Food transparency is not just a feature. It is a right. However, the systems that determine what ultimately ends up on our plates—from agricultural lobbies to retailer algorithms to ingredient approval chains—are structurally motivated to obscure, simplify, or suppress uncomfortable truths about composition, origin, processing, and impact.

A 100% decentralized and decommercialized knowledge base means:

• –No single entity owns the data.
• –No corporation.
• –No government.
• –No platform.
• –Information about food composition, how it is produced, and its long-term effects on the human body – this belongs to no one, and therefore, it belongs to everyone.
• –No commercial interest filters the truth.

Current food databases are shaped by who funds them, who lobbies regulators, and who controls their distribution. A decommercialized system removes the profit motive from information acquisition.

Verification is decentralized. The truth about food cannot rely on a manufacturer's self-declaration or a single regulatory body. It requires open, mutually verifiable data that the community can audit – a living common good, not a product.

Access is unconditional. Transparency that requires a subscription, a smart device, or knowledge of a dominant language is not transparency. It is a multi-tiered system that has made transparency merely a facade.

This is not idealism. It is an infrastructure proposal. The question is not whether such a system is possible – it's about who benefits from it not being built.
Foodamend is one of the answers to this question.

Decentralized and Decommercialized Food Rating

Every product undergoes a multidimensional analysis that doesn't track a single number, but five independent axes of quality: nutritional profile, degree of industrial processing, presence and risk of additives, organic certification status, and sustainability of origin and production. Each axis is normalized to a common scale and weighted into an overall score of 0–100%.

Artificial intelligence is used to recognize the product, identifying it from a photo and then searching for and cross-verifying its ingredients, nutritional values, and other data from multiple independent online sources. Once the data is acquired, the rating itself takes place directly on the user's device. Each rated product also receives its own publicly accessible page, which is indexed on the internet – thus, with every subsequent scan, the open knowledge base about food grows. No commercial partner influences the ranking or rating. The scoring algorithm is open and deterministic: the same input data always leads to the same result – regardless of who runs it.

Allergens are intentionally excluded from the overall score. The presence of milk, gluten, or nuts says nothing about the universal quality of a product – it merely reflects an individual's specific sensitivity. Therefore, the allergen section serves purely as information, not as a penalty in the rating. The same principle applies to pesticide load and contaminants: they are listed transparently but do not affect the overall score because they depend on the context of consumption.

In addition to the main score, for each product, the user will find other analytical layers: a pesticide load rating based on EWG and EFSA data, an analysis of the risk of contamination by heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic) and microplastics, an overview of identified allergens with severity distinctions, and an evaluation of suitability for specific diets – from gluten-free and lactose-free to Keto and high-protein. Each of these sections is evaluated independently and displayed transparently, allowing the user to make their own informed judgment.

The entire system is based on several inviolable principles. The rating is decentralized and decommercialized – the rules are the same for every product without exception, regardless of brand, manufacturer, or country of origin. There is no subscription, no registration, no paywall. The knowledge base grows thanks to the involvement of people who scan products – we only provide the technology. No commercial entity, no food corporation, no advertising platform has access to the rating algorithm or the resulting data. The authors are committed to maintaining this independence. The sole purpose is: to provide a 100% independent and unbiased view of what we eat.