Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Horchata · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Horchata packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Horchata

Name: Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Horchata
Brand: Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv
SKU: 0729984000119

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 Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (13 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality78/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Performance

Energy / 100g

210 kcal

Nutrition score69/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Natural rice and sugar, water, extracts flavors of vanilla, cinnamon, and almond, and 0.1% sodium benzoate as preservative.

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 69/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 60/100

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

69/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

78/100

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

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (13 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 33%.
Impact: medium

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, fiber per 100g, protein per 100g, quantity, and category. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (13 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality78/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Performance

Energy / 100g

210 kcal

Nutrition score69/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Natural rice and sugar, water, extracts flavors of vanilla, cinnamon, and almond, and 0.1% sodium benzoate as preservative.

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 69/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 60/100

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

69/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

78/100

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

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (13 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 33%.
Impact: medium

Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Horchata

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Jarabes Veracruzanos Sa De Cv Horchata

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid