This is clearly a useful product that solves real problems, but I'm here to comment on browser extensions as a whole. Personally, I find the notion of running 3rd party code with internet access that can see the entire DOM of any website a little scary. Do others on HN routinely use random browser extensions (e.g. okta, grammarly, etc.)? Is there a different way to think about browser extensions that frames it in a more appetizing way?
That's a hugely beneficial change! I too have avoided extensions because of the essentially complete trust required to accept that some code is good and will not be hijacked in the future.
That's a really good point and something we should be talking about as a tech community. For our extension, it's "active" if you're on a retailer page we support and not active when you're elsewhere on the web. The extension overlays information onto the product page which is why we need to be "active" - we give a food score + show you whether it's compliant with your dietary needs (this one is a paid feature so needs to be unlocked). Doing this allows us to remove the friction around needing to "click" to get the relevant info so our lens is it makes shopping easier, but maybe we're missing something important about privacy. Will you share a bit more about the concerns you'd have with us being able to see your shopping on AmazonFresh for example? To answer your question - I routinely use a few extensions (Honey, Dashlane, and, of course, Sift) but I do find that I'm more selective about Browser Extensions installs than Mobile App installs.
Yeah, I wish browsers would display a huge blinking warning when a user installs an extension that wants DOM access on any webpage. People should be extremely wary about these types of extensions.
I don't really care what kind of "guarantees" Sift would give me today on how they will use the power that users bestow upon them. Who knows what will happen if money gets tight, or a bean counter comes along and wonders why that particular revenue stream hasn't been squeezed.
I have the same feelings toward extensions as well. The same applies to mobile apps as well. I see people install extension/apps willy nilly just to try them out or for the lulz. For me to install, there must be a need being served that is worth the risk. Trusted adblockers qualify. That's pretty much all of the browser extensions I'm willing to risk.
> Is there a different way to think about browser extensions that frames it in a more appetizing way?
I like the idea of selecting things and choosing from a set of actions which I've installed. These would be opt-in, and only have "read" access to whatever content I've highlighted, and have zero "write" access. This would be enforced as a security requirement by the host environment (browser). For example selecting a product image/title/upc and choosing "analyze food ingredients" or something. The precedent in Chrome would be selecting text and choosing "Search Google for <text>".
Opting in sounds like the better pattern here. I would also appreciate if I could opt-in giving the extension network access instead of extensions getting it by default.
uBlock Origin elegantly presents why fewer permissions does not necessarily mean an extension is more trustworthy: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Can-you-trust-uBlock-.... To me, free software and monetization are the primary criteria in deciding whether an extension is malicious or not.
Hi - Yes! Good shout out. Our Browser Extension is new (which is the product I liked to), but we launched our mobile app a few years back and Open Food Facts was an incredible resource at that time.
I can't use it yet because I'm in Britain, but I am always interested in this type of thing. But I have some suggestions:
1. I would like to see more screenshots of the app in work.
2. A list of the fields.
3. The source of the data.
4. Glycemic Load. Not sure if you include it already, but if not, this would be super valuable, and would place you higher in my esteem than all similar tools.
Right now, Asda is the only grocer, here, that let's you sort shelves by fat, carbs, protein etc. This is massively helpful.
Pretend the cashier is a very attractive member of a sex you're attracted to, and that you've maybe got a shot with them.
Now every time you put something in the cart, first consider how you'll feel when the cashier sees it. If the answer is "bad" or "embarrassed" or "ashamed" or the like, put it back.
I would counter that if you’re worried about how a potential significant other is judging your food choices, you should use that as a first-pass filter. I would also suggest owning your choices, groceries included. Confidence is attractive, as they say.
12 is only too many if you're also buying a single pint of milk, to make it completely clear that you live alone and will be eating all of them yourself.
It would be except that you're tearing a cookie-side off each Oreo and smashing them together for double-double stuffing (you did buy double-stuffed, right?) pre-milk, and saving the scrap sides to have with homemade dunkaroo dip later. So it's only half as many cookies as it looks like.
Thank you for the feedback! Did you see the interactive module right below the hero blade that shows you how it works with screen shots? Trying to figure out if that was too hidden (in which case we need to pull it up) or if it wasn't the right level of info you were looking for. We should probably be screaming from rooftops on that page that we have a FREE version which I now see is not clear. Thank you again!
Not GP. I personally don’t bother to look further if the homepage doesn’t have a pricing link on the top or on the menu or in the footer, because it seems like the site wants to hide key information from a potential customer.
I couldn’t find a pricing link on your homepage either (using Firefox Focus on iOS).
I am on mobile and I didn't realize the module is interactive. Maybe you could have an animation there or a video?
Information that it is free would be very useful but please describe in the same sentence how you make money. Otherwise, I will assume you sell my data.
Very interesting product and I am looking forward to using it once you add more local grocery chains.
That's helpful advice! I'll add that info to the site and, to let you know, here's how we make money. (1) We currently charge for "diets". So, if you want to unlock Paleo, it's $2.99 per month. For free everyone gets food scores + risky ingredients flagged + info on why an ingredient was flagged. (2) We have an affiliate relationship with several of the retailers we support so, if you use the extension while shopping, they pay us a referral fee. Where do you grocery shop? Will see if it's a retailer on our roadmap.
These labels are confusing, misleading and useless (for people, I suppose they are quite useful for moving product).
1. The % differ from those on the back of the box. This is due to using ‰ RDA on front and actual % on back.
2. They are based on recommended portion size. Which is set by the manufacturer, and often differs between brands of the same food. So you get health brands like WW that can claim to be healthy by simply halving the size of the product (and increasing the price, to help you limit your consumption ;). This reminds me of the Plimsol load line on ships*.
3. They include water content. So a can of cola is only 30‰ sugar? But your body diseperates the water out quickly. What matters is the solid food. So cola should be labeled more like ~95 sugar, to be more accurate on the health effects.
Dietary advice and regulations are garbage. Future generations will look at this and think we where completely backwards. I am sure they will wonder how we ever survived.
* Sam Plimsol campaigned, in the 19th century, for all ships to have a load line painted on the hull, below which no ship could load. This was to prevent greedy owners sending ships out dangerously overloaded. We still use the Plimsol line today. The catch? Only the owner decides where to paint the line.
I guess that depends on you're definition of food. If you accept the makers of "food products" as food, then there's definitely bad food. If you do not accept that "food product" is food, then I'd agree!
I'm puzzled by the screenshot for "5. Making it easy to stay on track with your health goals". The icons appear to indicate that the product (Looped Fruits Cereal) is compliant with a Gluten Free diet, yet it then lists three ingredients under "gluten containing grains".
If that's a genuine screenshot, it seems... confusing. (And if it's just a mock-up, I would suggest checking the "dummy" data for consistency.)
Oh my gosh, such a good catch! No it's not a genuine screen shot because we're using a dummy product for legal reasons but you are 100% right that we need to update that image. Thanks for the feedback.
Now that I look at the screenshots with "they're mock-ups" in mind, I notice quite a few typos, etc... some careful proofreading would make for a more professional look.
E.g. the fake Amazon page has "approvalfor" (missing a space), "orders over %35" (surely that's "$35"), "Flavor: Marshmellow" (should be "a", not "e"), and "Abbout the item".
Given you've labeled this submission Show HN, I imagine this is your site and you have your reasons - but wouldn't a link to https://www.siftfoodlabels.com/ be more useful than a link to the browser-extension? The main page explains the value proposition "Taking the guesswork out of food labels"
Thanks! I did thought about linking to the main landing page. We have had a mobile app for a few years now so have received lots on feedback on that product and fine-tuned the messaging. The Browser Extension is brand new and is where we felt we needed the most feedback from this community which is why the post links there. I don't understand the copyright comment? What am I missing?
Maybe "Show HN: A browser extension to help make better food choices"? It wasn't clear to me you were only showing a new browser extension, not the whole concept.
