Jell-O Low Calorie Gelatin Dessert, Cherry · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Jell-O Low Calorie Gelatin Dessert, Cherry

Name: Jell-O Low Calorie Gelatin Dessert, Cherry
Brand: Jell-O
SKU: 0043000201428

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

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Low signal

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

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Jell-O Suggest correction

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

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as aspartaam, atsesulfaam-K support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (15 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Performance

Energy / 100g

10 kcal

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Gelatin, adipic acid (for tartness), disodium phosphate (controls acidity), maltodextrin (from corn), fumaric acid (for tartness), aspartame** (sweetener), contains less than 2% of artificial flavor, acesulfame potassium *(sweetener), salt, blue 1, red 40

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 73/100

Quite good

nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 63/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

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

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

64/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 44%.
Impact: medium

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, fiber per 100g, protein per 100g, quantity, and category. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

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

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as aspartaam, atsesulfaam-K support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (15 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Performance

Energy / 100g

10 kcal

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

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 73/100

Quite good

nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 63/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

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

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

64/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 44%.
Impact: medium

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.
Mittesuhkrulised magusained
Kontekstisignaal
Mittesuhkrulised magusained võivad vähendada suhkrukoormust, kuid ei tähenda automaatselt tervislikku valikut.
Kohe
Mõnel kasutajal võib esineda magusaisu püsimist või kerget seedetrakti ebamugavust.
Pikemas vaates
Pikaajalised mõjud sõltuvad kasutusmustrist; seoseid käsitletakse pigem konteksti- kui absoluutse riskina.
Ettevaatus: kontekstTõenduse tase: piiratud/kontekstipõhineSihtrühm: lapsed ja täiskasvanudAllikas: koostise muster
Loogika: Koostises tuvastatakse magusained nagu aspartaam, sukraloos, atsesulfaam K, sahhariin või stevioolglükosiidid.
Signaalid: Leitud mittesuhkrulised magusained: aspartaam, atsesulfaam K. · Leitud magusainete lisandikoodid: E950, E951.
Kategooria on kontekstisignaal: tõlgendus sõltub toote üldisest koostisest ja kogu toitumismustrist.
Teatud sünteetilised värvained ja tähelepanu riskisignaal
Kontekstisignaal
Teatud sünteetilised värvained on seotud tähelepanu-riskisignaaliga, eriti laste kontekstis.
Kohe
Mõnel lapsel võib esineda aktiivsuse või tähelepanu muutust.
Pikemas vaates
Tõendus on kontekstipõhine; signaal aitab hinnata koostise profiili ega tähenda automaatselt kahjulikku toimet kõigile.
Ettevaatus: kontekstTõenduse tase: piiratud/kontekstipõhineSihtrühm: lapsed ja täiskasvanudAllikas: koostise muster
Loogika: Koostises või additiivides leidub E102, E104, E110, E122, E124, E129 (vajadusel koos E211).
Signaalid: Leitud sünteetiliste värvainete koodid: E129.
See on ettevaatlik kontekstisignaal. Mõju sõltub tundlikkusest, kogusest ja üldisest toitumismustrist.

Jell-O Low Calorie Gelatin Dessert, Cherry

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

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 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Jell-O Low Calorie Gelatin Dessert, Cherry

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

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 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Mittesuhkrulised magusained

Teatud sünteetilised värvained ja tähelepanu riskisignaal

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs