Open Food Facts
Temple uses open packaged-food data to improve barcode coverage, ingredient context, and product discovery. It is an input source, not a blanket validation of final scores.
Science & Methodology
The public evidence layer behind Temple's scoring factors
Temple combines nutrition databases, regulator guidance, and peer-reviewed research to inform what it rewards, penalizes, or flags. This page explains the factors we use and the limits of what those citations do and do not prove.
Official databasesRegulatory referencesPeer-reviewed studiesConservative claims only
DATA SOURCES
Structured references Temple uses as inputs
These sources support product coverage, nutrient structure, and conservative ingredient context. Temple uses them as inputs to scoring and warnings, not as a shortcut to claim independent validation of the final score.
USDA FoodData Central
Temple uses USDA FoodData Central as a baseline reference for nutrient composition, nutrient naming, and enrichment checks when structured nutrient data are available.
Additive Safety References
Temple anchors additive and ingredient caution rules to official regulator definitions and additive resources. Selected peer-reviewed studies may support narrow examples, but Temple does not treat every additive as universally harmful.
FDA Food Ingredients & Packaging
FDA overview of how food ingredients, additives, GRAS substances, and packaging materials are regulated.
FDA ingredient terms
Definitions and regulatory terms Temple can reference when describing food additives and related ingredient categories.
EFSA food additives
EFSA topic page for food-additive risk assessment, exposure review, and scientific guidance.
HOW TEMPLE SCORES WORK
Plain-English overview of the factors Temple weighs
Temple does not reduce food quality to calories alone. It combines multiple evidence-informed signals, then caps or separates them so one favorable trait does not erase every downside.
Protein and fiber density
Temple gives credit when a food delivers meaningful protein or fiber relative to calories, because those signals often track with satiety and overall diet quality.
Added sugar and liquid sugar
Temple penalizes concentrated added sugar, with extra caution when sugar is delivered in beverages where calories are easy to consume quickly.
Sodium and saturated fat
Temple applies downside when a serving becomes disproportionately salty or saturated-fat heavy, with stronger penalties as those values climb.
Processing, NOVA, and additive context
Temple uses processing signals such as NOVA style cues, frying, refined starch dominance, and additive context as capped negatives instead of unlimited punishments.
Micronutrients and omega fats
Temple gives limited upside for nutritionally meaningful amounts of priority micronutrients and omega-3 fats, while capping the benefit so fortified junk does not score too high.
Allergens, diet profile, and user fit
Temple separates absolute nutrition quality from personal fit, then adjusts compatibility for allergens and diet profiles such as low-carb, vegan, vegetarian, and pescatarian.
PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH
Studies that support Temple's factor choices
These citations support why Temple considers certain inputs meaningful. They do not mean the exact Temple score has been independently validated as a clinical endpoint.
Nutrient profilingSystematic review and meta-analysis, 2023
Criterion validation of nutrient profiling systems
This review found multiple established nutrient profiling systems showed criterion-validation evidence against prospective health outcomes. Temple uses that literature as support for scoring foods with transparent nutrient-profile logic, even though Temple's exact composite score is its own implementation.
Read sourceProcessing / NOVABMJ umbrella review, 2024
Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes
The BMJ umbrella review reported consistent links between greater ultra-processed food exposure and worse outcomes including cardiovascular mortality, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality. Temple uses that evidence to justify processing penalties as one input factor.
Read sourceAdded sugar / liquid sugarSystematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, 2021
Sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages consumption linked to chronic disease risk
This dose-response meta-analysis associated each additional daily sugar-sweetened beverage with higher risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Temple uses that evidence to weight added sugar and liquid sugar as negative signals.
Read sourceProtein and satietySystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, 2020
Effect of protein consumption on appetite and satiety hormones
Across randomized trials, higher protein intake reduced hunger and increased fullness and satiety. Temple uses that evidence to reward protein density rather than treating all calories the same.
Read sourceFiber and cardiovascular riskMeta-analysis, 2014
Association between dietary fiber intake and risk of coronary heart disease
This meta-analysis found higher fiber intake was associated with lower coronary heart disease incidence and mortality. Temple uses fiber density as a positive signal for that reason.
Read sourceSodiumSystematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, 2020
Dietary sodium intake and risk of cardiovascular disease
This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis supported lower sodium intake as a favorable direction for cardiovascular risk. Temple uses sodium as a capped negative input rather than ignoring it.
Read sourceGlycemic load / metabolic impactSystematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, 2013
Glycemic index, glycemic load, and type 2 diabetes risk
This dose-response meta-analysis linked higher dietary glycemic index and glycemic load with higher type 2 diabetes risk. Temple uses that literature to support metabolic-impact adjustments around carb quality.
Read sourceAdditive-specific caution exampleMeta-analysis of double-blind placebo-controlled trials, 2004
Artificial food colors and hyperactivity symptoms
This meta-analysis found a small effect of artificial food colors on hyperactivity symptoms in susceptible children. Temple uses studies like this only for narrow caution examples, not as a claim that all additives carry the same risk.
Read sourceIMPORTANT LIMITS
What this page does and does not claim
Temple is evidence-informed, but the exact Temple composite score is not presented as a clinically validated diagnostic instrument.
Scores depend on the quality of available nutrition and ingredient data, serving definitions, and real-world product or restaurant variation.
Regulatory references inform additive and ingredient context, but they do not mean every flagged ingredient poses the same risk for every person.
Temple is not medical advice. People with allergies, pregnancy, chronic conditions, or therapeutic diets should use qualified clinical guidance for important decisions.