Well for example your browser-extension page was published in December 2021, but the footer says "Copyright 2020", should it perhaps say "2021"? "2020-2021"? "2020-2022"?
Thanks, Mike! I don't really have a good answer here. It was on our list of diets we considered, but we ended up prioritizing vegan given the plant based phenomena going on at the moment. It's still on the roadmap.
Like any rule of thumb, it's fallible and game-able. For example "cultured celery extract" is something you probably want to avoid even though it sounds benign.
It's a "naturally occuring" source of nitrates and/or nitrites, used in meat curing (think ham or hot dogs or beef jerky or bacon).
1. Good: Nitrites produce that pink color and particular salty flavor.
2. Good: Nitrites suppress bacteria growth.
3. Bad but outdated? In large enough quantities, nitrites will kill you. I seem to recall this being the main issue, but a quick google now mostly turns up the next point:
4. Bad: Nitrites also produce nitrosamines, which may be carcinogenic [citation needed].
5. Mitigation?: According to wikipedia, "The production of carcinogenic nitrosamines may be inhibited by the use of the antioxidants vitamin C and the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E during curing."
People are worried about some combination of [3] and [4], and so some meat producers use variations of "(dehydrated|fermented|cultured) celery (juice|extract|salt)" in the ingredients lists instead of directly listing nitrites as chemical names.
The counterreaction is to be suspicious of odd celery ingredients.
Since nitrites are essentially synonymous with cured meat though (must be used to prevent spoilage, no available substitute as far as I know, but also no significant other usages as far as I know), I'm not sure you actually need to go to the ingredients list here. Rather than memorizing synonyms for nitrites, I'd say a better rule of thumb is probably:
worried about nitrites ? stop eating cured meats : don't worry about it
EDIT: I just thought of another place they exist: celery salt. So, if you're worried about cured meats, also avoid the celery salt.
Meats can be cured with normal or sea salt rather than nitrite salts. Have to be careful though, because botulism can kill you a lot faster than nitrites will!
Sodium nitrite is used as a preservative in deli meats and generally thought to be bad for our health. It doesn't matter if it is mineral or plant derived.
Pretty sure every label I've ever read for a product that contains water, just says water. But if they were snarky enough to put "dihydrogen monoxide", I'd look for an alternate just to punish them.
If you read the page it says "For upgrade, we support a variety of lifestyles."
So there's gated paid features, like telling you if something is vegan (which would save me a lot of time sifting through ingredient lists so I'd totally pay for it).
That's correct! We also have an affiliate model with some of the retailers we support so get a small kick back from the retailer if you use our Browser Extension while doing your online grocery shopping.
Around half of people with high blood pressure are salt sensitive and have higher BP when they consume salt, the other half simply pee more salt and zero effect. In the general population its much rarer only something like a quarter of people are salt sensitive.
In the USA about 1 in 10 people have diagnosed type II diabetes (supposedly 33 million) and about 2/3 of the general population are some stage of fat and are essentially undiagnosed type-2, either way people with insulin disorders have that aggravated by sugar intake.
Ironically if you're not sensitive to salt or sugar they aren't risky.
The big issue with sugar is HOW MUCH we're consuming. Most Americans are consuming more than 10% of their daily calories from Sugar and too much consumption has been linked to a whole heap of things beyond just diabetes - including cardiovascular, neurological, and metabolic issues. Sugar is also incredibly addictive so, with it being in so much of our food, it's no surprise that we're consuming more than recommended. Sift just brings that information to the forefront so that shoppers are more empowered in the grocery aisles.
That is a great question and we, for sure, need to add this to our website in an FAQ section or something. We have our own database for this and look at "risky ingredients" in two ways: (1) Ingredients that are banned or heavily restricted in other countries are flagged as red (brominated flour, red 40, etc.) and (2) ingredients that may not be banned anywhere, but have numerous peer reviewed studies citing their negative impact to our health are flagged as yellow (high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, etc.).