We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 3.47.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.47.0, updated 2026-09-27.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Trial converts to a charge
Free trial is a scam — I was told I was getting a 3 day free trial, however when I signed up, I was immediately charged $28 for an annual subscription with no free trial, and Apple denied my dispute request. Complete scam.
They take your money! — I download the app and I was offered a 14 day free trial, have used the app twice and a today a week later I got charged over $50 for an annual subscription!!! Im so upset they tricked me and took my money I want…
“Free” paid trial — Charged me for free trial with no refund after cancelling membership, tried to fear monger me into signing up again by claiming the day after the “membership” expired by sending a notification that something scanned…
Paywall with no way past it
Bummer :( — I was super excited about this app, but you can’t even get in/try without paying $10 a month or $30 a year
Pay wall — Can’t use it at all without a subscription I’d rather just find a different app
Force you to take a free trial to try the app — Forgot to cancel the app that have no use for and still no refund from the company. This is common mistake to forget to cancel a free trial , but when you cant even try the app without…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Not free — Requires credit card for seven day trial. False advertising because of all of the ads I’ve seen it does not mention it’s a paid app. I will be deleting this app.
App doesn’t offer what’s advertised and be careful with trial offers — I have an app like this already. I downloaded this one because it boasted that it identified pesticides and toxic chemicals in breads and similar. I downloaded the app…
False advertising as “free” — Would give 5 stars if I could even use it as seeing many tiktokers use it. Will be sticking to watching tiktoks to see which foods are better and take notes. It asks you a million questions before it leads…
Paywall blocks the basics
Paywall — This app wastes your time setting up a comprehensive profile before hiding everything behind a paywall. I shouldn't have to pay for a subscription just to know if my food is killing me.
Tired of Paywalls — The app is stuck behind a paywall, I understand having advanced features as something to pay for. But a yearly subscription for the app itself doesn’t seem worth it to me, I’d rather just have to buy the app in full…
Lame — You have to pay to use the app. 😒
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.