Vitafit Pur jus 4 agrumes · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Vitafit Pur jus 4 agrumes

Name: Vitafit Pur jus 4 agrumes
Brand: Vitafit
SKU: 20111478

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Signal unavailable

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Vitafit Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

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

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryJus

Label information quality78/100

Data confidence

Quantity1 L

PackagingBouteille en plastique

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 1

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

57,5 % jus de mandarine - 38 % jus d'orange - 4 % jus de pamplemousse - 0,5 % jus de citron - antioxydant (acide ascorbique)

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

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 67/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

78/100

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

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (14 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, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Kalao Thé kalao pêche

Jus. Ingredients: Eau,sucre,acidifiant : acide citrique,extrait de thé (1g/L), correcteur d'acidité : citrate trisomique, colorant : caramel, arôme naturel de pêche, anti-oxydant : acide ascorbique, arôme, conservateur : sorbate de potassium et E242. Evidence quality: medium

69/100

nutrition score

Jus

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Nutrition profileWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

62/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

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

Quite good

65/100

Label quality

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

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Spid

Jus. Ingredients: PRODUCED Eau, sucre, jus de fuit de la passion concentré, acidifiant : acide citrique, arômes, anti-oxygène : acide ascorbique. SANS COLORANT NI CONSERVATEUR INGREDIENTS: Water, sugar, passion fruit juice from concentrate, acid: citric acid, flavours, antioxidant: ascorbic acid. NO ADDED COLOURING OR PRESERVATIVE Pour un verre de 200 ml contenant 100 ml soid non. Evidence quality: high

45/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageJus

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Mixed

45/100

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

Andros Litchi

Jus. Ingredients: eau, purée de litchis 22%, sucre, jus de citrons 2,1%, purée def Valeurs autritionnelles moyennes pour 100 ml: Température conselle: recettes, tout simplement rafraichissantes ou dragon,antioxydant: acide ascorbique. Energie Materes grasses dont acides gras aturés 140 kJ/. Evidence quality: high

69/100

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

88/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

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.

Ferme fruitière de la Hautière Ferme fruitiere de la hautiere

Jus. Evidence quality: high

65/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageJus

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

77/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

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

Quite good

67/100

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

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryJus

Label information quality78/100

Data confidence

Quantity1 L

PackagingBouteille en plastique

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 1

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

57,5 % jus de mandarine - 38 % jus d'orange - 4 % jus de pamplemousse - 0,5 % jus de citron - antioxydant (acide ascorbique)

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

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 67/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

78/100

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

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (14 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

Kalao Thé kalao pêche

69/100

nutrition score

Jus

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Nutrition profileWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

62/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

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

Quite good

65/100

Label quality

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

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Spid

45/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageJus

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Mixed

45/100

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

Andros Litchi

69/100

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

88/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

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.

Ferme fruitière de la Hautière Ferme fruitiere de la hautiere

Jus. Evidence quality: high

65/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageJus

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

77/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

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

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

Vitafit Pur jus 4 agrumes

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

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

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Kalao Thé kalao pêche

Open Food Facts Spid

Andros Litchi

Ferme fruitière de la Hautière Ferme fruitiere de la hautiere

Vitafit Pur jus 4 agrumes

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

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

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Kalao Thé kalao pêche

Open Food Facts Spid

Andros Litchi

Ferme fruitière de la Hautière Ferme fruitiere de la hautiere

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid