When something doesn't have a reference listed, and just says "sourced from a publicly available first-party datasource", what does that mean? Crawled from other sources and you'd prefer not to say? The wording does feel a little sketchy when contrasted with entries that do list sources.
When something does list references that don't seem super close to the actual food, what is the process like there for interpreting those values? Example, this Chicken Salad inheriting from Chicken Spread: https://www.opennutrition.app/search/chicken-salad-37mAX17YX...
The quality of the data might feel rough now, but I can see this being valuable for our users even if it's just an opt-in "show estimated micronutrients" or something. Would require labeling values as not being directly from a source of truth.
One thing that a lot of people are missing is that there is already a lot of inaccurate nutrition data out there. Even on information directly from the manufacturer, sometimes there are errors, or just old versions of the product that never get scrubbed from the internet (I imagine the latter case would be tricky for an LLM to deal with too). Just logging your dietary intake in any form will get you 80% of the benefit of tracking via some self awareness of your intake. Of course, it's an easy argument to point out that if you had the choice between verified data and fuzzy LLM data, you should go for the human verified data (for now).