Every claim Amla makes — from the two scoring systems we're built on, to the specific things that cap a score — traces to a named source, not our own opinion. This page is organized by claim, so you can see exactly what backs each one.
We draw on findings from EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), IARC (WHO's cancer research agency), FDA (US), JECFA (WHO/FAO's joint expert committee on food additives), and ANSES (France's food safety agency) — always naming the specific body and specific mechanism behind a claim, since different agencies can reach different conclusions about the same substance for different reasons (for example, titanium dioxide's food-additive ban and its industrial-inhalation cancer classification come from two different agencies assessing two different types of exposure entirely).
How we decide when to act on new science: we don't change a risk assessment the moment a single new study appears — a correlation found in one observational study isn't the same as causation, and reacting to every headline would make scoring noisy and unreliable. We also don't wait for a multi-year completed regulatory ban before treating something as worth watching — that can mean years pass while the evidence mounts. Our bar: emerging science plus an active regulatory signal — a body like EFSA formally opening a re-evaluation or call for data on that specific additive — is what tells us the science has enough weight to revisit a rating. That combination triggers a human review, not an automatic change. New findings without an open regulatory review are tracked, not acted on immediately.
The two systems every Amla score is built on, plus the two findings serious enough to cap a score outright regardless of anything else.
The nutrition-balance half of every score, weighing what's good for you (fiber, protein, fruits and vegetables) against what to watch (sugar, salt, saturated fat). Developed and maintained by independent public health researchers, not by Amla.
The processing-level half of every score, classifying food by how much industrial processing it's been through, from fresh and whole to ultra-processed.
Processed meat (bacon, sausage, deli meats, and similar) always caps a product's score, regardless of how good the rest of its nutrition profile looks. IARC classifies it in Group 1 — the same evidence tier as tobacco — based on sufficient evidence that it causes colorectal cancer.
Industrially-produced trans fats always cap a product's score. The WHO links them to hundreds of thousands of heart disease deaths worldwide every year, and its REPLACE initiative calls for their global elimination from the food supply.
Every additive risk claim Amla makes, grouped by risk tier, with the specific regulatory or scientific source behind each one.
No additives match your search.
Banned or authorization-revoked in at least one major market, based on a specific safety finding.
Prohibited as a food additive in the EU. Still permitted in the US as a flour treatment agent.
FDA revoked authorization for use in food as of August 2024. Never approved for use in the EU.
Banned in the EU, UK, Canada, Brazil, and India. Classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B).
FDA revoked authorization for use in food as of January 2025, based on evidence of cancer in laboratory animals.
Banned in EU food since 2022. EFSA's review found E171 contains a significant share of nanoparticles that can accumulate in the body, and could not rule out DNA damage (genotoxicity) from oral consumption -- a separate basis from IARC's classification, which concerns industrial inhalation exposure, not eating food.
A real, independent regulatory or scientific finding exists, short of an outright ban.
Forms a manufacturing byproduct (4-MEI) classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B). California requires a cancer warning label above a set exposure threshold.
Classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B) in 2023. EFSA, JECFA, and the FDA maintain that it is safe within the existing acceptable daily intake.
Classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B), based on tumors observed in animal studies. EFSA's more recent review found no genotoxicity concern at typical use levels.
Not linked to cancer risk, but can cause severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in sensitive individuals. Regulators require it to be individually named on ingredient labels for this reason, rather than listed generically as 'color.'
A 2024 study following roughly 92,000 adults found higher intake associated with increased risk of overall, breast, and prostate cancer. EFSA's review found no numerical safety limit necessary based on typical metabolism, though it recommended tighter manufacturing limits on certain byproducts.
EFSA's re-evaluation set an acceptable daily intake based on developmental toxicity seen in animal studies. Also carries an EU-mandated warning label for a possible effect on children's activity and attention.
Carries an EU-mandated warning label for a possible effect on children's activity and attention. EFSA has also substantially lowered its acceptable daily intake on re-evaluation.
Classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic (Group 2A) when ingested under conditions that lead to internal nitrosamine formation, the same basis as sodium nitrite.
Classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic (Group 2A) when ingested under conditions that lead to internal nitrosamine formation. A 2022 ANSES review found a positive association between nitrite/nitrate exposure from processed meat and colorectal cancer risk.
Carries an EU-mandated warning label for a possible effect on children's activity and attention. EFSA has revised its acceptable daily intake more than once based on newer toxicology data.
An emerging or narrower finding -- for example, a specific subgroup or a single recent study -- not yet a broad regulatory action.
No cancer classification and no genotoxicity concern found by EFSA. Kept at this cautious tier due to its close chemical similarity to BHA, which does carry a cancer classification.
A large 2026 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence. The finding is observational and doesn't establish cause and effect.
Long classified by IARC as not linked to cancer (Group 3). EFSA has kept its acceptable daily intake as 'temporary' pending more data on how the body absorbs it, and a 2024 study found a modest association with type 2 diabetes and breast cancer risk.
A 2024 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence. EFSA has set a safety limit that typical dietary exposure stays below.
A 2024 cohort study found an association with higher breast cancer risk specifically in premenopausal women.
Regulators have not been able to set a full numerical safety limit due to gaps in available long-term toxicity data. No safety concern has been identified at current use levels.
A 2024 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence.
A large 2026 cohort study found this among the additives most strongly associated with higher type 2 diabetes incidence.
A large 2026 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence. The finding is observational and doesn't establish cause and effect.
A large 2026 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence, despite an otherwise favorable EFSA safety profile for this vitamin C derivative.
A 2024 cohort study found an association with higher breast cancer risk specifically in premenopausal women.
A 2024 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence.
A large 2026 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence. The finding is observational and doesn't establish cause and effect.
A 2024 cohort study found an association with higher type 2 diabetes incidence.
The finding is specific to children (e.g. an EU hyperactivity warning label), not a general-population concern.
Carries an EU-mandated warning label for a possible effect on children's activity and attention. No safety concern has been identified for adults specifically.
Carries an EU-mandated warning label for a possible effect on children's activity and attention. No safety concern has been identified for adults specifically.
EFSA found that infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents in high-consumption scenarios can exceed the safe intake level for this additive group. Adults generally do not exceed it, so this isn't applied to Amla's general adult score.
Carries an EU-mandated warning label for a possible effect on children's activity and attention. No safety concern has been identified for adults specifically.
Reviewed by at least one of the bodies below with no adverse safety finding identified.
EFSA's review found no adverse effects even at high doses.
EFSA's 2025 review raised the acceptable daily intake; no genotoxicity concern found for the substance or its breakdown products.
Natural colorant; no safety concern identified. A 2021 EU rule split it into two more specific labeling categories -- a labeling change, not a safety action.
Naturally occurring; no safety concern identified.
EFSA's 2010 re-evaluation lowered the acceptable daily intake as a precaution, then confirmed real-world intake stays well within it -- no adverse finding. Not one of the dyes requiring the EU's child-attention warning label.
EFSA's review as a glazing agent found no adverse effects.
EFSA's review found no safety concern from its use as a food color at typical levels. Separately, high-dose supplements (well above food-color use levels) have been linked to increased lung cancer risk in smokers in clinical trials -- this does not apply to ordinary food-color use.
Naturally occurring; no safety concern identified.
EFSA has established a safety limit; no adverse finding identified.
Animal-derived gelling agent; a conventional food ingredient rather than a synthetic additive.
Naturally metabolized as a normal part of the diet; no safety concern identified.
Naturally produced by fermentation; no safety concern identified.
Naturally occurring; no safety concern identified.
Long-established food gum, broadly recognized as safe.
Naturally occurring fruit acid; no safety concern identified.
EFSA's review found it is broken down by the body the same way as ordinary starch; no safety concern identified.
Recognized as safe by the FDA and JECFA. EFSA's review found no safety concern at typical use levels.
Natural colorant with antioxidant properties; recognized as safe by EFSA and the FDA.
Naturally occurring; no safety concern identified.
EFSA's 2024 review raised the acceptable daily intake; recent evidence supports it as neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic.
EFSA's review found no safety concern and no numerical safety limit necessary.
EFSA has established a safety limit based on no genotoxic effect found in recent studies. Not linked to increased diabetes risk in a large recent cohort study.
No safety concern identified for general use.
EFSA has established a safety limit; its breakdown products are normal components of the diet. Not linked to increased diabetes or cancer risk in recent large cohort studies.
Widely used sugar alcohol; can have a laxative effect at high intake, a labeling matter rather than a safety concern.
EFSA's 2026 review found no safety concern and made no change to the acceptable daily intake.
EFSA's review concluded this group of compounds is not a safety concern at typical food-use levels.
No ban, IARC classification, or adverse finding identified. The current EU safety basis is a 1990 group ADI 'not specified' for the E626-E635 ribonucleotide group -- the same favorable designation used for monosodium glutamate (E621) elsewhere on this page. EFSA's re-evaluation of this group has been open since 2018 and its opinion remains unpublished as of this research (September 2026) -- a genuine pending data gap, not a closed, fully modern safety file.
No ban, IARC classification, or adverse finding identified. Same E626-E635 ribonucleotide group as disodium guanylate (E627) -- the current EU safety basis is a 1990 group ADI 'not specified,' the same favorable designation used for monosodium glutamate (E621) elsewhere on this page. EFSA's re-evaluation of this group has been open since 2018 and its opinion remains unpublished as of this research (September 2026) -- a genuine pending data gap, not a closed, fully modern safety file.
Amla