Foods Pacific Limited Coconut Rice · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Foods Pacific Limited Coconut Rice

Name: Foods Pacific Limited Coconut Rice
Brand: Foods Pacific Limited
SKU: 0853087004313

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 Foods Pacific Limited Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (4.8 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (463 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
High saturated fat (6.4 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (12 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality56/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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 60/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Data confidence 39/100

Low reliability

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

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

60/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

56/100

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.

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (4.8 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

High sodium content (463 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
High saturated fat (6.4 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
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

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

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (4.8 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (463 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
High saturated fat (6.4 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (12 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

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

CategoryFood

Label information quality56/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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 60/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Data confidence 39/100

Low reliability

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

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

60/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

56/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (4.8 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

High sodium content (463 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
High saturated fat (6.4 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
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

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

Foods Pacific Limited Coconut Rice

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Foods Pacific Limited Coconut Rice

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Performance

What lowers the rating

Kõrge küllastunud rasva sisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kõrge küllastunud rasva taustsignaal