Uncertain or missing data
- Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
What would improve the assessment
- Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.
Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
73
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
80 kcal
Protein / 100g
3.54 g
Sugar / 100g
2.65 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Water, organic carrots, organic finely ground chicken, organic apples, organic whole grain brown rice flour, calcium carbonate.
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
73
/100
Nutrition profile
nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Nutrition profile
Weakest area
Label quality
Data confidence
low
Data confidence
Data confidence 39/100
Low reliability
Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
73/100
73
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Moderately processed
Moderately processed · Limited estimate
67
Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.
Environmental signal
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Mixed
56/100
56
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.
Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.
Score drivers
Supports the assessment
Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Pulls the score down
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (17 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 22%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud viitavad toidule, mis toetab nõrgemalt täiskõhutunnet.
Kohe
Võib põhjustada kiiremat glükoosikõikumist ja varasemat näljatunnet.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib halvendada üldist toidukvaliteeti ja seostub ebasoodsama ainevahetusprofiiliga.
Loogika: fiber100g < 1.5 g/100 g või fiber100g < 3 g/100 g koos rafineeritud süsivesikute markeritega.
Signaalid: Kiudained 0.9 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g. · Kiudainesisaldus jääb alla tugeva riskisignaali lävendi 1.5 g/100 g. · Leitud rafineeritud süsivesiku markerid: riisijahu.
Riskisignaal sõltub kogu menüü kiudainete tasemest, mitte ainult ühest tootest.
Madal kiudainesisaldus on lapse vaates oluline, sest see mõjutab nii täiskõhutunnet kui ka seedimise mugavust.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle, et aidata vanemal hoida lapse menüüs rohkem täistera, kaunvilju, puu- ja köögivilju.
Kohe
Võimalik on kiirem näljatunde taastumine või raskem seedimine.
Pikemas vaates
Võib vähendada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti ja hoida kiudainete tarbimise püsivalt liiga madalal.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO süsivesikute kvaliteedi ja kiudainete soovitused.
Signaalid: Kiudained 0.9 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g. · Kiudainesisaldus jääb alla tugevama alamsignaali lävendi 1.5 g/100 g. · Leitud rafineeritud süsivesiku markerid: riisijahu.