Supporting factors
- Fiber (4 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
76
/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
240 kcal
Protein / 100g
4 g
Sugar / 100g
0 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Corn, water, propionic acid, phosphoric acid, dextrose, fumaric acid, cellulose gum, sorbic acid, potassium sorbate (preservative), calcium propionate, (added to maintain freshness), and a trace of of lime.
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
76
/100
Nutrition profile
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 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
76/100
76
Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.
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
59/100
59
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 (4 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Related products
Mexican Dinner Mixes. Ingredients: Tapioca flour water, salt.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
49
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
63/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Mexican Dinner Mixes. Ingredients: Water, organic corn masa flour (stone ground organic corn flour, trace of lime), wheat gluten, cultured wheat (cultured wheat with added vinegar), contains less than 2% of each of the following: sea salt, aluminum free leavening (sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, corn starch, monocalcium phosphate), guar gum.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
67
Nutrition score
nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
63/100
medium reliability
Mexican Dinner Mixes. Ingredients: Unbleached enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, malted barley flour), water, palm fruit oil, sea salt, aluminum free leavening (sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, corn starch, monocalcium phosphate).. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
55
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
61/100
medium reliability
Mexican Dinner Mixes. Ingredients: Enriched wheat flour (niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, enzyme, folic acid), water, vegetable shortening (hydrogenated soybean oil), contains 2% or less of the following: salt, mono and diglycerides, dextrose, sodium bicarbonate, calcium propionate, potassium sorbate, sodium aluminum sulfate, fumaric acid, sodium aluminum phosphate, corn starch, yeast, guar gum, xanthan gum, cmc gum, enzyme (wheat starch and microcrystalline cellulose), sodium metabisulfite, sugar, hot sauce powder (hot sauce [aged cayenne red peppers and garlic]), lactic acid, citric acid, malic acid, dried vinegar powder (maltodextrin, white distilled vinegar, modified food starch), garlic powder, oleoresin paprika, natural and artificial flavors, peppers, vinegar, benzoate of soda and hot more than 2 percent of silicon dioxide used as a processing aid.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
62
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
63/100
medium reliability
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.
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
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage