Open Food Facts 0851659003313 · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Open Food Facts 0851659003313

Name: Open Food Facts 0851659003313
Brand: Open Food Facts
SKU: 0851659003313

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 Open Food Facts Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (10.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (464 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
High saturated fat (5.43 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.

Need attention

Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.

What would improve the assessment

Environmental indication needs more packaging, origin, or declared environmental metadata.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signalSuppressed

Performance

Energy / 100g

391 kcal

Protein / 100g

17.4 g

Sugar / 100g

21.7 g

Nutrition score49/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

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 49/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 62/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

No reliable assessment

—

Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

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

Fiber (10.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sodium content (464 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
High saturated fat (5.43 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: ingredients or ingredients, NOVA group, category, packaging, origin, or ingredients, quantity, category, ingredients, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (10.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (464 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
High saturated fat (5.43 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.

Need attention

Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.

What would improve the assessment

Environmental indication needs more packaging, origin, or declared environmental metadata.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signalSuppressed

Performance

Energy / 100g

391 kcal

Protein / 100g

17.4 g

Sugar / 100g

21.7 g

Nutrition score49/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

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 49/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 62/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

No reliable assessment

—

Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

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

Fiber (10.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sodium content (464 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
High saturated fat (5.43 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

Open Food Facts 0851659003313

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 49/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Open Food Facts 0851659003313

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 49/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Kõrge küllastunud rasva sisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus lapse toidus

Kõrge küllastunud rasva taustsignaal