Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Gratin de penne au saumon et colin · Nutrisiq

Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Gratin de penne au saumon et colin packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Gratin de penne au saumon et colin

Name: Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Gratin de penne au saumon et colin
Brand: Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas
SKU: 3287390060273

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Signal unavailable

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), karageenaan (E407) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (115 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

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

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

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
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

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

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, quantity, category, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), karageenaan (E407) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (115 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

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
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

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

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Eau, spécialités CEREALIERES t pennese cuites 143 (eau, semoule de 8LE dur, huile de colza poudre de blanc dt0EUF) cour ettes tomates, momeaux de saumon (POISO{S) colin d'Alaska (/orso S) crème légère stérilisée (LAIT) (dont stabilisant : E407), emental fondu râpé {LAIT) (emmental (LAIT], beurre (LAITI eau, protéines de LAITI fromges (LAIT, dont OEUFS] sels de fonte : E331 *452, sel)) échalotes ) Vin blanc sec, beurre doux !L4tT) LAIT écrémé en poudre amidon de BLEI double concentré de tomate, arone naéurel (dont CRUSTACES, LAIT), chapelure (farine de 81E, huile de colza eau sucre levure et levain, sel, GLUTEN OE 8LE, céréales moulues (SEIGLé, AVIINE, BLE EPEAUTREI ORGE i riz, sarrasin], farine de fève, vinaigre, dextrose I graines moulues (tournesol, lin millet pavot, amarante, quinoa] J BEURRE), farine de BLE (farine de 81E, GLUtEN OE 81E) persil, margarine végetale (graisse végétale non hydrogénée et partiellement hydrogénée de palme eau, huile végétale de : Eb30, colorant colza, émulsifiant : E471) correcteur d'acidité El 60a, naturel), ciboulette, sel \ conservateur : E202, arôme naturel de poivre, acidifiant : E270.Poumentages exprimés sur le produit fini. 618/148 Energie (Liftai) Valeurs énergaiques et nutfitionndls moyennes Pour 100 4 2 - Gluades(qi 12 7,5 - dont aades rassaturés g Matièrs grases (g) - Fibres (g) dont swes (g) Traces éventuefles soja, fruits à coque, celet'l, moutards, graines de sésame sulfites, mllusques, lupin. Réchau+fer 10-15mn dans un four à 1800 ou 3-4mn au micro-ondes à 750H. Enlever le couvercle avant réchauffage, Temps et température à bien respecter. Pas de contact direct avec la flame et les parozs. FR 6027 49-276-002 A conserver entre OOC et +40C. CE A consommer rapidement après ouverture. Conditionné sous atmosphere protectrice . 3 287390 Grand Saloir Sant Nicolas - Le Bignon - 35137 Bédée - France

Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Gratin de penne au saumon et colin

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Grand Saloir Saint Nicolas Gratin de penne au saumon et colin

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Performance

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs