Search catalog

M&S Lamb Rogan Josh & Pilau Rice · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

M&S Lamb Rogan Josh & Pilau Rice packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Low signal

M&S Lamb Rogan Josh & Pilau Rice

Name: M&S Lamb Rogan Josh & Pilau Rice
Brand: M&S
SKU: 00409766

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Nutri-ScoreA

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:73%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.
The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

Nutrition

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Product & Packaging

CategoryLamb Rogan Josh

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental Impact

Environmental signal

Nutrition score

73/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 73/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

NOVA —

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Weak

32/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

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

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, ingredients or ingredients, NOVA group, quantity, ingredients, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Marks & Spencer

Lamb rogan josh

Lamb Rogan Josh. Ingredients: Lamb (37%), Onions (21%), Tomatoes (14%), Yogurt (Milk), Rapeseed Oil, Tomato Paste, Garlic Purée, Ginger Purée, Salt, Ground Smoked Paprika, Ground Garam Masala (Roasted Coriander, Roasted Cumin, Sweet Cinnamon (Cassia), Green Cardamom, Cinnamon, Nutmeg, Black Pepper, Kashmiri Chilli Powder, Cloves, Bay Leaves, Fennel, Star Anise, Mace), Kashmiri Chilli Powder, Cornflour, Coriander, Ground Fennel Seeds, Ground Cinnamon, Cider Vinegar, Lemon Juice, Ground Black Pepper, Coriander Seeds, Whole Green Cardamom, Turmeric.. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreBNOVA3Well-documented label

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.
The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

Nutrition

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Product & Packaging

CategoryLamb Rogan Josh

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental Impact

Environmental signal

Nutrition score

73/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 73/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

NOVA —

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Weak

32/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

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

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

M&S Lamb Rogan Josh & Pilau Rice

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Environmental Impact

Nutrition score 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Lamb rogan josh

M&S Lamb Rogan Josh & Pilau Rice

Similar options worth comparing

Lamb rogan josh

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Environmental Impact

Nutrition score 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid