Protality

What the Data Says About Protality

Protality by Abbott carries a composite safety score of 65/100, which we classify as "Concern" on our four-tier shelf-label framework.

Of the 40 ingredients parsed from this label, 22 are covered by a regulator or watchdog we screen against (Potassium Hydroxide, Copper Sulfate, Choline Chloride and 19 others), with 21 carrying an FDA Substances Added to Food (SAFFA) status and 5 a CSPI Chemical Cuisine rating. The remaining 18 ingredients appear in neither registry, so they neither raise nor lower the score. Each additive rated caution-or-worse penalizes the composite. Product data originates from the OpenFoodFacts collaborative catalog; safety annotations come from federal regulators and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. This score is a transparent derived index we compute from that public data, not an official FDA rating or endorsement; see the Methodology page for the exact weighting.

Our scan identified 3 flagged ingredients in this product, components that at least one official source has classified as requiring caution, targeted avoidance, or further evaluation. Flagged ingredients are the items most likely to surface in FDA inspection findings, state-level ingredient bans, or outbreak-related recall notices, so the per-ingredient breakdown below is the most useful lens for anyone screening this product for a specific dietary concern.

On the NOVA processing scale, Protality is classified as Group 4 (Ultra-processed). NOVA measures industrial processing intensity rather than ingredient-level safety, so it complements the SAFFA and CSPI ratings: a product can be clean on additive flags but heavily processed, or lightly processed but carry individually flagged ingredients. Combining both lenses gives a fuller picture than either alone.

How the three scores on this page were derived

This label lands in the third of four positions on the published scale. What separates that position from its neighbours is arithmetic rather than judgement: identical inputs run through the documented weighting always arrive at the same place. Anyone who works the calculation through by hand, using the methodology write-up together with the itemised ratings further down, will reproduce this number exactly — which is the reason for publishing a computed figure instead of an opinion.

No Nutri-Score grade is present for this record in the OpenFoodFacts snapshot this page is built from. The nutritional dimension is absent rather than assessed and withheld: the grade depends on a complete declared nutrition panel, and community-contributed records vary in how much of that panel they carry. Nothing about the missing grade implies anything either way about the panel itself. The screen below covers additive ratings only and does not depend on the nutrition figures.

The declared list is among the longer ones in this catalogue. A component set this wide means the screen returns many individual ratings, and the composite accumulates a large number of small contributions instead of turning on a handful of entries. At this length the per-component table below is substantially more informative than the single figure, because the figure compresses a great deal of variation into one number.