Name: Pfiff Carrot & celery fingers
Brand: Pfiff
SKU: 20168094

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryErdnuss Flips

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity200 g

PackagingPlastique

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Maisgrieß 60%, gemahlene Erdnüsse 33%, Sonnenblumenöl 5%, Meersalz. Trocken lagern, vor Wärme und Sonnenlicht schützen. Ⓒ Amuse-gueule salé à base de maïs et de cacahuètes Ingrédients: semoule de maïs 60%, cacahuètes moulues 33%, huile de tour - nesol 5%, sel marin. À conserver à l'abri de la chaleur, de l'humidité et de la lumière.

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

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 78/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

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

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (18 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.

Pfiff Jumbo Flips

Erdnuss Flips. Ingredients: IT Asiago Pressato DOP Consorzio Tutela del Formaggio Asiago Autorizzazione n. 75/05. Ingredienti: latte, sale, caglio. Crosta non edibile. Da consumarsi preferibilman. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

84/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Pfiff Jumbo Flips

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

84/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryErdnuss Flips

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity200 g

PackagingPlastique

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

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

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 78/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

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

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (18 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

Pfiff Carrot & celery fingers

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

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

Pfiff Jumbo Flips

Pfiff Carrot & celery fingers

Similar options worth comparing

Pfiff Jumbo Flips

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

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

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid