How we score

NordicScan gives each scanned product a concern score under our published method — an informational, research‑oriented signal, not a safety verdict and not medical advice. This page explains, in plain language, exactly how that score is built: what we read, the nine evidence categories we rate against, the evidence tiers behind every statement and the words each tier lets us use, the score states you actually see in the app, the do‑not‑miss hazard rule, the sources we rely on, how often we review them, and how to challenge a rating.

What the score is — and what it is not. A higher concern score means more ingredients our method flags for your research, under the method described on this page. It is our methodology's opinion for consumer research — not a recommendation to buy or not buy a product, and not a medical, regulatory, or legality verdict. Not a safety verdict.

1. What NordicScan rates — and what it does not do

NordicScan reads the ingredient information of food and cosmetic products and presents a concern score under our published method, plus the drivers behind it, so you can do your own research. NordicScan is an independent third‑party rater: the score is our own evidence‑based opinion, published for consumer research — the same kind of information speech an independent reviewer provides.

NordicScan does not:

act as a medical device, and does not diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease;
issue a safety verdict, or tell you whether to buy a product — it reports ingredient concern under our method, for your research;
provide a regulatory, legal, or compliance determination about any product or brand;
single out named brands with negative "worst‑ingredient" listicles — every explainer stays at the ingredient and category level.

2. How the score works — the two layers

The score is built from ingredient‑level information, read with AI‑assisted ingredient parsing and applied against our published method. Two layers work together:

What you see immediately (render‑now). As soon as a label is readable, NordicScan renders a complete result — we never make you wait when we can read the ingredients. Ingredients we have positively assessed as benign are eligible for a top band; ingredients we have not yet assessed are held in a neutral state that neither adds concern nor earns a top band (see §5). This is "rate, don't withhold."
The evidence‑backed rating maturing behind it. Each score‑relevant ingredient is progressively researched to a terminal evidence state, so the number is increasingly backed by cited, tiered evidence rather than a first‑pass classification. The score you see is always honest about which layer it is in (see the score states in §5).

Inputs the method may consider:

Ingredients & additives — ingredient‑level concern signals our method flags, plus neutral or positive attributes where the data supports them (positives are a first‑class part of the score, not an afterthought — see the Nutrition & positives category).
Processing level (food) — a NOVA‑aligned processing classification (Level 1–4) where there is enough evidence. Processing level is presented as a classification, not as a health judgment.
Recalls & official notices — where available, we surface official product recall and hazard notices for the scanned product.

3. The nine evidence categories

Every score‑relevant ingredient is rated across nine evidence categories — for both the food (ingestion) context and the cosmetic (dermal / route‑specific) context, which can and often do diverge for the same ingredient. Each category has its own method page explaining what it looks at, the evidence sources behind it, and what the score does and does not claim:

A tenth signal, bioaccumulation / persistence (heavy metals, PFAS, phthalate‑type persistence), is tracked as an auxiliary signal and cross‑mapped into the carcinogenicity and endocrine categories where the evidence points that way.

4. Evidence tiers — and the words each tier lets us use

The single rule behind every statement NordicScan renders is: the strength of the wording never exceeds the strength of the evidence. We state what the evidence supports — no more (that would mislead) and no less (leaving out a supported signal is its own failure). Every rendered finding carries its source, an approved verb matched to its evidence tier, and the relevant route / dose / population qualifiers.

Evidence tier	What it is	The words we use	We never
Correlation	An observed association in human or real‑world evidence	"associated with / observed / correlated with [outcome]" — named as a correlation	dress a correlation up as causation, or as a dose‑response effect
Dose / duration	A genuine dose‑response relationship at a stated exposure	"may result in / may contribute to [outcome] at [dose] over [duration]" — the dose/duration condition stated in the same sentence	use this framing for anything that is only a correlation
Authority / regulatory	A named authority's own classification or restriction	"[Authority] restricts / flags / lists [substance] as [their exact category], for [route / domain / jurisdiction / date]" — verbatim and attributed	restate an authority's hazard listing as our own product verdict, or read a foreign listing as a local legal status
Nutrition	Factual composition	"contains / is a source of / provides [nutrient]"	turn a composition fact into a health outcome
Insufficient	Below our credibility floor	no claim — the signal is omitted, not guessed	invent a finding to fill a gap

Dose‑response discipline. A dose/duration statement ("may result in …") is only used when there is a real dose‑response relationship in the evidence. A plain correlation is never relabelled as dose‑response to make it sound stronger — that boundary is enforced, not stylistic.

The words we do not use. We never escalate beyond the approved verbs above. Causation and therapeutic claims, safety‑verdict language, and authority puffery have no place in our copy — such words appear on a public surface only inside the canonical disclaimer in §10. A named health outcome is only ever rendered inside a fully‑framed, sourced, disclaimed statement — never as a bare label or headline.

Correlation counts — and so do positives. A credible correlation is score‑bearing on its own; causation is never a prerequisite. Weak evidence is scored small and made visible, never buried. Positive evidence moves the score the same way negative evidence does (bounded by a dose/legal‑form plausibility gate), so a genuinely better product is rewarded, not just penalised.

5. The score states you actually see

NordicScan's score is never rendered as a safety verdict. The states below are the exact wording the app shows. A top band is a statement about our review, not a promise about your health, and a high‑concern state shows you the drivers — it is never a verdict word telling you a product is hazardous to you.

State	What it means	What it is not
Excellent	Every score‑relevant ingredient has been positively assessed as benign under our method — our method did not raise a concern	It does not mean a product is endorsed, problem‑free, or right for your individual needs
Not yet reviewed	An ingredient has not yet been assessed — a neutral state that blocks a top band but adds no concern weight	It is not a concern, and it is not an all‑clear either
Building verified score	Analysis is genuinely in flight (an unreadable label, no usable ingredients, or an unsupported category)	It is not "no score", and it never dead‑ends — you get a real status and, where relevant, an ETA

Two rules protect these states:

Never fake‑green. A top band ("Excellent") comes only from ingredients positively signed as benign — never from silence or missing data. An unassessed ingredient can never quietly become a top band; it stays Not yet reviewed.
The band words are neutral by design. A top band is a statement about our review, not an endorsement; a high‑concern result shows the drivers, never a verdict word about the product, in either direction. Green does not mean a product is right for you, and a high‑concern result is not a claim a product will affect you.

A separate coverage measure governs only whether we make a "validated‑accuracy" claim about a category — it never gates the score itself or holds back a product's result.

6. The do‑not‑miss hazard rule

One deterministic rule sits above everything else: an ingredient that a recognised authority has flagged as a genuine hazard can never render as a top band. Before any ingredient can be signed benign or earn "Excellent", it is checked against authoritative regulatory hazard lists — for example IARC and the US NTP, EU CMR / SVHC classifications and EU food‑additive restrictions, California Proposition 65 listings, the EU SCCS opinions for cosmetics, and designated‑allergen lists.

This rule is deliberately narrow. It fires only on a route / exposure / product‑domain / jurisdiction match — an occupational‑only or industrial‑dose listing, or a classification irrelevant to how you'd actually be exposed to a food or cosmetic, does not blanket a product with concern; it resolves to a neutral or insufficient state instead. The rule exists to catch a real regulator‑flagged hazard, not to over‑flag ordinary ingredients. It only ever blocks the top band on a flagged hazard — it does not, by itself, decide the whole score.

7. What a "concern" rating means — and does not mean

Read this next to any score. A higher concern score = more ingredients our method flags, for your research. Not a safety verdict. A score is our methodology's opinion for consumer research, based on the sources and method on this page — not a recommendation to buy or not buy, and not medical advice.

A higher score means our method flagged more ingredient‑level concerns under this method. It does not mean a product is bad for you, and a lower score does not mean a product is endorsed or right for you.
The score reflects ingredient information, not your individual circumstances. Nutritional needs, portion sizes, sensitivities, dose, and how you use a product all still matter.
Lower processing is not a health endorsement. Processing level is one classification among several inputs.

8. Sources and how often we review them

We rely on a source hierarchy, weighting higher‑authority evidence first: 1. Inter‑governmental and authoritative health bodies — e.g., the World Health Organization and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO / IARC). 2. National regulators — e.g., Health Canada, the US FDA, and EFSA in the EU, and their equivalents. 3. Peer‑reviewed scientific literature.
Where these sources speak to an ingredient, the method weights them above lower‑authority sources. Where the evidence is below our credibility floor, NordicScan shows a neutral or insufficient state rather than guessing.
Specific sources are cited at the ingredient and driver level inside the app ("Why this rating?"), each tied to the exact finding it supports.
Review cadence: we review our sources and method on a rolling basis and at least quarterly, and whenever a relied‑upon source is materially updated — a new authority classification, restriction, or revocation regenerates the affected ratings. Each rating carries a last‑reviewed date.

9. How to challenge or correct a rating (right of reply)

If you are a brand, manufacturer, or representative and believe a rating, tag, score, or ingredient‑concern statement about your product is wrong or out of date, you can ask us to review it.

Email: corrections@nordicscan.co
What to include: product name + brand + barcode/GTIN, the exact rating or statement you are challenging (a screenshot helps), the basis (label error / reformulation / missing context / scientific disagreement), and any supporting evidence (current label, spec sheet, certificate of analysis, citations).
What happens: we acknowledge within 2 business days and provide a substantive response within 10 business days (extendable once, with notice, for science‑based challenges). We log every challenge and apply our published method consistently. We update a rating when a verified label or formulation change, a demonstrated data error, or credible scientific evidence supports it.

This process follows our documented right‑of‑reply procedure.

10. Disclaimer

Nordic Scan provides ingredient information and a concern score under our published method, for general consumer research. It is not medical advice and not a medical device, and does not diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, or determine the safety of any product. Decide for yourself.

NordicScan is operated by The Fred Group, Inc. (d/b/a NordicScan).

Explore next:

Features
FAQ