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 looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
73
/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
2 kcal
Protein / 100g
0 g
Sugar / 100g
0 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Carbonated water, aspartame natural flavor, citric acid, sodium benzonate (a preservative), sodium citrate.
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
73
/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
low
Data confidence
Data confidence 43/100
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
73/100
73
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Very highly processed
Very highly processed · Limited estimate
12
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
Mixed
56/100
56
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
No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
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
Mittesuhkrulised magusained võivad vähendada suhkrukoormust, kuid ei tähenda automaatselt tervislikku valikut.
Kohe
Mõnel kasutajal võib esineda magusaisu püsimist või kerget seedetrakti ebamugavust.
Pikemas vaates
Pikaajalised mõjud sõltuvad kasutusmustrist; seoseid käsitletakse pigem konteksti- kui absoluutse riskina.
Loogika: Koostises tuvastatakse magusained nagu aspartaam, sukraloos, atsesulfaam K, sahhariin või stevioolglükosiidid.
Signaalid: Leitud mittesuhkrulised magusained: aspartaam.
Kategooria on kontekstisignaal: tõlgendus sõltub toote üldisest koostisest ja kogu toitumismustrist.
Mittesuhkruliste magusainete märge tähendab, et toode vajab lapse puhul lisatõlgendust, mitte automaatset heakskiitu.
Miks oluline
Rakendus aitab vältida lihtsat järeldust, et "zero" = igapäevaselt parem valik. Otsus sõltub kogu toote koostisest ja tarbimismustrist.
Kohe
Mõju võib olla neutraalne, kuid magusa maitse harjumus võib püsida.
Pikemas vaates
Võib toetada harjumust eelistada püsivalt väga magusat maitseprofiili.
Põhineb WHO mittesuhkruliste magusainete juhisel: neid ei käsitleta esmase lahendusena kehakaalu või krooniliste riskide vähendamisel.
Signaalid: Leitud mittesuhkrulised magusained: aspartaam.