Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
36
/100
Nutrition interpretation
High signal
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
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
36
/100
Nutrition profile
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Label quality
Weakest area
Processing
Data confidence
medium
Data confidence
Data confidence 57/100
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
36/100
36
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
66/100
66
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
Fiber (3.3 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (1267 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low
Related products
Snacks. Ingredients: Sötningsmedel/sødestoffer (maltitoler, sorbitoler, steviolglykosider), stabiliseringsmedel/stabilisator (gummi arabicum), ammoniumklorid (=salmiak), lakritsextrakt, aromer, vegetabiliska oljor (kokos, raps), fläderbärs-/hyldebær/hyllebær ekstrakt, ytbehandlings-/overladebehandlingsmiddel (karnaubavax/voks). Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
67
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
97/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Snacks. 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
69/100
medium reliability
Snacks. Ingredients: Raisins secs bio 40%, huile végétale de tournesol bio 20%, _Noix de cajou_ bio 20%, Physalis bio 10%, Cannerberge bio, (sucre de canne bio, huile végétale de tournesol bio), 10%, _Amandes_ bio.. 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
90/100
high reliability
Snacks. 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
50/100
medium reliability
Energy / 100g
533 kcal
Protein / 100g
10 g
Sugar / 100g
10 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Wheat flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour), soybean oil, sesame seeds, honey coating (sugar, wheat starch, honey), bulgur wheat, tack blend (maltodextrin, xanthan gum), salt, beet powder (color), turmeric (color).
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 3.2 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Tegu on riskisignaaliga, mitte meditsiinilise hinnanguga. Oluline on kogu päeva soolakoormus.
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.
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 3.2 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
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).
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage