Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
38
/100
Nutrition interpretation
High signal
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Ingredient-level explanation
Enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), canola and/or sunflower oil, salt, yeast, 2% or less of high fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, garlic powder, whey, parmesan cheese (part-skim milk, cheese cultures, salt, enzymes), onion powder, spices, dehydrated parsley, torula yeast, cultured whey, natural and artificial flavors (with milk, edta & bha [preservatives]), calcium propionate (preservative), citric acid, corn syrup solids, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, autolyzed yeast extract, sugar, caramel color, soy sauce solids (wheat, soybeans, salt, maltodextrin, caramel color), tamarinds, enzymes, ascorbic acid, tbhq (to preserve freshness).
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
38
/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 73/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.
Nutrition profile
Weak
38/100
38
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Very highly processed
Very highly processed
12
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Quite good
72/100
72
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
72/100
72
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
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, inosinaat, guanülaat support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high
Related products
Plant-based. Ingredients: Pommes de terre* (57,7%), huile de tournesol * (35%), fécule de pommes de terre*, sel, paprika* (1,7%), tomate*, oignon*, ail*.. 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
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
73
Nutrition score
environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de Goji.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
88/100
high reliability
Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de canneberge BIO, Jus de canne évaporé BIO, Huile de tournesol BIO (- de 1%). Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
44
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high reliability
Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitriti/nitraadi markerid viitavad kõrgema ettevaatuse vajadusele.
Kohe
Võib suurendada soola- ja säilitusainete koormust ühes toidukorras.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele pikaajalistele tervisenäitajatele.
Loogika: Kategooria viitab töödeldud lihale või koostises/additiivides leidub E249, E250, E251, E252.
Signaalid: Koostises tuvastati markerid: nitraat.
See signaal ei asenda personaalset nõustamist. Tõlgendus sõltub tarbimissagedusest ja portsjoni suurusest.
NOVA 4 viitab ulatuslikule tööstuslikule töötlemisele ja suuremale formulatsiooni keerukusele.
Kohe
Võib soodustada ülesöömist, sest maitse- ja tekstuuriprofiil on sageli väga stimuleeriv.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele tervisetulemitele, kuid mõju sõltub toitumismustrist.
Loogika: novaGroup === 4.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud klass).
NOVA klass on tarbimismustri signaal ega tähenda üksiku toote põhjal automaatset diagnoosi.
Ultra-töödeldud märge aitab vanemal hinnata, kas toode sobib igapäevaseks valikuks või pigem harvemaks.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle lisakontekstina, et toetada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti, mitte anda mustvalget otsust ühe toote kohta.
Kohe
Võib tekkida kiire söömise ja varasema uue isu muster.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kasutus võib nihutada menüüd vähem täisväärtusliku toiduprofiili poole.
Põhineb peamiselt epidemioloogilisel ja institutsionaalsel kirjandusel ultra-töödeldud toitude tarbimismustrite kohta.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud profiil).
Töödeldud liha ja nitritite hariv signaal
C-kiht: hariv kontekstMõõdukas teaduslik alusKui toode kuulub töödeldud liha profiili, kuvame selle vanemale pika vaate hariva märkusena.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage