Raynal et Roquelaure Bourguignon de Canard · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Raynal et Roquelaure Bourguignon de Canard packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Raynal et Roquelaure Bourguignon de Canard

Name: Raynal et Roquelaure Bourguignon de Canard
Brand: Raynal et Roquelaure
SKU: 3021690027303

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 Raynal et Roquelaure Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

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

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 (55 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

CategoryPantry

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity400 g e

PackagingConserve

OriginsFrance

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score67/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Viande de canard traitée en salaison et précuite 28,5 % (viande de canard, eau, sel, sucre, stabilisant : E451), pommes de terre 26 % (conservateur _disulfites_ de sodium) eau, carottes 11 %, vin rouge de Cahors 6 %, champignons de Paris 5 %, oignons, amidon de mais, farine de _blé_, graisse de canard, arômes naturels, huile de tournesol, extrait de malt d'_orge_ torréfié, Armagnac, sels minéraux de mer (sodium, potassium, magnésium, calcium), ail en poudre, thym, poivre.

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 67/100

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

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 88/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

67/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Weak

32/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (55 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.

Similar options worth comparing

Conserverie la Paimpolaise Couteaux à l'eau de vie de cidre

Pantry. Evidence quality: medium

44/100

nutrition score

Pantry

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

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

44/100

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.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

CFP Farci poitevin

Pantry. Ingredients: Choux, poireau, viande et gras de porc, _œuf_, épinard, oseille, oignon, fond de veau, ail, persil, ciboulette, farine de _blé_, sel, poivre.. 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

93/100

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

Weak

35/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

92/100

Label quality

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

K-YAM Oeufs De Saumon,

Pantry. Evidence quality: medium

36/100

nutrition score

Pantry

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

73/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

36/100

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

47/100

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.

K-YAM Oeufs de Truite pasteurisés casher

Pantry. Ingredients: oeufs de truite 96,5% (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sel.. Evidence quality: high

33/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

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

90/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

33/100

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

50/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

93/100

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

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 (55 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

CategoryPantry

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity400 g e

PackagingConserve

OriginsFrance

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score67/100 · Grade C

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 67/100

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

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 88/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

67/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Weak

32/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (55 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

Conserverie la Paimpolaise Couteaux à l'eau de vie de cidre

Pantry. Evidence quality: medium

44/100

nutrition score

Pantry

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

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

44/100

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.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

CFP Farci poitevin

Pantry. Ingredients: Choux, poireau, viande et gras de porc, _œuf_, épinard, oseille, oignon, fond de veau, ail, persil, ciboulette, farine de _blé_, sel, poivre.. 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

93/100

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

Weak

35/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

92/100

Label quality

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

K-YAM Oeufs De Saumon,

Pantry. Evidence quality: medium

36/100

nutrition score

Pantry

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

73/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

36/100

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

47/100

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.

K-YAM Oeufs de Truite pasteurisés casher

Pantry. Ingredients: oeufs de truite 96,5% (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sel.. Evidence quality: high

33/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

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

90/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

33/100

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

50/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

93/100

Label quality

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

Raynal et Roquelaure Bourguignon de Canard

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

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

Nutrition score 67/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Conserverie la Paimpolaise Couteaux à l'eau de vie de cidre

CFP Farci poitevin

K-YAM Oeufs De Saumon,

K-YAM Oeufs de Truite pasteurisés casher

Raynal et Roquelaure Bourguignon de Canard

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

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

Nutrition score 67/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Conserverie la Paimpolaise Couteaux à l'eau de vie de cidre

CFP Farci poitevin

K-YAM Oeufs De Saumon,

K-YAM Oeufs de Truite pasteurisés casher

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs