Barcode Scanning Apps (Yuka/Think Dirty): Are They Helpful or Harmful?

Barcode scanning apps, like the Yuka app, (with more that 55 million users across 12 countries) are mobile application designed to help users make informed decisions about the food and personal care products they purchase. It scans the barcode of products and provides information on their ingredients, nutritional content, and potential health impacts.

Looking at their cosmetic analysis stated on the Yuka website: “Based on the current state of science, each ingredient is assigned a risk level according to its potential effects on health or the environment: endocrine disruption, carcinogenic, allergenic, irritant or pollutant. The potential risks associated with each ingredient are displayed in the application, with the relevant scientific sources.”

The Yuka app rates products on a scale from 0 to 100, giving them a score based on the safety and quality of their ingredients.

There are many barcode scanning apps on the market, including:

• Think Dirty
• EWG’s Healthy Living
• CosmEthics
• Beautylish
• Skin Deep (by EWG)
• Klarnas BeautyScanner
• Labdoor

But how dependable are the rating systems in these apps?

Are they really that helpful or more harmful in an already confusing and consuming beauty industry?

Industry insiders, including product safety advocates and cosmetic chemists, say these apps are misleading consumers with biased information and opaque methodologies.

EXAMPLE 1

The Yuka App (Personal Care Products)

While the Yuka app can be useful it does have drawbacks and limitations. Here are points to consider when using this particular app.

1. Over-simplification of Scores: Yuka provides a single score for a product, which can oversimplify complex ingredient lists. A product may have a couple of harmful ingredients but also beneficial ones, and the app does not always capture the full nuance of the product's overall impact.
2. Formulation details: In cosmetics and skincare, Yuka may not consider the concentration or percentage of an ingredient within a product, which can lead to inaccurate assessments.
3. Inconsistent Scanning Results: Some users report discrepancies between the app's product information and the actual ingredients or labels of products, especially when the app does not recognise the latest version of a product or its ingredients.
4. Lack of Scientific Consensus: The ratings and information provided by Yuka are based on an algorithm that may not always reflect the latest scientific research or consider individual health needs. What might be harmful to one person could be less of an issue for someone else.
5. Not A Substitute for Medical Advice: Although Yuka provides detailed information, it is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Users with specific health conditions or allergies should consult with a healthcare provider rather than relying solely on the app.
6. Potential for Bias: Yuka tends to focus on natural and organic products, which can sometimes skew the ratings of more conventional items. It may favour products with fewer synthetic ingredients, even if those products may not always be the best option depending on the consumer's specific health requirements.
7. No Context for Health Risks: While the app flags certain ingredients as potentially harmful (such as allergens or additives), it does not provide context on how severe or common the risks are. For example, the app may flag a product as containing a "potentially harmful" preservative, but it might not explain how much exposure is needed for any real health concern.
8. Limited Features in Free Version: Advanced features of the app, like in-depth ingredient analysis and the ability to track personal health goals, are locked behind a paid version of the app. This can limit the functionality for users who do not want to pay for premium access.
9. Fear-mongering: By highlighting potentially harmful ingredients without providing adequate scientific context, Yuka and similar apps can cause unnecessary anxiety about certain ingredients, even when they are present in safe quantities. 
   Critics argue that Yuka does not always rely on the most current and reliable scientific evidence when evaluating ingredients, potentially misrepresenting their safety profile. 

EXAMPLE 2

EWG’s Healthy Living App

The EWG's Healthy Living App is another mobile application developed by the Environmental Working Group. Like Yuka the app is designed to help consumers make healthier and more informed choices about the products they use, particularly in categories like food, personal care, cleaning products, and household items.

While the EWG's Healthy Living App provides valuable information for consumers seeking healthier products, like the Yuka app, there are some criticisms and limitations. Here are a few common issues:

1. Over-simplification of Product Ratings: The EWG assigns ratings based on a product's ingredients, but critics argue that the scoring system might oversimplify complex issues. For instance, certain ingredients might be given a high-risk rating based on limited or inconclusive data, while products with otherwise safe or effective formulations could be penalised.
2. Inconsistent Ingredient Assessments: The EWG’s database relies heavily on ingredient-based assessments, which sometimes do not account for the full context of how ingredients are used in a product. For example, an ingredient might be flagged as hazardous in certain concentrations but could be perfectly safe in the small amounts used in a specific product.
   There is also criticism that the app does not always explain why an ingredient is deemed harmful or provide details on dosage, exposure levels, or the broader scientific consensus.
3. Product Efficacy: The EWG app focuses on health and environmental impacts but does not necessarily take product efficacy into account. A product that may be safe but does not work as effectively could get a higher rating than one that works well but uses ingredients with minor safety concerns.
4. Inconsistent Database Updates: While the app has a large and growing database, it may not always be fully up to date with new products or ingredients. This means that newer products might not have ratings or accurate information.
   Also, as formulations change over time, it may take a while for the app to reflect those updates, meaning users could be making decisions based on outdated information.
5. Potential Misinformation: Users may misunderstand or over-rely on the ratings without considering other relevant factors like scientific studies, regulatory approval, or the context of ingredient usage.
   Certain ingredients may be flagged as harmful when, in the right context or dosage, they may not pose significant risks. This could lead people to avoid useful or effective products unnecessarily.
6. "Natural" vs. "Chemical": The app focuses on natural ingredients as being "better" or "safer" than synthetic chemicals, which can be misleading. 
   "Natural" ingredients may still pose risks (like allergens), while synthetic chemicals could be perfectly safe, depending on how they are used.
   This emphasis on "natural" products could steer users away from effective, scientifically backed formulations in favour of potentially less effective ones.
7. Limited Scope for Professional Input: While the app is a helpful resource for general consumers, it does not substitute for professional medical or scientific advice. It may not always consider individual sensitivities or specific medical conditions that require more tailored product recommendations.

Researching Skin Concerns on Barcode Scanning Apps

While barcode scanning apps can be a convenient way to get quick insights into skincare products and their ingredients, they come with limitations and risks.

For example, ‘cetearyl alcohol’ is a fatty alcohol with a good rating. But these apps will recognise the ingredient as two separate words and say this product contains ’alcohol’ so it will recognize the whole product as irritating.

It is important to understand that all ingredients serve a purpose. Not all synthetic ingredients are harmful, and not all natural ingredients are safe.

Another example is that these apps do not take individual skin types or sensitivities into account. A product might be flagged as unsafe for general users but could work well for someone with a particular skin concern.

One of these apps might warn against retinol for those with sensitive skin, but for someone with acne, retinol might be exactly what they need. There is no way for the app to personalise the recommendations based on an individual’s specific skin concerns.

No app can predict how a product will react on your skin specifically. A product might receive a "safe" rating, but that does not mean it will not cause irritation, allergic reactions, or breakouts for certain users, especially those with sensitive skin or specific conditions like eczema, rosacea, or acne.

Apps also do not account for how the product interacts with other skincare treatments or medications, which is a crucial factor in determining suitability.

Conclusion

For those suffering with specific skin concerns or sensitive skin conditions it is important to use these apps as a supplementary tool, but not as the sole source of total information. 

If you suffer from skin concerns such as acne, dermatitis, eczema, perioral dermatitis or rosacea AMPERNA® can help you!

We are effective yet gentle at delivering skin nourishing ingredients that strengthen the skin barrier and balance the good bacteria from the bad.