Farmwood Chicken breast tenders · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Farmwood Chicken breast tenders

Name: Farmwood Chicken breast tenders
Brand: Farmwood
SKU: 26117430

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 Farmwood Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Protein (15.60000038147 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

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.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (51 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality71/100

Data confidence

Quantity400g Frozen

PackagingBox, Frozen

OriginsAustralia

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

100

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

197 kcal

Protein / 100g

15.60000038147 g

Sugar / 100g

2.9000000953674 g

Nutrition score69/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Chicken-Breast (57%), Crumb (14%) Flour (_Wheat_, _Soy_) [Contains Vitamin (Thiamin)], Salt, Vegetable Oil, Yeast, Sugar, Wheat Gluten, Emulsifiers (471, 481, 472e) Natural Colours (100, 160c Contains _Soy_), Water, Vegetable. Oil (Contains Antioxidant (306)], Thickeners (1404, 1442, 412), _Wheat_ Starch, Raising Agents (451, 450, 500,541), Soy Protein, Vegetable Powders, Salt, Herbs, Ground And Extracted Spices.

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 69/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Weak

35/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

71/100

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 Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium
Protein (15.60000038147 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (51 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 89%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: fiber per 100g and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Food. Evidence quality: medium

27/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

32/100

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.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Food. Evidence quality: medium

27/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

32/100

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.

Salaison des Ballons Jambon sec

Food. Ingredients: Jambon de porc origine UE, sel, dextrose, conservateur : salpêtre, saccharose, épices, arômes naturels.. Evidence quality: high

27/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

26/100

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.

Open Food Facts 20 tranches jambon sec

Food. Evidence quality: medium

27/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

32/100

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

Supporting factors

Protein (15.60000038147 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

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.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (51 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality71/100

Data confidence

Quantity400g Frozen

PackagingBox, Frozen

OriginsAustralia

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

100

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

197 kcal

Protein / 100g

15.60000038147 g

Sugar / 100g

2.9000000953674 g

Nutrition score69/100 · Grade B

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 69/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

69/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Weak

35/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

71/100

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 Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium
Protein (15.60000038147 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (51 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 89%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: fiber per 100g and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Food. Evidence quality: medium

27/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

32/100

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.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Food. Evidence quality: medium

27/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

32/100

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.

Salaison des Ballons Jambon sec

Food. Ingredients: Jambon de porc origine UE, sel, dextrose, conservateur : salpêtre, saccharose, épices, arômes naturels.. Evidence quality: high

27/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

26/100

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.

Open Food Facts 20 tranches jambon sec

Food. Evidence quality: medium

27/100

nutrition score

Food

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

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

Weak

32/100

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.

Farmwood Chicken breast tenders

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Salaison des Ballons Jambon sec

Open Food Facts 20 tranches jambon sec

Farmwood Chicken breast tenders

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Open Food Facts Jambon sec

Salaison des Ballons Jambon sec

Open Food Facts 20 tranches jambon sec

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs