Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
35
/100
Nutrition interpretation
High signal
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Structured source data
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
35
/100
Nutrition profile
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Label quality
Weakest area
Nutrition profile
Data confidence
medium
Data confidence
Data confidence 73/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.
Nutrition profile
Weak
35/100
35
Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.
Processing
Moderately processed
Moderately processed · Limited estimate
67
Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.
Environmental signal
Quite good
72/100
72
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
95/100
95
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
Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (3.57 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (100%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
High sodium content (1710 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
High saturated fat (8.93 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (37 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 44%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
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
Energy / 100g
464 kcal
Protein / 100g
7.14 g
Sugar / 100g
3.57 g
Ingredient-level explanation
ALIMENTARY PASTE/PASTA ALIMENTICIA: WHEAT FLOUR/HARINA DE TRIGO, USAL PALMOLACEITE DE PALMA,SOUP BASE/SOBRE: POWDERED CARAMEL/CARAMELO EN POLVO, AL CHICKEN FLAVOR/SABOR ARTIFICIAL DE POLLO, SALT/SAL, PEPPER/PIMIENTA, ONION POWDER/ CEBOLLA EN POLVO, GARLIC POWDER/AJO EN POLVO
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 4.3 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Tegu on riskisignaaliga, mitte meditsiinilise hinnanguga. Oluline on kogu päeva soolakoormus.
Kõrge küllastunud rasva osakaal on oluline signaal, eriti kui sarnaseid tooteid tarbitakse sageli.
Kohe
Võib muuta toidukorra energiarikkamaks ja tekitada mõnel inimesel raskustunnet.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib tõsta ebasoodsa vere lipiidiprofiili riski.
Loogika: saturatedFat100g > 5 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Küllastunud rasv 8.9 g/100 g ületab lävendi 5 g/100 g.
Riskitõlgendus sõltub kogu rasvaprofiilist ja üldisest menüüst, mitte vaid ühest näitajast.
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 4.3 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Küllastunud rasva signaal aitab hinnata, kas toode sobib lapse menüüs pigem harvemaks valikuks.
Miks oluline
Rakendus ei anna siin mustvalget hinnangut, vaid lisab rasvaprofiili konteksti sagedaste valikute jaoks.
Kohe
Võib esineda raskustunnet või väiksemat söögi järel mugavust.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib hoida lapse menüü rasvaprofiili ebasoodsamas suunas.
Põhineb WHO rasvajuhistel, kus rõhk on rasva kvaliteedil ja asendusloogikal.
Signaalid: Küllastunud rasv 8.9 g/100 g ületab lävendi 5 g/100 g.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage