Supporting factors
- Fiber (3.6 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
- Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
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
375 kcal
Protein / 100g
12.5 g
Sugar / 100g
5.36 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Durum semolina (wheat), niacin, iron (ferrous sulfate), thiamine mononitrate (vitamin b1), riboflavin (vitamin b2), folic acid (vitamin b).
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 environmental signal needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Nutrition profile
Weakest area
Environmental signal
Data confidence
low
Data confidence
Data confidence 44/100
Low reliability
Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
71/100
71
Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.
Processing
Moderately processed
Moderately processed · Limited estimate
67
Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.
Environmental signal
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
62/100
62
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.
Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.
Score drivers
Supports the assessment
Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (3.6 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low
Pulls the score down
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (15 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 22%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
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.
Kui toode kuulub töödeldud liha profiili, kuvame selle vanemale pika vaate hariva märkusena.
Miks oluline
Sõnum on praktiline: sellised valikud sobivad pigem harvemaks, eriti kui lapsel koguneb menüüs palju soolaseid töödeldud tooteid.
Kohe
Võib kaasneda suurem janu ja soolakoormus samal päeval.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kasutus võib vähendada lapse menüü üldist toitumiskvaliteeti.
Põhineb IARC pikaajalise riski käsitlusel töödeldud lihatoodete kohta ning toitaineprofiili kontekstil.
Signaalid: Koostises tuvastati markerid: nitraat.