Renaissance Food Group Llc Garden salad with homestyle ranch dressing · Nutrisiq

Nutrition snapshot

Renaissance Food Group Llc Garden salad with homestyle ranch dressing

Name: Renaissance Food Group Llc Garden salad with homestyle ranch dressing
Brand: Renaissance Food Group Llc
SKU: 0826766141036

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Low signal

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Renaissance Food Group Llc Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as karageenaan, guarkummi, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (61 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

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

CategorySnacks

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

100

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

89 kcal

Protein / 100g

1.23 g

Sugar / 100g

2.15 g

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Romaine lettuce, iceberg lettuce, dressing (canola oil, low fat buttermilk [skim milk, whey, water, skim milk solids, whey solids, corn starch, tapioca starch, disodium phosphate, carrageenan gum, locust bean gum, culture], water, egg yolk, non fat sour cream [cultured skim milk, corn starch, tapioca starch, carrageenan gum, locust bean gum], distilled vinegar, salt, natural flavor, sugar, dried garlic, dried onion, spices, modified corn starch, dried green onion, lactic acid, xanthan gum, guar gum), grape tomatoes, broccoli, cucumber, yellow bell pepper, carrots, red onion.

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 71/100

Quite good

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 63/100

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

71/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

64/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Formulation markers such as karageenaan, guarkummi, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (61 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
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Snacks. Ingredients: Olives, water, minced pimiento, salt, vermouth, lactic acid, sodium alginate, guar gum, potassium sorbate (a preservative), calcium chloride.. Evidence quality: medium

53/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

62/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Snacks. Ingredients: Onions, water, vermouth, distilled vinegar, salt, sodium bisulfite added as a color stabilizer.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

63/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

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

73/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

Snacks. Ingredients: Duck eggs, salt, water, tea leave sodium carbonate.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

70/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Signal classes

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as karageenaan, guarkummi, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (61 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

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

CategorySnacks

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

100

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

89 kcal

Protein / 100g

1.23 g

Sugar / 100g

2.15 g

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

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 71/100

Quite good

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 63/100

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

71/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

64/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Formulation markers such as karageenaan, guarkummi, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (61 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
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Snacks. Ingredients: Olives, water, minced pimiento, salt, vermouth, lactic acid, sodium alginate, guar gum, potassium sorbate (a preservative), calcium chloride.. Evidence quality: medium

53/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

62/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Snacks. Ingredients: Onions, water, vermouth, distilled vinegar, salt, sodium bisulfite added as a color stabilizer.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

63/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

73/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

Snacks. Ingredients: Duck eggs, salt, water, tea leave sodium carbonate.. Evidence quality: medium

55/100

nutrition score

Snacks

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

63/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

70/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Renaissance Food Group Llc Garden salad with homestyle ranch dressing

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

Renaissance Food Group Llc Garden salad with homestyle ranch dressing

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini olives

Soir'Ee Soir'ee, martini onions

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Inc. Pork shoulder in slices

Golden Pak Preserved Duck Egg

What lowers the rating

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs