Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
71
/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
Légumes 39% (carotte, carotte jaune, tomate, petit pois, lentille verte, oignon, tomate pelée concassée (tomate, jus de tomate, acidifiant : acide citrique)], riz basmati précuit 30% (riz basmati, eau), queue de crevette crue décortiquée 14% [crevette (crustacés), eau, sell, crème fraiche (lait), yaourt (lait), eau, sauce tikka masala 3,6% [lait de coco, légumes (tomate, oignon, ail), yaourt (lait), crème fouettée (lait), épices, huile de tournesol, amande, beurre clarifié (lait), sucre, sel, amidon de pomme de terre, herbes aromatiques, colorants (extrait de paprika, extrait de betterave), maltodextrine de tapioca, protéines de lait], huile de tournesol, sel, miel, amidon transformé de maïs ou de manioc ou de riz, coriandre. Produit élaboré dans un atelier qui utilise : œuf, poissons, arachide.
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
71
/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
medium
Data confidence
Data confidence 74/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
71/100
71
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
47/100
47
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 partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.
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
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (79 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
Food. Ingredients: Crème, noix de Saint-Jacques 28%, tacaud, vin blanc, oignon, champignons, sel de Millac, eau de vie de cidre 1%, beurre demi-sel, ail, jus de citron concentré, algues [dulse, nori, laitue de mer], persil, laurier, piment fort moulu, épaississant : agar-agar (extrait d'algues).. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
85/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Food. Ingredients: Jus d' argousier BIO 100%, sans sucre ajouté (issu de l'agriculture biologique).. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
91
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
83/100
high reliability
Food. Ingredients: Tomates pelées concassées, viande hachée pur bœuf 14% origine France, pâte à lasagne 10% (semoule de _blé_ dur, _œuf_), _lait_, mozzarella (_lait_), carottes, oignons, _céleri_, fromage râpé (_lait_, sel, présure, conservateur : lyzozyme d'_œuf_), huile d'olive, huile de tournesol, beurre (_lait_), _farine de blé_, vin rouge (_sulfites_), sel, sucre, basilic, poivre, laurier, thym, muscade. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
55
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
91/100
high reliability
Food. Ingredients: 85% anane, eau, jus de citron bio.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
65
Nutrition score
processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high 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
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage