Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
35
/100
Nutrition interpretation
High signal
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Ingredient-level explanation
Chocolat blanc 25 % [beurre de cacao, sucre, lait écrémé en poudre, matière grasse laitière anhydre (_lait_), lactose (_lait_), émulsifiant : lécithine de _soja_], eau, _lait_ écrémé réhydraté, sirop de glucose de blé, purée d'abricot 10,3 % (abricot, antioxydant : acide ascorbique), sucre, crème liquide (_lait_) 5,1 %, _amande_ hachée grillée 2,3 %, lait d'amande 2 % (eau, sucre, _amande_ douce, amande amère), lactose (_lait_) et protéines de _lait_, pépite d'abricot déshydratée 1,1 % (abricot, sucre, amidon de maïs), émulsifiants (mono - et diglycérides d'acide gras d'origine végétale, esters lactiques des mono - et diglycérides d'acide gras d'origine végétale), gélifiants (gomme Tara, farine de graines de caroube, gomme guar, pectines), jaune d'_œuf_ en poudre, concentrés (carotte, carthame), arômes naturels, jus concentré de citron.
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
35
/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 90/100
High reliability
The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.
Nutrition profile
Weak
35/100
35
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Very highly processed
Very highly processed
12
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
51/100
51
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
88/100
88
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 (88%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (76 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
Related products
Snacks. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
36
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Snacks. Ingredients: Fraises de Sarthe 55% , eau, sirop de sucre de canne blond , sirop de maïs déshydraté , jus de citron , farine de guar , farine caroube. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
67
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
76/100
high reliability
Snacks. Ingredients: Lait de nos vaches non homogénéisé, riz rond de camargue* 10%, sucre de canne issu du commerce équitable", extrait de vanille Bourbon 1%. 17,2% des ingrédients sont issus de lAgriculture Biologique.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
64
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
Snacks. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
56
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
68/100
medium reliability
NOVA 4 viitab ulatuslikule tööstuslikule töötlemisele ja suuremale formulatsiooni keerukusele.
Kohe
Võib soodustada ülesöömist, sest maitse- ja tekstuuriprofiil on sageli väga stimuleeriv.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele tervisetulemitele, kuid mõju sõltub toitumismustrist.
Loogika: novaGroup === 4.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud klass).
NOVA klass on tarbimismustri signaal ega tähenda üksiku toote põhjal automaatset diagnoosi.
Ultra-töödeldud märge aitab vanemal hinnata, kas toode sobib igapäevaseks valikuks või pigem harvemaks.
Miks oluline
Rakendus kuvab selle lisakontekstina, et toetada lapse menüü üldist kvaliteeti, mitte anda mustvalget otsust ühe toote kohta.
Kohe
Võib tekkida kiire söömise ja varasema uue isu muster.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kasutus võib nihutada menüüd vähem täisväärtusliku toiduprofiili poole.
Põhineb peamiselt epidemioloogilisel ja institutsionaalsel kirjandusel ultra-töödeldud toitude tarbimismustrite kohta.
Signaalid: NOVA grupp on 4 (ultra-töödeldud profiil).
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage