Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
75
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
357.14285714286 kcal
Protein / 100g
12.5 g
Sugar / 100g
0 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Semolina (wheat); durum flour (wheat); niacin; iron (ferrous sulfate); thiamin mononitrate; riboflavin; folic acid.
Food score panel
Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.
Nutrition score
75
/100
Nutrition profile
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Processing
Weakest area
Environmental signal
Data confidence
high
Data confidence
Data confidence 80/100
High reliability
The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.
Nutrition profile
Strong
75/100
75
Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.
Processing
Minimally processed
Minimally processed
100
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Quite good
72/100
72
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
92/100
92
Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.
How is the score built?
Open the methodology note
Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.
The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.
Score drivers
Supports the assessment
Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (3.5714285714286 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (100%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
A long ingredient list (18 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 78%.
Impact: medium
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low
Related products
Plant-based. Ingredients: Pommes de terre* (57,7%), huile de tournesol * (35%), fécule de pommes de terre*, sel, paprika* (1,7%), tomate*, oignon*, ail*.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
55
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
91/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
73
Nutrition score
environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de Goji.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
88/100
high reliability
Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de canneberge BIO, Jus de canne évaporé BIO, Huile de tournesol BIO (- de 1%). Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
44
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high reliability
Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitriti/nitraadi markerid viitavad kõrgema ettevaatuse vajadusele.
Kohe
Võib suurendada soola- ja säilitusainete koormust ühes toidukorras.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele pikaajalistele tervisenäitajatele.
Loogika: Kategooria viitab töödeldud lihale või koostises/additiivides leidub E249, E250, E251, E252.
Signaalid: Koostises tuvastati markerid: nitraat.
See signaal ei asenda personaalset nõustamist. Tõlgendus sõltub tarbimissagedusest ja portsjoni suurusest.
Kui toode kuulub töödeldud liha profiili, kuvame selle vanemale pika vaate hariva märkusena.
Miks oluline
Sõnum on praktiline: sellised valikud sobivad pigem harvemaks, eriti kui lapsel koguneb menüüs palju soolaseid töödeldud tooteid.
Kohe
Võib kaasneda suurem janu ja soolakoormus samal päeval.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kasutus võib vähendada lapse menüü üldist toitumiskvaliteeti.
Põhineb IARC pikaajalise riski käsitlusel töödeldud lihatoodete kohta ning toitaineprofiili kontekstil.
Signaalid: Koostises tuvastati markerid: nitraat.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage