Pepperidge Farm Cheddar crackers · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Pepperidge Farm Cheddar crackers

Name: Pepperidge Farm Cheddar crackers
Brand: Pepperidge Farm
SKU: 0014100094777

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Pepperidge Farm Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (3.3333333333333 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (833 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (52 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategorySnacks

Label information quality71/100

Data confidence

Quantity4 oz (113 g)

PackagingContainer

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

466.66666666667 kcal

Protein / 100g

10 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score49/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Made with Smiles and Unbleached Enriched Wheat Flour (Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate [Vitamin B1], Riboflavin [Vitamin B2], Folic Acid), Cheddar Cheese ([Cultured Milk, Salt, Enzymes], Annatto), Vegetable Oils (Canola, Sunflower and/or Soybean), Contains 2 Percent or Less of: Salt, Yeast, Sugar, Autolzed Yeast, Leavening (Baking Soda, Monocalcium Phosphate, Ammonium Bicarbonate), Paprika, Spices (Contains Celery), and Dehydrated Onions.

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 49/100

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 65/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

71/100

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 partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Fiber (3.3333333333333 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (833 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (52 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

Snacks. Ingredients: Sötningsmedel/sødestoffer (maltitoler, sorbitoler, steviolglykosider), stabiliseringsmedel/stabilisator (gummi arabicum), ammoniumklorid (=salmiak), lakritsextrakt, aromer, vegetabiliska oljor (kokos, raps), fläderbärs-/hyldebær/hyllebær ekstrakt, ytbehandlings-/overladebehandlingsmiddel (karnaubavax/voks). Evidence quality: high

67/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

97/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

69/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

Snacks. Ingredients: Raisins secs bio 40%, huile végétale de tournesol bio 20%, _Noix de cajou_ bio 20%, Physalis bio 10%, Cannerberge bio, (sucre de canne bio, huile végétale de tournesol bio), 10%, _Amandes_ bio.. Evidence quality: high

55/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

90/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

90/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

50/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

60/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (3.3333333333333 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (833 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (52 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategorySnacks

Label information quality71/100

Data confidence

Quantity4 oz (113 g)

PackagingContainer

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

466.66666666667 kcal

Protein / 100g

10 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score49/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 49/100

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 65/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

71/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Fiber (3.3333333333333 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (833 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (52 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

67/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

97/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

69/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

55/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

90/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

90/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

50/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

60/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Kõrge soolasisaldus
Tugevam hoiatus
Kõrge soolasisaldus viitab suuremale naatriumikoormusele, mida tasub igapäevases tarbimises piirata.
Kohe
Võib suurendada janu ja mõnel inimesel soodustada vedelikupeetust.
Pikemas vaates
Sage liigne soolatarbimine seostub kõrgema vererõhu riskiga.
Ettevaatus: kõrgeTõenduse tase: tugevSihtrühm: lapsed ja täiskasvanudAllikas: toitaine lävend
Loogika: salt100g > 1.2 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Sool 2.1 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Tegu on riskisignaaliga, mitte meditsiinilise hinnanguga. Oluline on kogu päeva soolakoormus.
Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitritid
Tugevam hoiatus
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.
Ettevaatus: kõrgeTõenduse tase: tugevSihtrühm: lapsed ja täiskasvanudAllikas: kombineeritud tuvastus
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.
Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)
Ettevaatlikkus
NOVA 4 viitab ulatuslikule tööstuslikule töötlemisele ja suuremale formulatsiooni keerukusele.
Kohe
Võib soodustada ülesöömist, sest maitse- ja tekstuuriprofiil on sageli väga stimuleeriv.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele tervisetulemitele, kuid mõju sõltub toitumismustrist.
Ettevaatus: mõõdukasTõenduse tase: mõõdukasSihtrühm: lapsed ja täiskasvanudAllikas: töötlusklass
Loogika: novaGroup === 4.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud klass).
NOVA klass on tarbimismustri signaal ega tähenda üksiku toote põhjal automaatset diagnoosi.

Pepperidge Farm Cheddar crackers

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 49/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

Pepperidge Farm Cheddar crackers

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 49/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

What lowers the rating

Kõrge soolasisaldus

Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitritid

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kõrge soolasisaldus lapse menüüs

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs