Open Food Facts Glutne free classic white bread · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Open Food Facts Glutne free classic white bread packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Open Food Facts Glutne free classic white bread

Name: Open Food Facts Glutne free classic white bread
Brand: Open Food Facts
SKU: 0078742151823

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Open Food Facts Suggest correction

Signal classes

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

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.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (32 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity18 oz

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

222.2222 kcal

Protein / 100g

2.7778 g

Sugar / 100g

5.5556 g

Nutrition score60/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

water, brown rice flour, tapioca starch, tapioca syrup, whole grain sorghum flour, xanthan gum, contains 2% or less of each of the following: wnhole eggs. oleic safflower oil, salt, cultured rice flour, calcium propionate (mold inhibitor), fully hydrogenated palm oil. monoglycerides, yeast, enzýmes. contains eggs.

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 60/100

Quite good

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 71/100

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

60/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
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
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: fiber per 100g and category. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

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.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (32 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity18 oz

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

222.2222 kcal

Protein / 100g

2.7778 g

Sugar / 100g

5.5556 g

Nutrition score60/100 · Grade C

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 60/100

Quite good

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 71/100

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

60/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
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
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: fiber per 100g and category. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Open Food Facts Glutne free classic white bread

Nutrient profile

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Open Food Facts Glutne free classic white bread

Nutrient profile

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs