The nutrition profile looks at calorie density, protein per calorie, fiber, added sugar, sodium, fat quality, and useful micronutrients. Fortification cannot erase high added sugar or sodium.
Processing is shown as context, not proof of harm. A long ingredient list, flavor system, preservative, or NOVA-style signal is not treated as a toxicology claim by itself.
Artificial sweeteners and additives are judged on evidence, approved-use limits, dose relevance, special populations, and uncertainty. Synthetic does not automatically mean bad, and natural does not automatically mean better.
Contaminant findings require amount, unit, serving context, and a comparison point. If we cannot quantify dose, the product should say that dose context is missing instead of making a hard exposure claim.
Every supported product can carry a receipt that lists the evidence tier, exact product or lot scope, source owner, dose context, reviewer status, correction status, and commercial conflict disclosure.
Calculation fixes, source-scope changes, lab-result updates, copy clarifications, and methodology changes are tracked as public correction history when they affect what users saw.
