Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
60
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Moderate signal
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
133 kcal
Protein / 100g
0 g
Sugar / 100g
6.67 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Piquillo pepper, vegetable oil (sunflower), cane vinegar, salt, sugar, garlic, parsley, corn starch, citric acid (acidulant), black pepper.
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
60
/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 63/100
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
60/100
60
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
Quite good
60/100
60
Product-specific environmental signal.
Label quality
Quite good
62/100
62
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 Eco-Score C supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (27 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
Spreads. Ingredients: Crème, Langoustines 30%, aiglefin, sel de Millac, brisures de truffes noir 1%, huile d’olive, arôme truffe blanche, vinaigre d’alcool, algues (dulse), épaississant : agar (extrait d’algue). Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
40
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Spreads. Ingredients: Chairs de _homard bleu_ 42 % (_crustacé_) (Homarus Gammarus), _crème_ (_lait_), _aiglefin_ (_poisson_), oignon, carotte, tomate, concentré de tomate, eau de vie de cidre, huile d'olive, sel de Millac, ail, _vin blanc_ (_sulfite_), algues (agar agar, dulse), poivre, piment.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
47
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
91/100
high reliability
Spreads. Ingredients: Olives noires* 84 % huile d’olive vierge extra* 9,5. % câpres* 3% sel basilic* romarin* marjolaine* correcteur d’acidité acide lactique *bio. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
40
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
77/100
high reliability
Spreads. Ingredients: Olives vertes* (77,4%), huile d'olive vierge extra* (15%), câpres* (4%), correcteur d'acidité: acide lactique, thym*, romarin*. *Ingrédients biologiques.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
40
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
88/100
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 0 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g. · Kiudainesisaldus jääb alla tugeva riskisignaali lävendi 1.5 g/100 g. · Leitud rafineeritud süsivesiku markerid: maisitärklis.
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 0 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g. · Kiudainesisaldus jääb alla tugevama alamsignaali lävendi 1.5 g/100 g. · Leitud rafineeritud süsivesiku markerid: maisitärklis.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage