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
321 kcal
Protein / 100g
21.43 g
Sugar / 100g
10.71 g
Ingredient-level explanation
Chick peas, onion, parsley, garlic, spices.
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
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Processing
Weakest area
Environmental signal
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
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
Minimally processed
Minimally processed
100
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Weak
32/100
32
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
63/100
63
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 NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (10.7 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Protein (21.43 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low
Pulls the score down
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (13 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
Meat Alternatives. Ingredients: Lentilles vertes, semoule de maïs, semoule de blé, flocons de blé, carottes, huile de tournesol, chou fleur, farine de blé, oignons, sel marin, ail, herbes de Provence, menthe, cumin, poivre. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
76
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
86/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Meat Alternatives. Ingredients: Tofu* 64% (eau, _soja_*, gélifiants (chlorure de calcium, chlorure de magnésium (nigari))), poireaux* 18%, flocons d'avoine*, oignons* 7%, sel, huile de tournesol*, muscade", poivre*. *Ingrédients issus de l'agriculture biologique. Peut contenir des traces de graines de sésame, produits laitiers, céleri, moutarde et fruits à coque.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
65
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
93/100
high reliability
Meat Alternatives. Ingredients: _tofu*_ 68% (eau, _soja*_ , gélifiants : chlorure de calcium, chlorure de magnésium (nigari)), pomme de terre* 14%, _bleu*_ (lait de vache entier pasteurisé*, présure végétale, _ferments lactiques_, sel) 12%, flocons d'avoine*, persil*, huile de tournesol*, sel, poivre*.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
65
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
Meat Alternatives. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
50/100
medium reliability
Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus võib tõsta energiakoormust ilma püsivat täiskõhutunnet pakkumata.
Kohe
Võib tekitada kiire energiakõikumise ning varasema näljatunde või suurema janu.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsale kehakaalu ja ainevahetuse profiilile.
Loogika: Joogid: sugars100g > 5 g/100 ml. Toidud: sugars100g > 10 g/100 g.
Signaalid: Suhkur 10.7 g/100 g ületab toidule rakendatud lävendi 10 g/100 g.
See on riskisignaal, mitte diagnoos. Mõju sõltub kogusest, tarbimissagedusest ja kogu toitumismustrist.
Kui toidus on palju vabu suhkruid, võib see lapse puhul nõrgendada täiskõhutunnet ja toetada sagedamat magusaisu.
Miks oluline
Rakendus tõstab selle esile, sest laste toitumises mõjutab sage kõrge suhkrukoormus nii päevast söömismustrit kui ka hambatervise riski.
Kohe
Võib tekkida varasem uus näljatunne või suurem janu pärast magusat toidukorda.
Pikemas vaates
Võib kujundada magusamaid maitse-eelistusi ja vähendada menüü üldist toitumiskvaliteeti.
Põhineb tugeval rahvusvahelisel juhisel: WHO soovitab lastel piirata vabu suhkruid (kaariese ja liigse energiatarbimise riskisuund).
Signaalid: Suhkur 10.7 g/100 g ületab toidule rakendatud lävendi 10 g/100 g.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage