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 is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
42
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Moderate signal
The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Ingredient-level explanation
Farine de _blé_ [farine de _blé_ (_gluten_), _gluten de blé_, farine de _blé_ malté (_gluten_)), eau, _crème_ fraîche (_lait_) 9,3 %, rôti de porc supérieur cuit au four traité en salaison 7,8 % [filet de porc (France), eau, sel, dextrose de blé et de maïs, ail, poivre, arômes naturels, antioxydant : érythorbate de sodium, conservateur : nitrite de sodium], _comté_ AOP 7,6 % (contient _lait_), rillettes du Mans 4,6 % (viande de porc fermier Label Rouge Français, gras de porc fermier Label Rouge Français, sel, poivre), _cabécou_ (contient _fromage blanc_ (contient _lait_), _fromage_ frais 2,2 % [_babeurre_ (_lait_), _lait_ écrémé, _crème_ (contient _lait_), protéines de _lait_, _babeurre_ déshydraté (contient _lait_), ferments lactiques, sel), tomate aux herbes (tomate 1,8 %, huile de tournesol, sel, origan, marjolaine, persil, ail), _beurre_ (_lait_), _moutarde_ à l'ancienne 1,1 % [vinaigre d 'alcool , graine de _moutarde_ et tégument (contient conservateur : disulfite de potassium), eau , sel, acidifiant : acide citrique, épices (contient _céleri_)], quinoa brun 0,9 %, sarrasin toasté 0,9 %, _noisette_ 0,7 %, _sésame_ toasté 0,6 %, roquette 0,6 %, sel, levure, farine d'_orge_ (_gluten_) et de _blé_ malté torréfié (_gluten_), son de _blé_ (_gluten_), cornichon 0,4 % [cornichon, saumure vinaigrée (eau, vinaigre d'alcool, sel, conservateur : _disulfite_ de potassium)], améliorant pour panification [farine de _blé_ (_gluten_), émulsifiants (mono - et diglycérides d'acides gras d'origine végétale, stéaroyl-2-lactylate de sodium)], farine de _blé_ précuite [contient : _gluten_, acidifiant : acide lactique (_lait_)], quinoa jaune 0,3 %, graine de tournesol 0,3 %, graine de lin brun 0,3 %, _moutarde_ 0,2 % (eau, graine de _moutarde_, vinaigre, sel, antioxydant : _disulfite_ de potassium, acidifiant : acide citrique), préparation pour sauce béchamel en poudre [_lactosérum_ (_lait_), amidon transformé de pomme de terre, matière grasse végétale de colza, _lait_ écrémé en poudre, sel, farine de _blé_ (_gluten_), protéine de _lait_, sirop de glucose de maïs ou blé, arômes naturels], miel 0,1 %, amidon transformé de tapioca, épaississants (farine de graines de caroube, gomme xanthane), protéine de _lait_, fleur de set de Guérande, poivre, antioxydant : acide ascorbique.
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
42
/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 87/100
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
42/100
42
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
Quite good
66/100
66
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
81/100
81
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 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 (134 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. Ingredients: Sötningsmedel/sødestoffer (maltitoler, sorbitoler, steviolglykosider), stabiliseringsmedel/stabilisator (gummi arabicum), ammoniumklorid (=salmiak), lakritsextrakt, aromer, vegetabiliska oljor (kokos, raps), fläderbärs-/hyldebær/hyllebær ekstrakt, ytbehandlings-/overladebehandlingsmiddel (karnaubavax/voks). 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
97/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
69/100
medium reliability

Snacks. Ingredients: Raisins secs bio 40%, huile végétale de tournesol bio 20%, _Noix de cajou_ bio 20%, Physalis bio 10%, Cannerberge bio, (sucre de canne bio, huile végétale de tournesol bio), 10%, _Amandes_ bio.. 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
90/100
high reliability
Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden
nutrition score
Score summary
—
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
50/100
medium reliability
Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitriti/nitraadi markerid viitavad kõrgema ettevaatuse vajadusele.
Kohe
Võib suurendada soola- ja säilitusainete koormust ühes toidukorras.
Pikemas vaates
Sage tarbimine seostub kõrgema riskiga ebasoodsatele pikaajalistele tervisenäitajatele.
Loogika: Kategooria viitab töödeldud lihale või koostises/additiivides leidub E249, E250, E251, E252.
Signaalid: Leitud nitriti/nitraadi lisandikoodid: E250. · Koostises tuvastati markerid: nitrit.
See signaal ei asenda personaalset nõustamist. Tõlgendus sõltub tarbimissagedusest ja portsjoni suurusest.
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).
Töödeldud liha ja nitritite hariv signaal
C-kiht: hariv kontekstMõõdukas teaduslik alusKui toode kuulub töödeldud liha profiili, kuvame selle vanemale pika vaate hariva märkusena.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage