Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Zero Sugar · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Zero Sugar

Name: Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Zero Sugar
Brand: Coca-Cola
SKU: 0049000042566

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 Coca-Cola Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

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

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.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, aspartaam, atsesulfaam-K support a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Uncertain or missing data

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

Design

CategoryBebidas

Label information quality84/100

Data confidence

Quantity355 ml

PackagingCan,Aluminium-can,Aluminum

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Carbonated water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, aspartame, potassium benzoate (to protect taste), natural flavors, potassium citrate, acesulfame potassium, caffeine.

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

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 84/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

55/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

84/100

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 broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

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
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, aspartaam, atsesulfaam-K support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
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, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

AriZona Grapeade Fruit Juice Cocktail

Bebidas. Ingredients: Filtered water, high fructose corn syrup (glucose-fructose syrup), pear juice from concentrate, grape juice from concentrate, citric acid, natural flavors, vegetable juice (for color), ascorbic acid (vitamin c).. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Bebidas

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

70/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

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.

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.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, aspartaam, atsesulfaam-K support a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Uncertain or missing data

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

Design

CategoryBebidas

Label information quality84/100

Data confidence

Quantity355 ml

PackagingCan,Aluminium-can,Aluminum

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Carbonated water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, aspartame, potassium benzoate (to protect taste), natural flavors, potassium citrate, acesulfame potassium, caffeine.

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

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 84/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

55/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

84/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

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
Non-sugar sweeteners (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, aspartaam, atsesulfaam-K support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Kofeiin ja stimulandid
Tugevam hoiatus
Kofeiin ja muud stimulandid võivad mõjutada erksust, und ja pulssi, eriti suuremas koguses.
Kohe
Võib põhjustada rahutust, südamekloppimist või uinumisraskust, eriti tundlikel kasutajatel ja lastel.
Pikemas vaates
Sage suurtes kogustes tarbimine võib halvendada une kvaliteeti ja soodustada ebasoodsat tarbimismustrit.
Ettevaatus: kõrgeTõenduse tase: tugevSihtrühm: lapsed ja täiskasvanudAllikas: kombineeritud tuvastus
Loogika: Koostises tuvastatakse kofeiin/stimulant või kategooria viitab energy_drink tüübile.
Signaalid: Leitud stimulantide markerid: kofeiin.
Laste puhul on ettevaatus enamasti rangem. Mõju sõltub annusest, ajastusest ja individuaalsest tundlikkusest.
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.

Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Zero Sugar

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

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

Similar options worth comparing

AriZona Grapeade Fruit Juice Cocktail

Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Zero Sugar

Similar options worth comparing

AriZona Grapeade Fruit Juice Cocktail

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

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

Kofeiin ja stimulandid

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Mittesuhkrulised magusained

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kofeiin ja energiajoogid laste puhul

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs