Blédina Mousseline de panais poisson · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Blédina Mousseline de panais poisson packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Blédina Mousseline de panais poisson

Name: Blédina Mousseline de panais poisson
Brand: Blédina
SKU: 3041091001627

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Signal unavailable

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Blédina Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

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

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (30 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

CategoryFood

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity400 g (2 x 200 g)

PackagingSec, Bol plastique, Couvercle plastique, Etui en carton, Opercule plastique

OriginsNon indiqué

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

De savoureux panais 29,2% - des pommes de terre 27,1 % - de l'eau de cuisson - du _poisson_ 9,38 % (POISSON)- des oignons - des carottes - de la crème (_LAIT_) - un filet d'huiles végétales (olive, colza, tournesol) - de l'échalote - de l'amidon de mais - des épinards - un peu de thym - une touche de laurier - un soupçon de poivre noir

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

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 89/100

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

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

74/100

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (30 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

Good Goût Haricot vert boeuf

Food. Ingredients: 70% haricots verts bio, eau, 8% viande de boeuf bio, 2.5% raisins secs bio, 1% échalotes bio, thym bio, huile de tournesol bio.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

86/100

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

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

74/100

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.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Good Gout Brassé Banane Citron-Good Gout-90g

Food. Ingredients: 55% laits fermentés bio, 41% bananes bio, 2,5% farine de riz bio, 1,5% jus de citron bio, jus de citron bio concentré.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

84/100

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

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

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.

Good Gout Le Petit Déj Fraise 70g

Food. Ingredients: 59,5% bananes bio, 30% fraises bio, 6% jus de citron bio, 3% huiles végétales bio (tournesol oléique, colza, tournesol, lin, chanvre) et huile marine bio, 1% farine de lin bio, 0,5% farine de sésame bio, jus de citron concentré bio. Peut contenir des traces de fruits à coques.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

86/100

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

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

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

Good Goût Good Goût Lait de suite bio

Food. Ingredients: Lactosérum déminéralisé*, lait entier (20%)*, huiles végétales* (huile de tournesol*, huile de colza*), lactose*, lait écrémé*, maltodextrines*, huile de poisson, minéraux (carbonate de calcium, citrate de calcium, chlorure de sodium, chlorure de potassium, citrate de magnésium, phosphate de potassium, phosphate de calcium, pyrophosphate de fer, citrate de potassium, sulfate de zinc, sulfate de cuivre, sulfate de manganèse, iodure de potassium, sélénite de sodium), vitamines (C, E, PP, D3, B5, A, B1, K1, B6, B12, B9, B8, B2), émulsifiant : lécithine, antioxydant : extrait riche en tocophérols. *Ingrédients issus de l'agriculture biologiques. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

79/100

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

Very 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

88/100

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

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (30 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

CategoryFood

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity400 g (2 x 200 g)

PackagingSec, Bol plastique, Couvercle plastique, Etui en carton, Opercule plastique

OriginsNon indiqué

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

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

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 89/100

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

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

74/100

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (30 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

Good Goût Haricot vert boeuf

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

86/100

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

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

74/100

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.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Good Gout Brassé Banane Citron-Good Gout-90g

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

84/100

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

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

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.

Good Gout Le Petit Déj Fraise 70g

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

86/100

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

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

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

Good Goût Good Goût Lait de suite bio

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

79/100

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

Very 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

88/100

Label quality

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

Blédina Mousseline de panais poisson

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

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Good Goût Haricot vert boeuf

Good Gout Brassé Banane Citron-Good Gout-90g

Good Gout Le Petit Déj Fraise 70g

Good Goût Good Goût Lait de suite bio

Blédina Mousseline de panais poisson

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

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Good Goût Haricot vert boeuf

Good Gout Brassé Banane Citron-Good Gout-90g

Good Gout Le Petit Déj Fraise 70g

Good Goût Good Goût Lait de suite bio

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid