Tillamook Key lime lowfat greek yogurt · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Tillamook Key lime lowfat greek yogurt

Name: Tillamook Key lime lowfat greek yogurt
Brand: Tillamook
SKU: 0072830441346

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 Tillamook Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as kurkuma, guarkummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (36 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

CategoryDairies

Label information quality66/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Pasteurized nonfat milk and cream, water, sugar, cornstarch, sodium citrate, keylime juice concentrate, natural flavor, guar gum, turmeric (color), live active cultures (s. thermophilus, bifidobacterium sp., b.lactis, l. acidophilus, l. casei, l. rhamnosus, l. lactis, l. bulgaricus).

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 71/100

Quite good

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 66/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

71/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

54/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

66/100

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

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as kurkuma, guarkummi support 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
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, quantity, nutrition panel, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Bouchons Apéros Natures

Dairies. Ingredients: _lait_ cru de vache, sel, ferments lactiques, présure.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

84/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

48/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

93/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Abbaye Notre-Dame des Dombes Régal de Sans-Souci

Dairies. Evidence quality: high

45/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageDairies

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

77/100

high 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

54/100

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.

Open Food Facts Bouchons apero

Dairies. Evidence quality: medium

49/100

nutrition score

Dairies

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

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

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

54/100

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.

Open Food Facts Fromage frais fermier

Dairies. Evidence quality: medium

65/100

nutrition score

Dairies

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

54/100

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.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as kurkuma, guarkummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (36 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

CategoryDairies

Label information quality66/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

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 71/100

Quite good

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 66/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

71/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

54/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

66/100

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

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as kurkuma, guarkummi support 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
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Bouchons Apéros Natures

Dairies. Ingredients: _lait_ cru de vache, sel, ferments lactiques, présure.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

84/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

48/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

93/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Abbaye Notre-Dame des Dombes Régal de Sans-Souci

Dairies. Evidence quality: high

45/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageDairies

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

77/100

high 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

54/100

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.

Open Food Facts Bouchons apero

Dairies. Evidence quality: medium

49/100

nutrition score

Dairies

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

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

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

54/100

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.

Open Food Facts Fromage frais fermier

Dairies. Evidence quality: medium

65/100

nutrition score

Dairies

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

54/100

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.

Tillamook Key lime lowfat greek yogurt

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Bouchons Apéros Natures

Abbaye Notre-Dame des Dombes Régal de Sans-Souci

Open Food Facts Bouchons apero

Open Food Facts Fromage frais fermier

Tillamook Key lime lowfat greek yogurt

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Bouchons Apéros Natures

Abbaye Notre-Dame des Dombes Régal de Sans-Souci

Open Food Facts Bouchons apero

Open Food Facts Fromage frais fermier

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs