Brittany Records Emily G's, Three Pepper Relish · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Brittany Records Emily G's, Three Pepper Relish

Name: Brittany Records Emily G's, Three Pepper Relish
Brand: Brittany Records
SKU: 0705105065908

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Brittany Records Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (6.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sugar content (25 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (40 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

CategorySnacks

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Performance

Energy / 100g

219 kcal

Protein / 100g

6.25 g

Sugar / 100g

25 g

Nutrition score60/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Green bell peppers, sweet onions, roasted red peppers (sweet red peppers, water, salt, citric acid), red bell peppers, yellow bell peppers, vinegar, cabbage, cane sugar, garlic, worcestershire concentrate (vinegar, molasses, corn syrup, water, salt, caramel color, garlic powder, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor), salt, mustard seeds, xanthan gum, celery seeds, crushed red pepper and allspice

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 60/100

Quite good

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

How the separate signals line up

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

Nutrition profile

Quite good

60/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

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

Quite good

64/100

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 (6.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (25 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
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

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Snacks. Ingredients: Olives, water, minced pimiento, salt, vermouth, lactic acid, sodium alginate, guar gum, potassium sorbate (a preservative), calcium chloride.. Evidence quality: medium

53/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Very highly 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

62/100

Label quality

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

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Snacks. Ingredients: Onions, water, vermouth, distilled vinegar, salt, sodium bisulfite added as a color stabilizer.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Highly 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

63/100

Label quality

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

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

Snacks. Ingredients: Romaine lettuce, chicken breast (chicken breast with rib meat, water, maltodextrin, yeast extract, spices, salt, corn starch, sugar, dextrose, caramel color, dehydrated parsley, dehydrated green onion, turmeric, tapioca maltodextrin, mushroom extract, extractives of paprika, silicon dioxide (anticaking agent), lemon juice concentrate, vinegar, rice starch, natural flavor), ginger soy vinaigrette {water, soy sauce [water, wheat, soybeans, salt, alcohol (to retain freshness), vinegar, lactic acid], corn syrup, canola oil, sugar, red wine vinegar, cider vinegar, ginger puree, molasses, distilled vinegar, garlic puree, sesame seed, xanthan gum, onion powder, dehydrated garlic}, mandarin orange (mandarin orange segments, water, sugar, citric acid), napa cabbage, wonton strips [enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), canola oil, cottonseed oil, water, corn starch, salt, eggs, enzymes, annatto, turmeric], bell pepper, green cabbage, edamame, red cabbage.. Evidence quality: high

73/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Very highly 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

Strong

79/100

Label quality

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

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

Snacks. Ingredients: Duck eggs, salt, water, tea leave sodium carbonate.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Highly 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

70/100

Label quality

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

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (6.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sugar content (25 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (40 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

CategorySnacks

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Performance

Energy / 100g

219 kcal

Protein / 100g

6.25 g

Sugar / 100g

25 g

Nutrition score60/100 · Grade C

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 60/100

Quite good

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

How the separate signals line up

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

Nutrition profile

Quite good

60/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

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

Quite good

64/100

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 (6.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (25 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
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

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Snacks. Ingredients: Olives, water, minced pimiento, salt, vermouth, lactic acid, sodium alginate, guar gum, potassium sorbate (a preservative), calcium chloride.. Evidence quality: medium

53/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Very highly 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

62/100

Label quality

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

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Snacks. Ingredients: Onions, water, vermouth, distilled vinegar, salt, sodium bisulfite added as a color stabilizer.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Highly 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

63/100

Label quality

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

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

73/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Very highly 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

Strong

79/100

Label quality

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

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

Snacks. Ingredients: Duck eggs, salt, water, tea leave sodium carbonate.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Highly 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

70/100

Label quality

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

Brittany Records Emily G's, Three Pepper Relish

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

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 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

Brittany Records Emily G's, Three Pepper Relish

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

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 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus lapse toidus

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs