Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
73
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Protein / 100g
8.9 g
Sugar / 100g
2.1 g
Ingredient-level explanation
white wheat flour 480, water, yeast, iodized salt, unhydrogenated vegetable fats of palm, food vinegar, preservatives (calcium propionate, ascorbic acid), treated with alcohol of agricultural origin,
Food score panel
Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.
Nutrition score
73
/100
Nutrition profile
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 81/100
High reliability
The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
73/100
73
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Highly processed
Highly processed
34
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
51/100
51
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
90/100
90
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
Supports the assessment
Fiber (4.4 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium
Protein (8.9 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Uncertain area
Record completeness is 78%.
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low
Osaliselt hüdrogeenitud rasvade markerid viitavad võimalikule transrasvade riskile.
Kohe
Lühiajaline mõju ei pruugi olla tajutav, kuid marker annab tugeva ettevaatuse signaali.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kokkupuude transrasvadega seostub kõrgema südame-veresoonkonna riski profiiliga.
Loogika: Koostises esineb mustreid nagu 'partially hydrogenated' või 'hydrogenated vegetable fat'.
Signaalid: Leitud transrasva riski markerid: hydrogenated vegetable fat.
Kategooria näitab koostiseriski, mitte individuaalset meditsiinilist seisundit.
See märk kuvatakse harvem, kuid selle olemasolul on vanemale kasulik selge kvaliteedimärkus.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kasutab seda eeskätt hariva pika vaate signaalina, mis toetab parema rasvaprofiiliga valikute eelistamist.
Kohe
Vahetu mõju ei pruugi olla märgatav.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kokkupuude võib liikuda ebasoodsamas riskisuunas.
Põhineb tugeval institutsionaalsel tõendusel transrasvade kahjulikkuse kohta.
Signaalid: Leitud transrasva markerid: hydrogenated vegetable fat.