Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
71
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Protein / 100g
3 g
Ingredient-level explanation
sugar, coffe whithener (corn syrup solids, partially hydrogenated coconut oil, sodium casenate (a milk derivative), diportassium phosphate, sodium tripolyphosphate, mono and diglycerides, diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono and diglycerides, sodium silicoaluminate, artificial flavourt, nonfat dry milk, instant coffee, artificial flavours, silicon dioxide (an anticaking agent), coca (processed with alkali), salt, carboxmethyl cellulose gum.
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
71
/100
Nutrition profile
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 53/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
71/100
71
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Very highly processed
Very highly processed
12
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
67/100
67
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
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (32 ingredients) supports 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
Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Related products
Food. Ingredients: soy sauce 90% (water, soybeans, salt, wheat flour (contains gluten), water, entro ballage. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
36
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
81/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Food. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
36
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
Food. 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
Food. Ingredients: Miel de tilleul. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
73
Nutrition score
nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
63/100
medium reliability
Osaliselt hüdrogeenitud rasvade markerid viitavad võimalikule transrasvade riskile.
Kohe
Lühiajaline mõju ei pruugi olla tajutav, kuid marker annab tugeva ettevaatuse signaali.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kokkupuude transrasvadega seostub kõrgema südame-veresoonkonna riski profiiliga.
Loogika: Koostises esineb mustreid nagu 'partially hydrogenated' või 'hydrogenated vegetable fat'.
Signaalid: Leitud transrasva riski markerid: partially hydrogenated.
Kategooria näitab koostiseriski, mitte individuaalset meditsiinilist seisundit.
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.
Loogika: novaGroup === 4.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud klass).
NOVA klass on tarbimismustri signaal ega tähenda üksiku toote põhjal automaatset diagnoosi.
Ultra-töödeldud märge aitab vanemal hinnata, kas toode sobib igapäevaseks valikuks või pigem harvemaks.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle lisakontekstina, et toetada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti, mitte anda mustvalget otsust ühe toote kohta.
Kohe
Võib tekkida kiire söömise ja varasema uue isu muster.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kasutus võib nihutada menüüd vähem täisväärtusliku toiduprofiili poole.
Põhineb peamiselt epidemioloogilisel ja institutsionaalsel kirjandusel ultra-töödeldud toitude tarbimismustrite kohta.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud profiil).
Transrasva markerid koostises
C-kiht: hariv kontekstTugev teaduslik alusSee märk kuvatakse harvem, kuid selle olemasolul on vanemale kasulik selge kvaliteedimärkus.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage