Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
56
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Moderate signal
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
417 kcal
Protein / 100g
10 g
Sugar / 100g
3.33 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Whole grain wheat flour, malted barley, salt, yeast, reduced iron, niacinamide, zinc oxide, vitamin a palmitate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, vitamin b6). riboflavin (vitamin b2), thiamine mononitrate (vitamin b1), folic acid, vitamin d, vitamin b12. romano cheese (sheep's milk, cheese culture salt, enzymes), oregano garlic powder, dehydrated parsley, black pepper.
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
56
/100
Nutrition profile
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 57/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.
Nutrition profile
Mixed
56/100
56
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Highly processed
Highly processed
34
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
64/100
64
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
Supports the assessment
Fiber (10 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (900 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (44 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low
Related products
Cooking Helpers. Ingredients: LAIT concentré sucré, sirop de glucose.fruc. tose, sucre, eau, poudre de chocolat (6,5%), arômes épaississants. Contient du lait et produit à base de lait. Conservation dans un endroit propre et sec.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
35
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Cooking Helpers. Ingredients: Farine de _blé_, saccharose, poudre de _lait_ entier, sel, huile végétale hydrogénée (palme), sel, sirop de glucose, arôme, caséinate, poudre à lever (E500ii, E450i, E451i).. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
74/100
medium reliability
Cooking Helpers. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
66/100
medium reliability
Cooking Helpers. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
52/100
medium reliability
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.
Loogika: salt100g > 1.2 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Sool 2.3 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Tegu on riskisignaaliga, mitte meditsiinilise hinnanguga. Oluline on kogu päeva soolakoormus.
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 soola on palju, suunab rakendus vanema tähelepanu lapse päevase soolakoormuse ja maitseharjumuste kujunemisele.
Miks oluline
Lapse toitumises tasub väga soolaseid valikuid piirata, sest harjumused kujunevad varakult ja mõjutavad ka hilisemat eelistust.
Kohe
Võib tekkida tugevam janu ja soov juua rohkem.
Pikemas vaates
Võib toetada soolasema maitse eelistust ja ebasoodsat vererõhu riskisuunda.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO naatriumisoovitused (lastel kohandatakse vajadus allapoole).
Signaalid: Sool 2.3 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Töödeldud liha ja nitritite hariv signaal
C-kiht: hariv kontekstMõõdukas teaduslik alusKui toode kuulub töödeldud liha profiili, kuvame selle vanemale pika vaate hariva märkusena.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage