Cruscana Tomates & Olives · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Cruscana Tomates & Olives

Name: Cruscana Tomates & Olives
Brand: Cruscana
SKU: 3253331501051

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 Cruscana 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.
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (33 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategorySpreads

Label information quality81/100

Data confidence

Quantity150 g

PackagingPlastique,Barquette

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score55/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

black olives 31% (black olives, salt, stabiliser: ferrous gluconate e579), water, extra virgin olive oil, tomatoes 31% [rehydrated sun-dried tomatoes (sundried tomatoes, water, salt, acidifiers: citric acid, ascorbic acid, preservative: potassium sorbate), peeled tomatoes (tomatoes, acidifier: citric acid), tomato concentrate], garlic, salt, thickener: xanthan gum, cayenne pepper,

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 55/100

Mixed

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 90/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

81/100

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 (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (33 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, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier Langoustines aux brisures de truffes

Spreads. Ingredients: Crème, Langoustines 30%, aiglefin, sel de Millac, brisures de truffes noir 1%, huile d’olive, arôme truffe blanche, vinaigre d’alcool, algues (dulse), épaississant : agar (extrait d’algue). Evidence quality: high

40/100

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

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

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

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

90/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

La Paimpolaise Homard bleu à l'Armoricaine

Spreads. Ingredients: Chairs de _homard bleu_ 42 % (_crustacé_) (Homarus Gammarus), _crème_ (_lait_), _aiglefin_ (_poisson_), oignon, carotte, tomate, concentré de tomate, eau de vie de cidre, huile d'olive, sel de Millac, ail, _vin blanc_ (_sulfite_), algues (agar agar, dulse), poivre, piment.. Evidence quality: high

47/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

91/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

47/100

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

Quite good

60/100

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.

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives noires bio

Spreads. Ingredients: Olives noires* 84 % huile d’olive vierge extra* 9,5. % câpres* 3% sel basilic* romarin* marjolaine* correcteur d’acidité acide lactique *bio. Evidence quality: high

40/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

77/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

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

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives vertes

Spreads. Ingredients: Olives vertes* (77,4%), huile d'olive vierge extra* (15%), câpres* (4%), correcteur d'acidité: acide lactique, thym*, romarin*. *Ingrédients biologiques.. Evidence quality: high

40/100

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

88/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

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

Quite good

60/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

85/100

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.
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (33 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategorySpreads

Label information quality81/100

Data confidence

Quantity150 g

PackagingPlastique,Barquette

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score55/100 · 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 55/100

Mixed

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 90/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

81/100

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 (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (33 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

l'atelier du cuisinier Langoustines aux brisures de truffes

40/100

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

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

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

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

90/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

La Paimpolaise Homard bleu à l'Armoricaine

47/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

91/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

47/100

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

Quite good

60/100

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.

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives noires bio

Spreads. Ingredients: Olives noires* 84 % huile d’olive vierge extra* 9,5. % câpres* 3% sel basilic* romarin* marjolaine* correcteur d’acidité acide lactique *bio. Evidence quality: high

40/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

77/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

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

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives vertes

40/100

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

88/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

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

Quite good

60/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

85/100

Label quality

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

Cruscana Tomates & Olives

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 55/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier Langoustines aux brisures de truffes

La Paimpolaise Homard bleu à l'Armoricaine

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives noires bio

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives vertes

Cruscana Tomates & Olives

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 55/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier Langoustines aux brisures de truffes

La Paimpolaise Homard bleu à l'Armoricaine

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives noires bio

Divin Bio Tapenade d’olives vertes

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs