Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
71
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
36 kcal
Protein / 100g
0 g
Sugar / 100g
0 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Mushrooms, water, vinegar, soybean oil, olive oil, spices, salt, lemon juice, 1/10 of 1% benzoate of soda, sodium bisulfite (maintains color).
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
71
/100
Nutrition profile
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
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
71/100
71
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
69/100
69
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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (19 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
Related products
Snacks. Ingredients: Olives, water, minced pimiento, salt, vermouth, lactic acid, sodium alginate, guar gum, potassium sorbate (a preservative), calcium chloride.. 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
63/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Snacks. Ingredients: Onions, water, vermouth, distilled vinegar, salt, sodium bisulfite added as a color stabilizer.. 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
63/100
medium reliability
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
nutrition score
Score summary
73
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
high reliability
Snacks. Ingredients: Duck eggs, salt, water, tea leave sodium carbonate.. 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
63/100
medium reliability
Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud viitavad toidule, mis toetab nõrgemalt täiskõhutunnet.
Kohe
Võib põhjustada kiiremat glükoosikõikumist ja varasemat näljatunnet.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine võib halvendada üldist toidukvaliteeti ja seostub ebasoodsama ainevahetusprofiiliga.
Loogika: fiber100g < 1.5 g/100 g või fiber100g < 3 g/100 g koos rafineeritud süsivesikute markeritega.
Signaalid: Kiudained 0 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g. · Kiudainesisaldus jääb alla tugeva riskisignaali lävendi 1.5 g/100 g.
Riskisignaal sõltub kogu menüü kiudainete tasemest, mitte ainult ühest tootest.
Madal kiudainesisaldus on lapse vaates oluline, sest see mõjutab nii täiskõhutunnet kui ka seedimise mugavust.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle, et aidata vanemal hoida lapse menüüs rohkem täistera, kaunvilju, puu- ja köögivilju.
Kohe
Võimalik on kiirem näljatunde taastumine või raskem seedimine.
Pikemas vaates
Võib vähendada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti ja hoida kiudainete tarbimise püsivalt liiga madalal.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO süsivesikute kvaliteedi ja kiudainete soovitused.
Signaalid: Kiudained 0 g/100 g jäävad alla üldlävendi 3 g/100 g. · Kiudainesisaldus jääb alla tugevama alamsignaali lävendi 1.5 g/100 g.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage