HalalFoodScan Get the app

Trust and transparency

Editorial methodology

This is the research policy behind HalalFoodScan’s public guides and articles: what evidence is preferred, how conclusions are bounded, and when an honest answer must remain unresolved.

The four questions behind every answer

A reliable halal-food answer separates questions that are often collapsed into one:

  1. What is the ingredient? A chemical name, E-number and commercial label may describe the same substance.
  2. Where can it come from? Some additives have a fixed mineral, plant, microbial or insect origin; others can be produced from several raw materials.
  3. What does this manufacturer declare? A current first-party page or the pack in hand can establish the ingredients of a named product, size and market.
  4. What does the relevant halal authority conclude? A verified product certificate or qualified scholarly source addresses questions that chemistry and labels alone cannot settle.

An article should not use evidence for one question as proof of another. For example, an ingredient page that lists no gelatin does not prove that the factory is halal-certified. A certificate for one facility does not automatically cover every product with the same brand name.

Source hierarchy

HalalFoodScan prefers evidence in this order, while recognising that different claims require different sources:

  1. The physical package for the exact product. It is usually the most current ingredient record available to the shopper.
  2. A current certifier directory or product certificate. The product, producer, facility, market and validity period must match.
  3. First-party manufacturer records. Product pages, allergen statements and country-specific FAQs are used for bounded ingredient claims.
  4. Government, regulator and standards records. These establish legal definitions, permitted uses, labelling rules and technical identities.
  5. Named scholarly or institutional guidance. This is used when the question concerns a religious ruling or a recognised difference of opinion.

Retailer listings, undated certificate photographs, anonymous social posts and copied “halal lists” may help locate a lead, but they are not treated as final proof when a stronger source is available.

Product and country rules

Brand-wide yes-or-no answers are avoided when recipes vary. Product analysis should name the variety, market, pack or SKU used as evidence. “Sold in Malaysia” does not necessarily mean “made in Malaysia,” and a US ingredient page should not be used as the ingredient record for a UK import.

When first-party records from different markets disagree, the article preserves the difference instead of choosing the most convenient version. Readers are asked to compare the barcode, country of manufacture, product name and current pack.

Verdict language

How status words are used on this site
TermEditorial meaning
HalalThe cited evidence supports a permitted source or a current product-level halal certificate. It is not a general food-safety guarantee.
Mushbooh / source-dependentThe source, process, product scope or applicable ruling is not established by the available label.
Haram / avoidThe declared source conflicts with the ruling applied in the cited explanation. Where recognised opinions differ, that disagreement is stated.
UnknownThe available product or ingredient evidence is too incomplete for a responsible conclusion.

A doubtful or unknown result is not converted into “haram” just to produce a decisive headline. Likewise, the absence of a flagged ingredient is not converted into “halal-certified.”

Dates, citations and updates

Every article shows a publication date and, after a substantive review, an updated date. Pages built around changing products also state when their sources were last checked. Source links are listed visibly so readers can inspect the same evidence.

A page is updated when a manufacturer reformulates, a certifier’s scope changes, a cited source moves, the article gains meaningful new evidence, or a material error is corrected. Spelling and layout changes alone should not create a new substantive update date.

What this method cannot establish

  • Slaughter method: a label saying “beef gelatin” names a species, not how the animal was slaughtered.
  • Undeclared processing aids: some enzymes and carriers may be legally absent from the finished ingredient list.
  • Cross-contact: shared equipment and production controls require manufacturer or certifier evidence.
  • Every scholarly disagreement: a short consumer article cannot replace a qualified scholar or a school-specific legal text.
  • Immediate reformulations: databases and websites can lag behind the package currently on sale.

Corrections and reader responsibility

Readers should treat the pack in hand and a valid product-level certificate as stronger than an older web article. If a scan or article appears wrong, submit the exact product name, barcode, country and ingredient-panel photograph through the app’s report feature. The support page explains the information needed.

HalalFoodScan is a checking aid, not a certification body. Where a ruling matters to you and the evidence remains disputed, consult a qualified scholar or recognised halal certifier you trust.

Stop guessing in the supermarket aisle

Scan the barcode, get the verdict, see exactly which additive decided it. Free, no account, 13 languages.

Free · iOS 16.0+ · 20.2 MB · No sign-up required