An independent product-scoring publisher.

Leastprocessed.com scores UK and US supermarket and brand-direct products on how processed they are — a NOVA-style 100-point ledger, ingredient by ingredient, with composite axes for organic share, microplastic + PFAS packaging detraction, and clean-label transparency. 95,263 products indexed today across 5542 categories and 16 UK retailers, with US ingestion in progress.

Who reads us

Informed-consumer shoppers who've moved past "ultra-processed bad" and want to know specifically what's in product X, which brand at their supermarket scores higher on a given axis, and whether to trust label claims. They arrive from long-tail SEO queries — "is xanthan gum bad for you", "least processed yoghurt UK", "myprotein vs bulk creatine", "informed sport protein powder".

Geo skew: UK ~70% / US ~25% / rest-of-world ~5% (May 2026). Device split: ~60% mobile / ~40% desktop. Editorial cadence: 50–100 new editorial URLs per week driven by a keyword-research pipeline. Catalogue depth grows weekly as Open Food Facts / Open Beauty Facts / Open Pet Food Facts / Open Products Facts data refreshes are ingested.

What we cover

Six verticals, each with a scoring rubric tuned to the category:

• Food — NOVA processing tier (1 to 4), additive count, Nutri-Score grade.
• Beauty — INCI ingredient hazard load (sulfates, fragrance, parabens), bonus for plant emollients.
• Pet food — penalty for by-products, cereals, meat-meal; bonus for named whole proteins.
• Home / cleaning — penalty for caustic surfactants, fragrance, phosphate; bonus for plant-based / enzyme cleaners.
• Clothes — fibre composition × microplastic shed × expected lifespan.
• Supplements — bioavailable form, dose appropriateness, third-party testing (USP / NSF / ConsumerLab / Informed Sport), filler load, heavy-metal testing.

Every product page renders the ledger that produced the score, citing Open Food Facts (data under ODbL 1.0) and primary literature for any health-claim framing. The full per-vertical formula is published on /methodology/ and the source code on GitHub.

How we'd surface your products

Affiliate links are embedded contextually inside editorial — not as banner placements. Five surfaces:

1. Per-product CTAs. Every product page shows a "Buy at <merchant>" CTA next to its score and ingredient ledger. The CTA renders only when the product is in-stock at that merchant.
2. Category comparison tables. /chocolate/, /coffee/, /yogurt/, /beauty/sulfate-free/, /supplements/protein-powder/ show 10–30 products side-by-side with per-merchant affiliate CTAs in each row.
3. Headline-ingredient sort + filter URLs. /pesto/?sort=most-pine-nuts, /peanut-butter/?sort=most-peanut, /supplements/protein-powder/?cert=informed-sport — high-intent traffic with the CTA in context.
4. Brand hubs. /brands/<brand>/ pages aggregate every product from a brand, ranked by score.
5. Editorial articles on /ingredient/<slug>/ pages and the /creators/ credentialed-RDN/MD directory.

We don't run popunders, autoplay video, or interstitials. We don't PPC-bid on merchant brand terms. We don't run coupon-site arbitrage. Every affiliate link carries rel=sponsored, target=_blank, and inline disclosure ("we earn a commission").

Editorial standards

Open Food Facts / Open Beauty Facts / Open Pet Food Facts / Open Products Facts as the data backbone (sitewide ODbL attribution). NOVA classification methodology cited per product. Health-claim content backed by EFSA, Cochrane systematic reviews, peer-reviewed primary literature, or our /creators/ directory of vetted RDNs / MDs with verifiable credentials. No AI-generated review content; every editorial paragraph is hand-written or hand-edited.

Tracking + disclosure

Server-side affiliate URL composition via our internal src/lib/affiliates.ts module. Per-link disclosure rendered inline ("we earn a commission"). Sitewide affiliate framework documented on the editorial policy. ASA + FTC + CAP-compliant language. Amazon Associates (alexdenne-21) currently runs at Stage A search-URL fallback while we onboard direct merchant programmes on Awin and Impact.

The score is independent of who pays

Per our editorial policy: a sponsored placement or affiliate relationship buys visibility, never a higher score, never a higher rank, never removal of competitor brands from the index. The score formula has no read access to sponsorship data — by construction, because the two systems aren't in the same code path. If a paying brand's score is poor, their score is poor.

Contact

Alex Denne — alexdenne@gmail.com. Replies within 2 business days. The same address handles affiliate enquiries, data-source questions, and editorial feedback — please mention "affiliate" in the subject so it routes right.

Audience figures above are May 2026 estimates from internal analytics. Exact MAU + per-channel breakdown available on request from affiliate partners under NDA. Catalogue counts are live numbers read from the build index at page-render time.