We have not cooked these dishes.
No pan, no kitchen, no photographer. We’re not going to pretend otherwise — and once you know why, you’ll know exactly what this site is for.
Anyone can cook a plate of food and photograph it. Thousands of sites do it well. What almost nobody does is the boring part: taking the claims that come with the food and checking them, one by one, against the actual data and the actual studies.
That’s the part we do.
Who writes this site
I’m Jasenko Jeremic, and I’m the editor of Tasty Spot. I choose the topics, do the research, check the numbers, and read every piece before it goes live. When something here is wrong, it’s mine to fix.
I’m a journalist by training — BA in Journalism, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Tuzla — and I work as Marketing Manager at Conyro Ltd. I am not a registered dietitian or a doctor, and nothing on this site is medical advice.
Why this site exists
I was born curious, and what pulled me was knowledge that’s useful to people beyond myself. That curiosity took me to a journalism degree, and later into researching what artificial intelligence can actually do. That’s how I started working with Conyro Ltd, a young UK company building AI tools — and it gave me those tools to use.
Then something unexpected happened. AI stopped interesting me as a journalism subject and started interesting me as a kitchen one. My profession is writing; my obsession is food and how it actually affects the body. With these tools I could finally do what I’d never had time for alone: take the tired claims about food and trace them back, one at a time, to the source data and to the papers behind them.
I brought the results to the company. We decided to build Tasty Spot together.
What this is, and what it isn’t
This is not an ordinary food blog, and it does not pretend to be a health publication.
You’ll find recipes here — with nutrition numbers calculated from source data, with the things worth knowing, and with the warnings where warnings belong. Our nutrition articles and food news are researched first, fact-checked second, and published third, with the studies named.
What that means in practice: what the food does, what it doesn’t, and where the popular claim falls apart.
How a post is actually made
Every post goes through the same chain. Nothing skips it.
- Topic and research. I pick the subject and the angle, and the research starts from the primary sources — not from what other food sites say about them.
- Nutrition from source data. Every number in a recipe card is calculated from USDA FoodData Central records, ingredient by ingredient, with cooking retention factors applied where food is boiled, drained or roasted. We record which USDA record was used. We do not copy nutrition figures from other sites, and we do not estimate them.
- Studies, named in full. When we cite research, we name the authors, the journal and the year, and we link it. Author lists are taken from PubMed in full — never shortened, never filled in from memory. If we can’t reach the full paper, we say so and the claim comes out.
- Language that matches the evidence. Studies suggest, are linked to, may help. If the research doesn’t support a hard claim, the sentence doesn’t make one. We don’t tell you food will cure anything.
- An automated standard check runs on every post before publication and blocks it if the required parts are missing or the numbers don’t line up.
- A separate review pass goes over the text, the sources and the image against the recipe — and sends the post back rather than patching it.
- My final read. Nothing publishes until I’ve read it.
What the AI does — and what it doesn’t
The AI tools help with research, structure, drafting, comparisons and calculation. They are tools. They don’t cook, they don’t taste, they don’t decide, and they are not the author of anything here. Every number they produce is checked against its source, and every claim is checked against the paper it came from. Where a tool and a source disagree, the source wins.
We use them because they let one person check a hundred figures back to their origin in a day — work that would otherwise never get done at all.
About the images
Our images are AI-generated illustrations of the finished dish, not photographs.
They are built to show the food as it actually looks: the right ingredients, the right quantities, the right state — a fillet cooked through, lentils softened, tomatoes roasted rather than raw. Every image is checked against the recipe before it goes up: the number of portions has to match, the ingredients the recipe names have to be there, and the food has to look the way the method would leave it. An image that contradicts the recipe is rejected and made again.
What they are not is a photograph of a plate that existed. We have not cooked and photographed these dishes ourselves, and we don’t claim to.
We say this plainly because a food site that shows a picture is making a promise about where that picture came from. Ours came from a prompt — held to the recipe, and checked against it.
What we promise
- Original writing. We don’t rewrite other people’s posts.
- Numbers that trace back to a source we can name.
- No invented histories, no invented credentials, no fake reviews.
- Nutrition figures are calculated estimates for the recipe as written — your ingredients will vary.
- Corrections published when we get something wrong, including when the correction makes our own numbers look worse.
Corrections
Found an error? Write to [email protected]. We check it, and if we’re wrong we fix it and say what changed and when.
Advertising
Ads pay for the site. They have no influence on what we write, which studies we cite, or what we conclude.