Name: Cora Assortiment asiatique
Brand: Cora
SKU: 3257984854380

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Mini-nems S porc (4 x 30 g) : Galette de riz 44,4% (eau - farine de riz 19,9% - huile de tournesol - e sel) - viande de porc 15,2% (origine : UE) - oignon 12,9% - vermicelles de pois - carotte 6,1 % - protéine de soja - gras de porc 2,5% - champignon noir - germes de n haricot mungo 2,2% - chapelure (farine de blé - sel) - arôme (contient gluten) - sel - e caramel (sucre - eau - sirop de glucose) - poivre blanc. Samossa bœuf (4 x 25 g) : Galette de blé 34,5% (eau - farine de blé 12% - huile de tournesol - blanc d'œuf poudre - sel - émulsifiant : lécithine de colza) - oignon 27,8% - viande de bœuf 27,2% (origine : France) - carotte 6,6% - concentré de tomate - huile de tournesol - curry 0,5% (dont moutarde) - sel - poivre - piment. Long pao (4 x 30 g) : Galette de ble 34,3% (eau - farine de blé 12% - huile de tournesol - blanc d'œuf en poudre - sel - émulsifiant : lécithine de colza) - viande de poulet 19,7% (origine : France) - oignon 15,9% - vermicelles de pois réhydratés 11 ,7% - carotte 8,5% - germes de hailC0t mungo 4,6% - champignons noirs réhydratés - protéine de soja - sel - épices - anis - poivre. Sauce nuoc mâm (2 x 20 g) : Eau - sucre - nuoc mâm 14% (poisson - sel) - vinaigre - sel. Sauce aigre douce 20 g : Eau - sucre - vinaigre - ananas 5% - poivron rouge - amidon transformé de maïs - huile de tournesol - sel - acidifiant : E330 - épices [curry (dont moutarde) - gingembre] - stabilisants : E412, E415. Traces possibles de crustacés, mollusque et lait / 4 GEBAKKEN RIJSTKOEKJES GEWLD

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

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 67/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate 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

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

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 partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as guarkummi (E412), ksantaankummi (E415) support 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, quantity, category, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

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

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 67/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate 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

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as guarkummi (E412), ksantaankummi (E415) support 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

Cora Assortiment asiatique

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

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

Cora Assortiment asiatique

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

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

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs