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
107 kcal
Protein / 100g
3.57 g
Sugar / 100g
3.57 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Quinoa (water, quinoa), cut corn, black beans (water, black beans), pineapple, red peppers.
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
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Processing
Weakest area
Environmental signal
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 result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.
Nutrition profile
Strong
76/100
76
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Minimally processed
Minimally processed
100
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
Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (2.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
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
Food. Ingredients: Crème, noix de Saint-Jacques 28%, tacaud, vin blanc, oignon, champignons, sel de Millac, eau de vie de cidre 1%, beurre demi-sel, ail, jus de citron concentré, algues [dulse, nori, laitue de mer], persil, laurier, piment fort moulu, épaississant : agar-agar (extrait d'algues).. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
85/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Food. Ingredients: Jus d' argousier BIO 100%, sans sucre ajouté (issu de l'agriculture biologique).. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
91
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
Food. Ingredients: Tomates pelées concassées, viande hachée pur bœuf 14% origine France, pâte à lasagne 10% (semoule de _blé_ dur, _œuf_), _lait_, mozzarella (_lait_), carottes, oignons, _céleri_, fromage râpé (_lait_, sel, présure, conservateur : lyzozyme d'_œuf_), huile d'olive, huile de tournesol, beurre (_lait_), _farine de blé_, vin rouge (_sulfites_), sel, sucre, basilic, poivre, laurier, thym, muscade. 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
91/100
high reliability
Food. Ingredients: 85% anane, eau, jus de citron bio.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
65
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high reliability
Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud viitavad toidule, mis toetab nõrgemalt täiskõhutunnet.
Kohe
Võib põhjustada kiiremat glükoosikõikumist ja varasemat näljatunnet.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib halvendada üldist toidukvaliteeti ja seostub ebasoodsama ainevahetusprofiiliga.
Loogika: fiber100g < 1.5 g/100 g või fiber100g < 3 g/100 g koos rafineeritud süsivesikute markeritega.
Signaalid: Kiudained 2.9 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g.
Riskisignaal sõltub kogu menüü kiudainete tasemest, mitte ainult ühest tootest.
Madal kiudainesisaldus on lapse vaates oluline, sest see mõjutab nii täiskõhutunnet kui ka seedimise mugavust.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle, et aidata vanemal hoida lapse menüüs rohkem täistera, kaunvilju, puu- ja köögivilju.
Kohe
Võimalik on kiirem näljatunde taastumine või raskem seedimine.
Pikemas vaates
Võib vähendada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti ja hoida kiudainete tarbimise püsivalt liiga madalal.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO süsivesikute kvaliteedi ja kiudainete soovitused.
Signaalid: Kiudained 2.9 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage