Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
80
/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
150 kcal
Protein / 100g
12.5 g
Sugar / 100g
2.5 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Water, oat fiber, vital wheat gluten, enriched bleached wheat flour (niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), soy flour, canola oil, calcium propionate*, dried honey powder, natural flavor, ancient flour blend (amaranth flour, barley flour, quinoa, kamut,spelt, teff), lecithin, mono-diglycerides, salt, fumaric acid*, guar gum, potassium sorbate*, xanthan gum, baking powder (monocalcium phosphate, sodium bicarbonates, cornstarch), enzymes, sodium metabisulfite*.
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
80
/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
medium
Data confidence
Data confidence 57/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.
Nutrition profile
Strong
80/100
80
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Very highly processed
Very highly processed
12
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
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
Fiber (17.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid, letsitiin, guarkummi, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (62 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
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low
Related products
Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
42
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
67
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
53
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
38
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
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.
NOVA 4 viitab ulatuslikule tööstuslikule töötlemisele ja suuremale formulatsiooni keerukusele.
Kohe
Võib soodustada ülesöömist, sest maitse- ja tekstuuriprofiil on sageli väga stimuleeriv.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele tervisetulemitele, kuid mõju sõltub toitumismustrist.
Loogika: novaGroup === 4.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud klass).
NOVA klass on tarbimismustri signaal ega tähenda üksiku toote põhjal automaatset diagnoosi.
Ultra-töödeldud märge aitab vanemal hinnata, kas toode sobib igapäevaseks valikuks või pigem harvemaks.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle lisakontekstina, et toetada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti, mitte anda mustvalget otsust ühe toote kohta.
Kohe
Võib tekkida kiire söömise ja varasema uue isu muster.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kasutus võib nihutada menüüd vähem täisväärtusliku toiduprofiili poole.
Põhineb peamiselt epidemioloogilisel ja institutsionaalsel kirjandusel ultra-töödeldud toitude tarbimismustrite kohta.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud profiil).
Töödeldud liha ja nitritite hariv signaal
C-kiht: hariv kontekstMõõdukas teaduslik alusKui toode kuulub töödeldud liha profiili, kuvame selle vanemale pika vaate hariva märkusena.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage