Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
27
/100
Nutrition interpretation
High signal
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
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
27
/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 86/100
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
27/100
27
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
82/100
82
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 (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as kurkumiin, letsitiin 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
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
Ingredient-level explanation
glucose syrup, sugar, hydrogenated vegetable fat, halal beef gelatin, acidifier: citric acid, emulsifiers: mono and fatty acid diglycerides, rapeseed lecithin, aromas, dyes: anthocyanins, paprika extract, curcumin,
Osaliselt hüdrogeenitud rasvade markerid viitavad võimalikule transrasvade riskile.
Kohe
Lühiajaline mõju ei pruugi olla tajutav, kuid marker annab tugeva ettevaatuse signaali.
Pikemas vaates
Sage kokkupuude transrasvadega seostub kõrgema südame-veresoonkonna riski profiiliga.
Loogika: Koostises esineb mustreid nagu 'partially hydrogenated' või 'hydrogenated vegetable fat'.
Signaalid: Leitud transrasva riski markerid: hydrogenated vegetable fat.
Kategooria näitab koostiseriski, mitte individuaalset meditsiinilist seisundit.
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).
Transrasva markerid koostises
C-kiht: hariv kontekstTugev teaduslik alusSee märk kuvatakse harvem, kuid selle olemasolul on vanemale kasulik selge kvaliteedimärkus.
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage