1. The calcium and potassium content in Vitaline Cranberry is supplemented, using a Phosphate form (Calcium and Potassium Phosphate).
   
   
   
2. These forms are very common for these minerals: they are, for example, the forms chosen by brands like Supradyn or Juvamine, which are not criticized.
   
   
   
3. Yuka applies a radical penalty ("all or nothing": max score of 49, red dot, "at risk" mention) for these 2 mineral additions, which Yuka incorrectly classifies as "at-risk additives."
   
   
   
4. Incorrectly, because Yuka doesn't take quantity into account for additives (or for most nutrients...), whereas it is the dose that determines whether these minerals are "desirable" or "excessive."
   
   
   
5. Judge the reasoning for yourself:
   _ Calcium and Potassium Phosphate: not a problem.
   _ But phosphate = contains phosphorus.
   _ And "recent and inconclusive studies suggest that an average European diet probably consumes too much phosphorus [EFSA [2]]"
   _ So Yuka penalizes mineral additions containing phosphorus with a maximum score of 49, a red dot, and an "at risk" mention... with a radical scoring system: it's all or nothing, without considering the dose.
   _ Yet, the dose is the key issue: phosphorus is an "essential" nutrient.
   _ And the vast majority of phosphorus comes from foods that don't list phosphorus (70% to 94% according to EFSA [2])... but Yuka doesn't penalize them (which is hard to understand).
   
   
   
6. Focus on "additive" and "phosphates": Don't be alarmed by the term "additive" (some are "ok," others not at all), or "phosphate" (a form of phosphorus that is not problematic). These compounds have no negative impact at appropriate doses.
   
   
   
7. Focus on the phosphorus dose: this is the only issue here. Because the average European diet "possibly" contains too much phosphorus (present in phosphate) (EFSA [2]).
   It's in a similar category to salt: we need it, but we tend to consume too much of it "in the average European diet."
   
   
   
8. The dose of phosphorus in a Vitaline Cranberry bar is 251mg/bar, which is 35% of the NRV and 9% of the ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake)... You would need to eat 12 Vitaline Cranberry bars to exceed the ADI.
   It is incoherent to talk about excessive doses. Judge for yourself.
   
   
   

So, is the Yuka score an error? Not in the sense of a "bug," but an error resulting from the radical simplification of Yuka's current scoring system. The Yuka score penalizes regardless of the dose (it's all or nothing) and only for additives when it comes to phosphorus intake (which are a minority: 6% to 30% of intake [EFSA 2]).
This leads to completely incoherent scores, as well as associated mentions like "at risk," which are misleading, if not false.

Okay, so is Yuka talking nonsense? Or is Vitaline just trying to justify a real flaw...?
A bit of both.
_ Yes, Yuka's radical and arbitrary scoring system for certain compounds seems objectively problematic.
We firmly state that Vitaline bars do not have a phosphorus problem.

_ Yes, recent studies increasingly point to an excess of phosphorus in the "average European diet," so we will likely reduce the doses in the future. Especially since, after carefully studying the subject, cases of deficiency seem exceptional (or of medical origin, and therefore monitored). We tell you more at the end of the article.

We regret that a more nuanced assessment is not made by Yuka, because it leads to simplifications that we find to be detrimental.
But after all, isn't oversimplification the curse of our time?... So we have to adapt.






Want to dig deeper?
Here is the long version!
Sorry, the topic is a bit sophisticated. Fasten your seatbelts.






So you scanned a Vitaline bar and were shocked? So were we.
Especially since we discovered the changed score in October 2025 (thanks, Anne W.), almost 2 years after their development and 15 months after their commercial launch. The previous score was 78.




We dug into the subject to investigate the situation.
It's frustrating because we find ourselves right in the middle of Brandolini's law: it takes 10 times more energy to refute nonsense than to produce it.


Here we go.
To help you follow along, here is the outline of our explanation:

1. Phosphorus is what tanks our bar's Yuka score.
   
   
   
2. Yuka only considers phosphorus when it's added, not what's naturally present in other ingredients (which is the vast majority).
   
   
   
3. Yuka doesn't take quantity into account... yet it's the only thing that matters.
   
   
   
4. "Exceeds ADI": a misleading statement.
   
   
   
5. We generally support Yuka's approach, but here the simplification is abusive. We regret that some of our products are suffering the consequences.
   
   
   

1. Phosphorus is what tanks our bar's Yuka score.

2. Yuka only considers phosphorus when it's added, not what's naturally present in other ingredients (which is the vast majority).

Yuka applies a strong negative penalty (max 49, "red" dot, and "at risk" mention) to products whose ingredients include direct additions of phosphorus (e.g., our mineral supplements, potassium and calcium phosphates).

But Yuka does not take into account the phosphorus contained in other ingredients.
And yet, the vast majority of our phosphorus intake comes from these "other" ingredients: EFSA notes [2] that "experts estimated that food additives contribute between 6 to 30% of the average total phosphorus intake."


This makes for a scoring system that seems both arbitrary and misleading. Additives are penalized, other ingredients are not.

It's easy to think that it's more convenient for Yuka to penalize additives (with their bad reputation) than to have to explain that ingredients with a good reputation (like oats) are problematic in terms of phosphorus...

Judge for yourself:



But how do we end up in this seemingly absurd situation?
We can imagine a reason for Yuka's simplification.

The law prohibits (yes, really!) displaying phosphorus content on packaging. The same goes for any nutrient outside the standard nutritional label.
This is a legal framework that can be explained by the need to standardize nutritional labels... but it is very frustrating. It's easy to imagine the work of lobbies here to promote opacity.

At Vitaline, we bypass this prohibition by displaying detailed quantities on our website (and not on the packaging).


To be thorough, on-package display is allowed by exception if there is a "Nutrition Claim" (e.g., "rich in magnesium," "source of calcium"), or a specific addition (which is our case: we supplement with minerals).


What is the link with the absurd oatmeal bowl situation?
The phosphorus content of that bowl of oatmeal is very high, but it does not appear on the "standard nutritional label."
And Yuka only considers this "standard label," which does not include phosphorus content. Here, they could use "observed" values (available in reliable reference databases, e.g., ANSES - Ciqual or USDA FoodData Central)...
So, Yuka imposes its penalty on Vitaline bars (score lowered to 49, "at risk" mention, and red dot) solely because we supplement with minerals (even though we do it to ensure good mineral intake!).


We feel like our bar is being torpedoed while Vitaline is one of the players that 1. advances the food supply with excellent nutritional profiles, and 2. provides detailed nutritional values.
We are very, very frustrated.

But it's not over.

3. Yuka doesn't take quantity into account... yet it's the only thing that matters.

Phosphorus is a bit like salt: you need a little, but too much is problematic. So Yuka should take the dose into account, right?

Well, no!

The same score and the same mention for 1mg or 10,000mg of added phosphorus.
The same warning ("exceeds ADI - Acceptable Daily Intake"), regardless of the dose.

As we said: Yuka only considers quantities from the "standardized nutritional label" (which does not include phosphorus).
Here again, this can be explained by the legislation. But it's also easy to see this as a problem: Yuka's score and mention are the same whether a Vitaline bar contains 1mg or 10,000mg of phosphorus.

Especially since Vitaline publishes the doses (which is not mandatory).

This situation leads to an absurd score, we'll let you be the judge:
Phosphorus = essential nutrient.
Vitaline Cranberry = 36% of the NRV (Nutrient Reference Values) of 700mg/day.
And 9% of the ADI for a 70kg adult (Acceptable Daily Intake - EFSA).


Here are the details:



And this leads to an even more absurd situation when compared with other highly-rated ingredients.
There's the bowl of oatmeal (mentioned above), but we can list many ingredients with significant doses and no impact on their Yuka score. Judge for yourself:


See details in this Google Spreadsheet

4. "Exceeds ADI": a misleading statement

On the scan for Vitaline Cranberry, Yuka displays: "Exceeds ADI" [Acceptable Daily Intake].
This is displayed in a misleading way.

Presented like this, it is easy to read too quickly and interpret it as "Vitaline Cranberry exceeds the ADI."
You have to read the preceding sentence carefully: "Potential risks associated," which should be understood as "Vitaline Cranberry contains phosphorus and you **might** exceed the ADI."

And you must also carefully read the sentence below, which is more or less correct when read attentively and completed [in brackets]:
"This additive contains phosphorus, a mineral for which current intakes [average in the European population: 1,625mg/day] exceed recommendations [minimum of 700mg/day for an adult, without reaching the Acceptable Daily Intake (2,800mg/day)]..."

Sorry, it's complicated, but the subject is complicated, and Yuka's simplifications are misleading, which is precisely the problem.

You can understand our frustration.
It is the phosphorus consumption in the European population that is **possibly** too high. Not the content in Vitaline bars (which is 35% of the NRV, and 9% of the ADI).

Yuka also refers to the 2019 EFSA study previously cited, which indicates that the ADI could be exceeded [on average] in infants, children, and adolescents with a diet very high in phosphates—a scenario unrelated to our products.

Needless to say, we are very irritated by this Yuka display, which we find misleading.



Finally, regarding the "Suspected carcinogen" mention.
Sorry again, to fully understand, we must dive into the complexity of the subject.

Yuka notes a "suspected carcinogenic risk" for potassium phosphate.

A 2024 study followed a cohort for 10 years and examined the intake of 60 food additives, grouping them by exposure level, including one with "high exposure" (meaning very large quantities of additives - i.e., a diet containing "many ultra-processed foods").
A possible **association** with an increased risk of breast cancer for these additives (including potassium phosphate E340) was observed in the "high exposure" cohort, but only with one statistical method; other methods show no link.
Read this sentence carefully, and understand that at this stage, we are far from being able to affirm a direct link. Especially since this cohort has a very poor diet, and we know that a poor diet leads to higher cancer risks.

"Associated with" does not mean "is the cause of." Overweight populations wear extra-large pants and have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet, you can wear large pants without worrying about having a heart attack.

There are many studies that suggest a possible association. This is normal; it's how science works. It's how we identify cause-and-effect mechanisms. But also, a significant portion of these studies turn out to be "false alarms." That's why the scientific consensus is not to react before further studies are conducted in most cases, especially when the "signals" are weak, as they are here.

You can understand our frustration once again.

Is Yuka being alarmist here too, with an over-interpreted basis?... We are skeptical.

That said, we take note of this 2024 study (published after the development of the latest Vitaline bars), while noting that the conclusions are still very broad and uncertain, and suggest that further studies are needed.

5. We generally support Yuka's approach, but here the simplification is abusive. We regret that some of our products are suffering the consequences.