Joseph Favrichon Matimalt · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Joseph Favrichon Matimalt

Name: Joseph Favrichon Matimalt
Brand: Joseph Favrichon
SKU: 3111900300330

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 Joseph Favrichon 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.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (23 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

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

CategoryGrains

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity125g

PackagingBoîte métallique

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Performance

Nutrition score67/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Chicorée*, seigle*, orge*, malt d'orge*, figues*, glands*. *Ingrédients issu de l'agriculture biologique. En gras: allergènes. Peut contenir des traces de lait NL Gebrande surrogaat. Ingrediënten: cicorei* roggen*, gerst*, gerstmout*, vijgen*, eikel*. * Ingrediënten afkomstig uit de biologische landbouw. In vet: allergenen. Kan sporen van melk bevatten.

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 80/100

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

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

Environmental signal

Quite good

71/100

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 (23 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.

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.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (23 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

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

CategoryGrains

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity125g

PackagingBoîte métallique

Ownership

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 2

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 80/100

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

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

Environmental signal

Quite good

71/100

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 (23 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

Joseph Favrichon Matimalt

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

Nutrition score 67/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Joseph Favrichon Matimalt

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

Nutrition score 67/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid