Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc Hommus · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc Hommus

Name: Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc Hommus
Brand: Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc
SKU: 0644808001113

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Low signal

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (10 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (21 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryCondiments

Label information quality70/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Energy / 100g

167 kcal

Protein / 100g

10 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Chick peas, tahini (sesame seeds), lemon juice, garlic, salt, citric acid, olive oil

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 73/100

Quite good

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

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

70/100

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

Fiber (10 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
A long ingredient list (21 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

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Fleur de sel nature

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenCondiments

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenCondiments

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

74/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenCondiments

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

74/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Pesto

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium

15/100

nutrition score

Condiments

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

15/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (10 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (21 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryCondiments

Label information quality70/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Energy / 100g

167 kcal

Protein / 100g

10 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Chick peas, tahini (sesame seeds), lemon juice, garlic, salt, citric acid, olive oil

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 73/100

Quite good

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

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

70/100

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

Fiber (10 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
A long ingredient list (21 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

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Fleur de sel nature

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenCondiments

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenCondiments

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

74/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenCondiments

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

74/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Pesto

Condiments. Evidence quality: medium

15/100

nutrition score

Condiments

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

15/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc Hommus

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

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 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Fleur de sel nature

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Open Food Facts Pesto

Asmar's Mediterranean Foods Inc Hommus

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

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 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Fleur de sel nature

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Open Food Facts Sel rose de l'himalaya

Open Food Facts Pesto

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid