~ Separating scientific risk assessment from consumer perception ~
Ingredient scanning apps, social media commentary and retail marketing claims have brought chemical safety under more scrutiny than ever, with everyday consumers now encountering toxicological language when choosing products. As simplified narratives circulate quickly, confusion has emerged between the identification of hazardous properties and the assessment of real-world risk. Here, Dean Hatt, Senior Toxicology Consultant and Toxicology Manager at Broughton, a contract research organisation specialising in analytical testing, toxicology and regulatory consultancy examines several misconceptions shaping public debate around product safety.
Consumer-facing ingredient-scanning apps that interpret toxicity and hazard data now reach large, and often young, audiences, with Yuka alone having 55 million active users and toxicology content attracting hundreds of millions of views on platforms such as TikTok. These tools present results in formats that resemble regulatory judgement, using simple scores or colour codes that suggest definitive safety conclusions.
However, the simplicity of these tools can be misleading. Safety is not determined by looking at individual ingredients in isolation – or even their concentration – but by understanding how a finished product behaves as a whole. In reality, risk assessment is a structured scientific process that considers multiple factors together: how ingredients interact within a formulation, how the product is used, how often it is used, and how the body is exposed to it. Two products containing the same ingredient at similar levels can present very different risk profiles depending on these variables.
In regulated markets such as the UK and EU, safety is therefore assessed based on the complete product and its intended use, not a simplified view of individual components. This process draws on a weight of evidence, including study design, data quality and real-world exposure scenarios, to reach a balanced and scientifically robust conclusion.
Hazard does not equal risk
In toxicology, hazard identification represents an early step in a broader scientific process. A substance may possess hazardous properties under certain conditions yet pose minimal or no risk from the route of exposure or at realistic exposure levels. It isn’t as simple as providing a universal list of things that can and cannot go into products, so working with a partner who understands the nuances is key in product development.
Expert toxicological assessments determine how much exposure occurs, how often it occurs, the route of exposure and how the body responds under those conditions, resulting in a subjective assessment of risk.
Therefore we must be wary of the oversimplification of toxicology on ingredient-scanning tools and simplified scoring systems that compress analysis from reaction-based voting. A toxicological review can be initiated as a RAG (red, amber, green) system to aid in product development but must be followed by a comprehensive review that incorporates dose, context and margin of safety. This principle underpins international regulatory frameworks such as the EU’s REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, which requires chemicals to be assessed in relation to their intended uses and exposure scenarios.
Removal is not always safer
Public pressure to remove ingredients perceived as undesirable has increased. Research shows the UK free-from foods sector continuing to outpace the wider market as manufacturers innovate to meet growing demand for products free of allergens and certain additives.
Yet reformulation is not automatically synonymous with improved safety. Substitutes are likely to have less extensive and reliable toxicological datasets or unknown impurity profiles. Altering a formulation can change absorption, metabolism or cumulative exposure patterns in ways that are not intuitive. Removing a flagged ingredient without structured evaluation may simply exchange a well-characterised substance for one that is less understood, and therefore potentially more hazardous.
Toxicology does not end at launch
Post-marketing toxicology has become increasingly important as public concern evolves. Online discussion and consumer perception often shifts faster than formal review cycles, creating pressure to respond quickly. Barcode-scanning ingredient apps illustrate the dynamic. As their scores circulate widely on social media, brands have reformulated products to avoid using flagged additives, even where those substances remain permitted by regulators in their real-world use.
Clearly, when an app’s outputs are treated as final judgements rather than starting points for inquiry, they risk amplifying fear in places where evidence indicates low risk, while weakening trust in regulatory science more broadly. Therefore, clear public guidance is essential to ensuring health decisions remain grounded in scientific evidence.
For more information on toxicology, risk assessment and how evidence-based toxicology supports product safety and regulatory compliance, visit Broughton’s toxicology services page.