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.


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
Ingredient-level explanation
Eau - haricots verts coupés 28% (origine France) - flageolets verts 22% (origine France) - sel.
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 88/100
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
Strong
83/100
83
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
86/100
86
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
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
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
Related products

Pantry. Ingredients: Courgettes en rondelles 47% - jus de tomates 17% - oignons - tomates 8,7% - purée de tomates double concentrée 5,7% - huile de tournesol - huile d'olive vierge 1,9% - tomates séchées 1.5% - sucre - sel - ail 0,6% - basilic - amidon modifié de maïs - acidifiants: acide lactique, acide citrique - épices - jus concentré de citron.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
75
Nutrition score
environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
90/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

Pantry. Ingredients: Pois chiches - eau - sel. Traces de soja et gluten.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
80
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
80/100
high reliability

Pantry. Ingredients: Eau - haricots blancs - sel. Traces de soja.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
76
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
90/100
high reliability
Selle toote puhul ei aktiveerunud laste-keskseid riskisignaale. See ei asenda nõustamist; mõju sõltub kogusest, sagedusest ja üldisest toitumismustrist.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage