Search catalog

Tiradell Fusili Czirna · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Low signal

Tiradell Fusili Czirna

Name: Tiradell Fusili Czirna
Brand: Tiradell
SKU: 20143022

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Nutri-ScoreANOVA1

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:71%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (7.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Protein (21.2 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (100%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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 1 anchors the processing indicator.

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.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

347 kcal

Protein / 100g

21.2 g

Sugar / 100g

3.6 g

Nutrition score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Chickpea flour

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality93/100

Data confidence

Quantity250g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

76/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 76/100

Strong

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

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Minimally processed

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

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

93/100

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
Fiber (7.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

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

Similar options worth comparing

Elovena

Jugu sitruuna

Plant-based. Ingredients: Kaurapohja (vesi, gluteeniton kaura 8%), sokeri, sitruuna 4,2% (tiivisteestä), tärkkelys (peruna, maissi), rapsiöljy, sakeuttamisaineet (pektiini, gellaanikumi), sitruskuitu, perunaproteiini, kalsium, happamuudensäätöaine (natriumsitraatti), väri (beetakaroteeni, paprikaväri), suola, aromit, vitamiinit (B2, B12, D2), hapate. Gluteeniton, maidoton, vegaaninen.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

First Price

Pickled onions

Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreCPlant-based

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Saarioinen

6412000016389

Plant-based. Ingredients: Sokeri, mansikka, vesi, sakeuttamisaine (E440), happa muudensäätöaine (E 330), säilöntäaine (E 202). 100 g tuotetta sisältää 35 g marjaa.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Salvest

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Plant-based. Ingredients: Hapukapsas (48%), kartul, porgand, odrakruup, sibul, rapsiöli, sool, suhkur, maitsetaimed, vürtsid.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA3Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (7.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Protein (21.2 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (100%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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 1 anchors the processing indicator.

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.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

347 kcal

Protein / 100g

21.2 g

Sugar / 100g

3.6 g

Nutrition score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Chickpea flour

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality93/100

Data confidence

Quantity250g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

76/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 76/100

Strong

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

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Minimally processed

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

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

93/100

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
Fiber (7.2 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

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

Tiradell Fusili Czirna

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Tiradell Fusili Czirna

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid