Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
73
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong 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
73
/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 81/100
High reliability
The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
73/100
73
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
91/100
91
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
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as ksantaankummi 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
Food. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
65
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.
Data confidence
72/100
medium reliability
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Food. Ingredients: _Homard_ 27 % (_homards_ entiers, têtes et pattes de homard), eau, _poisson_, légumes (carottes, oignons, _céleri_), concentré de tomates, _crème_ liquide (crème de _lait_, stabilisant, carraghénanes, émulsifiants : E472b), huile de tournesol, sucre, sel, ail, fécule de pomme de terre (traces possibles de _gluten_), cognac (cognac, sel, arôme naturel de poivre), épices.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
69
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
90/100
high reliability
Food. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
45
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
Food. Ingredients: crème (lait), rouget grondin 33%, berniques 17%, ail, beurre, whisky 1.2%, sel de Millac, persil, huile d'olive, algues (agar agar, wakamé), poivre. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
42
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.
Data confidence
87/100
high reliability
Ingredient-level explanation
Tuna (42.5%), poison meat, rapeseed oil, water, bamboo shoot fiber, double tomato concentrate, milk protein, shallots, guerande salt (0.3%), dextrose, thickener: xanthan gum, coriander.
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: Toode kuulub töödeldud lihatoodete kategooriasse.
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.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage