Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
75
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
117 kcal
Protein / 100g
6.67 g
Sugar / 100g
3.33 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Chicks peas, tahini, water, sea salt, spices, citric acid.
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
75
/100
Nutrition profile
environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Environmental signal
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
The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.
Nutrition profile
Strong
75/100
75
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Highly processed
Highly processed
34
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Strong
80/100
80
Product-specific environmental signal.
Label quality
Quite good
70/100
70
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
Declared Eco-Score B supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
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
Plant-based. Ingredients: Pommes de terre* (57,7%), huile de tournesol * (35%), fécule de pommes de terre*, sel, paprika* (1,7%), tomate*, oignon*, ail*.. 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
91/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
73
Nutrition score
environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de Goji.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
88/100
high reliability
Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de canneberge BIO, Jus de canne évaporé BIO, Huile de tournesol BIO (- de 1%). Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
44
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high reliability
Selle toote puhul ei aktiveerunud laste-keskseid riskisignaale. See ei asenda nõustamist; mõju sõltub kogusest, sagedusest ja üldisest toitumismustrist.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage