Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
55
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Moderate signal
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate 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
55
/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 55/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.
Nutrition profile
Mixed
55/100
55
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
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
Fiber (8.3 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
High sodium content (1500 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 44%.
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
Cooking Helpers. Ingredients: LAIT concentré sucré, sirop de glucose.fruc. tose, sucre, eau, poudre de chocolat (6,5%), arômes épaississants. Contient du lait et produit à base de lait. Conservation dans un endroit propre et sec.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
35
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Cooking Helpers. Ingredients: Farine de _blé_, saccharose, poudre de _lait_ entier, sel, huile végétale hydrogénée (palme), sel, sirop de glucose, arôme, caséinate, poudre à lever (E500ii, E450i, E451i).. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
74/100
medium reliability
Cooking Helpers. 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
Cooking Helpers. 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
52/100
medium reliability
Energy / 100g
333 kcal
Protein / 100g
8.33 g
Sugar / 100g
4.17 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Potato (contains sulfites to maintain whiteness), potato starch, onion, salt, carrots, vegetable shortening (partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil), celery, tomatoes, bell pepper, and spinach.
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 3.8 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Tegu on riskisignaaliga, mitte meditsiinilise hinnanguga. Oluline on kogu päeva soolakoormus.
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.
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 3.8 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
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