Ofterdinger Ensalada de bulgur con garbanzos, guindillas y plantas aromáticas · Nutrisiq

Ofterdinger Ensalada de bulgur con garbanzos, guindillas y plantas aromáticas packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Ofterdinger Ensalada de bulgur con garbanzos, guindillas y plantas aromáticas

Name: Ofterdinger Ensalada de bulgur con garbanzos, guindillas y plantas aromáticas
Brand: Ofterdinger
SKU: 2000000043574

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 Ofterdinger Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (42 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

CategorySalads

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity200 g

PackagingPlástico, Recipiente, Atmósfera protectora, Refrigerado, Tarrina, V gama

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Nutrition score58/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

bulgur cocido (48%) (agua, _trigo_ precocido), garbanzos (11%), alubias rojas (11%). perejil, guindillas (5%), aceite de colza, pimiento (3%), cebolla, vinagre de manzana, sal, azúcar, vinagre de alcohol, especias, almidón, zumo de limón concentrado, pasta de pimiento, acidulante: ácido acético.

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 58/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 83/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

58/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

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 broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (42 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Oceane Salade, Variété Sucrine, Catégorie 1

Salads. Ingredients: salade. Evidence quality: high

73/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

83/100

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

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Marque Repère Mêlée douce

Salads. Ingredients: Laitue 45 % minimum, feuille de chêne 10 % minimum, lollo rouge 10 % minimum. Evidence quality: high

76/100

nutrition score

Balanced nutritionLower processing burden

Score summary

Nutrition score

Strong

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

85/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

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

Monoprix Salade

Salads. Ingredients: préparation à base de pois chiche au fruit de la passion 25% [pois chiche 12%, fromage blanc 8,3%, pâte de sésame, jus de citron à base de concentré, purée de fruit de la passion sucrée (us de fruit de la passion 0,7%, sucre, sirop de alucosefructose), sel, curcuma, antioxydant : E385] - boulgour cuit 25% (blé dir concassé, eauè - pois chiche 8,4%-tomate-courgette-carotte-fève-oi non rouge-abricots sec , 1 (abricot sec 1 ,9%, farine de riz, conservateur : E220 (sulfies)] - coriandre - huile d'olive vierge extra - huile de colza - basilic - moutarde de 'Dijon [eau, graines de moutarde, vinaigre, sel, conservateur : E222 (sulfites)] - échalote - jus de citron à base de concentré - sel - cumin - sucre - poivre - amidon transtormé (dont sulfites) - épaississants : E401 et E415 - antioxydant : Z85. Fabriqué dans un atelier qui utilise fruits à coque, soja, oeuf, crustacés, mollusques, céleri, )0isson.. Evidence quality: high

67/100

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

81/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

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

81/100

Label quality

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

Open Food Facts Coleslow

Salads. Ingredients: choux blancs 40% - carottes 28% - eau - huile de colza - oignons 4% - sucre liquide - moutarde de Dijon (eau - graines de moutarde - vinaigre - sel) - vinaigre d'alcool - euf entier liquide pasteurisé salé - sel - amidon transformé de pomme de terre - épaississants: gomme xanthane, gomme guar - antioxydant : acide ascorbique - arôme naturel de poivre - conservateur : sorbate de potassium. Traces de céréales contenant du gluten, crustacé, poisson, lait, céleri, mollusque. Les informations en gras sont destinées aux personnes allergiques ou intolérantes.. Evidence quality: high

67/100

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

85/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

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

88/100

Label quality

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

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (42 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

CategorySalads

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity200 g

PackagingPlástico, Recipiente, Atmósfera protectora, Refrigerado, Tarrina, V gama

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Nutrition score58/100 · Grade C

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 58/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 83/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

58/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

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

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (42 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Similar options worth comparing

Oceane Salade, Variété Sucrine, Catégorie 1

Salads. Ingredients: salade. Evidence quality: high

73/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

83/100

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

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Marque Repère Mêlée douce

Salads. Ingredients: Laitue 45 % minimum, feuille de chêne 10 % minimum, lollo rouge 10 % minimum. Evidence quality: high

76/100

nutrition score

Balanced nutritionLower processing burden

Score summary

Nutrition score

Strong

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

85/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

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

Monoprix Salade

67/100

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

81/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

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

81/100

Label quality

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

Open Food Facts Coleslow

67/100

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

85/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

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

88/100

Label quality

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

Ofterdinger Ensalada de bulgur con garbanzos, guindillas y plantas aromáticas

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 58/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Oceane Salade, Variété Sucrine, Catégorie 1

Marque Repère Mêlée douce

Monoprix Salade

Open Food Facts Coleslow

Ofterdinger Ensalada de bulgur con garbanzos, guindillas y plantas aromáticas

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 58/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Oceane Salade, Variété Sucrine, Catégorie 1

Marque Repère Mêlée douce

Monoprix Salade

Open Food Facts Coleslow

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid