Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
73
/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
90 kcal
Protein / 100g
0.33 g
Sugar / 100g
8.67 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Coconut juice, water, coconut pulp, sugar, agar powder.
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
73
/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 57/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
73/100
73
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
63/100
63
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 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
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
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low
Related products
Snacks. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
36
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Snacks. Ingredients: Fraises de Sarthe 55% , eau, sirop de sucre de canne blond , sirop de maïs déshydraté , jus de citron , farine de guar , farine caroube. 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
76/100
high reliability
Snacks. Ingredients: Lait de nos vaches non homogénéisé, riz rond de camargue* 10%, sucre de canne issu du commerce équitable", extrait de vanille Bourbon 1%. 17,2% des ingrédients sont issus de lAgriculture Biologique.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
64
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
Snacks. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
56
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
68/100
medium reliability
Selle toote puhul ei aktiveerunud laste-keskseid riskisignaale. See ei asenda nõustamist; mõju sõltub kogusest, sagedusest ja üldisest toitumismustrist.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage