Geisha Geisha, tilapia fillet · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Geisha Geisha, tilapia fillet

Name: Geisha Geisha, tilapia fillet
Brand: Geisha
SKU: 0071140220023

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 Geisha Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Protein (18.58 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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 quality63/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 1

Performance

Energy / 100g

80 kcal

Protein / 100g

18.58 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Tilapia fish & filtered wood smoke (added as a preservative to promote color retention).

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 76/100

Strong

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 55/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

100

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

47/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

63/100

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

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Protein (18.58 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

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

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 44%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Acras de Morue

Food. Evidence quality: medium

65/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

47/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

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

Le Brin d'Océan Bisque de homard artisanale

Food. Ingredients: _Homard_ 27 % (_homards_ entiers, têtes et pattes de homard), eau, _poisson_, légumes (carottes, oignons, _céleri_), concentré de tomates, _crème_ liquide (crème de _lait_, stabilisant, carraghénanes, émulsifiants : E472b), huile de tournesol, sucre, sel, ail, fécule de pomme de terre (traces possibles de _gluten_), cognac (cognac, sel, arôme naturel de poivre), épices.. Evidence quality: high

69/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

90/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

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

54/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

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

La Paimpolaise Sardine aux tomates confites et basilic

Food. Evidence quality: medium

45/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

45/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

47/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

La Paimpolaise Bernique et rouget grondin au whisky

Food. Ingredients: crème (lait), rouget grondin 33%, berniques 17%, ail, beurre, whisky 1.2%, sel de Millac, persil, huile d'olive, algues (agar agar, wakamé), poivre. Evidence quality: high

42/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

87/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

42/100

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

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

92/100

Label quality

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

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Protein (18.58 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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 quality63/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 1

Performance

Energy / 100g

80 kcal

Protein / 100g

18.58 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Tilapia fish & filtered wood smoke (added as a preservative to promote color retention).

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 76/100

Strong

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 55/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

100

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

47/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

63/100

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

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Protein (18.58 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

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

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 44%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Acras de Morue

Food. Evidence quality: medium

65/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

47/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

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

Le Brin d'Océan Bisque de homard artisanale

69/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

90/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

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

54/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

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

La Paimpolaise Sardine aux tomates confites et basilic

Food. Evidence quality: medium

45/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

45/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

47/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

La Paimpolaise Bernique et rouget grondin au whisky

Food. Ingredients: crème (lait), rouget grondin 33%, berniques 17%, ail, beurre, whisky 1.2%, sel de Millac, persil, huile d'olive, algues (agar agar, wakamé), poivre. Evidence quality: high

42/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

87/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

42/100

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

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

92/100

Label quality

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

Geisha Geisha, tilapia fillet

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Acras de Morue

Le Brin d'Océan Bisque de homard artisanale

La Paimpolaise Sardine aux tomates confites et basilic

La Paimpolaise Bernique et rouget grondin au whisky

Geisha Geisha, tilapia fillet

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Acras de Morue

Le Brin d'Océan Bisque de homard artisanale

La Paimpolaise Sardine aux tomates confites et basilic

La Paimpolaise Bernique et rouget grondin au whisky

What lowers the rating

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud