Fixin's Field Peas With Snaps · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Fixin's Field Peas With Snaps

Name: Fixin's Field Peas With Snaps
Brand: Fixin's
SKU: 0696633800201

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 Fixin's Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (3.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

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 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (23 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality51/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

97 kcal

Protein / 100g

5.31 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Field peas with bean snaps, water, tomato paste, bacon rendering [bacon fat cured with: water, salt, sugar, sodium phosphate, sodium erythorbate, sodium nitrite, may contain: brown sugar, smoke flavoring, potassium chloride, flavorings.], onions, salt.

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 71/100

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 47/100

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

71/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

51/100

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 (3.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (23 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 33%.
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, category, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (3.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

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 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (23 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality51/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

97 kcal

Protein / 100g

5.31 g

Sugar / 100g

0 g

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

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 71/100

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 47/100

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

71/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

51/100

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 (3.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (23 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 33%.
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, category, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Fixin's Field Peas With Snaps

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Fixin's Field Peas With Snaps

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitritid

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs