Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
38
/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
38
/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
38/100
38
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
68/100
68
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 (3.6 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 saturated fat (10.71 g/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
564 kcal
Protein / 100g
7.14 g
Sugar / 100g
3.57 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Fresh potatoes, pure vegetable oil (contains one or more of the following: safflower oil, cottonseed oil, palm oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil), sea salt.
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.
Kõrge küllastunud rasva osakaal on oluline signaal, eriti kui sarnaseid tooteid tarbitakse sageli.
Kohe
Võib muuta toidukorra energiarikkamaks ja tekitada mõnel inimesel raskustunnet.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib tõsta ebasoodsa vere lipiidiprofiili riski.
Loogika: saturatedFat100g > 5 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Küllastunud rasv 10.7 g/100 g ületab lävendi 5 g/100 g.
Riskitõlgendus sõltub kogu rasvaprofiilist ja üldisest menüüst, mitte vaid ühest näitajast.
Küllastunud rasva signaal aitab hinnata, kas toode sobib lapse menüüs pigem harvemaks valikuks.
Miks oluline
Rakendus ei anna siin mustvalget hinnangut, vaid lisab rasvaprofiili konteksti sagedaste valikute jaoks.
Kohe
Võib esineda raskustunnet või väiksemat söögi järel mugavust.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib hoida lapse menüü rasvaprofiili ebasoodsamas suunas.
Põhineb WHO rasvajuhistel, kus rõhk on rasva kvaliteedil ja asendusloogikal.
Signaalid: Küllastunud rasv 10.7 g/100 g ületab lävendi 5 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
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage