Need attention
- High sugar content (47.5 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
What would improve the assessment
- Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.
Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
51
/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
200 kcal
Protein / 100g
0 g
Sugar / 100g
47.5 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Cherries (may include crushed cherry pits), sugar, corn starch, water, citric acid. cherry juice concentrate, pure almond extract, distilled vinegar, salt.
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
51
/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 61/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.
Nutrition profile
Mixed
51/100
51
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
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
68/100
68
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
High sugar content (47.5 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (18 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
Related products
Baking Decorations. Ingredients: Sugar, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (soybean, cottonseed), water, corn syrup, modified cornstarch, salt, cornstarch, mono - and diglycerides, natural & artificial flavor, potassium sorbate (preservative), polysorbate 60, citric acid, yellow 5 lake, blue 1 lake.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
42
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
55/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Baking Decorations. Ingredients: Cherries, water, sugar, citric acid, natural flavor, beta carotene.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
55
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
61/100
medium reliability
Baking Decorations. Ingredients: Cherries, water, sugar, vegetable and fruit concentrate (color), natural flavor.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
53
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
57/100
medium reliability
Baking Decorations. Ingredients: Peaches, sugar, spices, lemon juice.. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
51
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
57/100
medium reliability
Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus võib tõsta energiakoormust ilma püsivat täiskõhutunnet pakkumata.
Kohe
Võib tekitada kiire energiakõikumise ning varasema näljatunde või suurema janu.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsale kehakaalu ja ainevahetuse profiilile.
Loogika: Joogid: sugars100g > 5 g/100 ml. Toidud: sugars100g > 10 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Suhkur 47.5 g/100 g ületab toidule rakendatud lävendi 10 g/100 g.
See on riskisignaal, mitte diagnoos. Mõju sõltub kogusest, tarbimissagedusest ja kogu toitumismustrist.
Kui toidus on palju vabu suhkruid, võib see lapse puhul nõrgendada täiskõhutunnet ja toetada sagedamat magusaisu.
Miks oluline
Rakendus tõstab selle esile, sest laste toitumises mõjutab sage kõrge suhkrukoormus nii päevast söömismustrit kui ka hambatervise riski.
Kohe
Võib tekkida varasem uus näljatunne või suurem janu pärast magusat toidukorda.
Pikemas vaates
Võib kujundada magusamaid maitse-eelistusi ja vähendada menüü üldist toitumiskvaliteeti.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO soovitab lastel piirata vabu suhkruid (kaariese ja liigse energiatarbimise riskisuund).
Signaalid: Suhkur 47.5 g/100 g ületab toidule rakendatud lävendi 10 g/100 g.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage