Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
60
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Moderate signal
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
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
60
/100
Nutrition profile
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 63/100
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
60/100
60
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
Very weak
15/100
15
Product-specific environmental signal.
Label quality
Quite good
64/100
64
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
Declared Eco-Score E supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (3.6 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (607 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
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
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low
Related products
Food. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
65
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Food. Ingredients: _Homard_ 27 % (_homards_ entiers, têtes et pattes de homard), eau, _poisson_, légumes (carottes, oignons, _céleri_), concentré de tomates, _crème_ liquide (crème de _lait_, stabilisant, carraghénanes, émulsifiants : E472b), huile de tournesol, sucre, sel, ail, fécule de pomme de terre (traces possibles de _gluten_), cognac (cognac, sel, arôme naturel de poivre), épices.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
69
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
90/100
high reliability
Food. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
Food. Ingredients: crème (lait), rouget grondin 33%, berniques 17%, ail, beurre, whisky 1.2%, sel de Millac, persil, huile d'olive, algues (agar agar, wakamé), poivre. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
42
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high reliability
Energy / 100g
125 kcal
Protein / 100g
8.93 g
Sugar / 100g
3.57 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Tune flakes, tomato sauce (water, tomato paste), potatoes soy protein concentrate, soybean oil green pass, brown sugar, bell pepper, seasonings (onion, garlic, paprika), iodized salt, soy sauce (fermented soybeans, wheat, water, salt), monosodium glutamate and vitamin a.
Kõrge soolasisaldus viitab suuremale naatriumikoormusele, mida tasub igapäevases tarbimises piirata.
Kohe
Võib suurendada janu ja mõnel inimesel soodustada vedelikupeetust.
Pikemas vaates
Sage liigne soolatarbimine seostub kõrgema vererõhu riskiga.
Loogika: salt100g > 1.2 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Sool 1.5 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
Tegu on riskisignaaliga, mitte meditsiinilise hinnanguga. Oluline on kogu päeva soolakoormus.
Kui soola on palju, suunab rakendus vanema tähelepanu lapse päevase soolakoormuse ja maitseharjumuste kujunemisele.
Miks oluline
Lapse toitumises tasub väga soolaseid valikuid piirata, sest harjumused kujunevad varakult ja mõjutavad ka hilisemat eelistust.
Kohe
Võib tekkida tugevam janu ja soov juua rohkem.
Pikemas vaates
Võib toetada soolasema maitse eelistust ja ebasoodsat vererõhu riskisuunda.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO naatriumisoovitused (lastel kohandatakse vajadus allapoole).
Signaalid: Sool 1.5 g/100 g ületab lävendi 1.2 g/100 g.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage