Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
35
/100
Nutrition interpretation
High signal
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Ingredient-level explanation
de lompe (cvclopteruslumpus)82%t6w i dandilueimiuüekavlaar-lngreü,: '*jompviseieren erd voor: ijsland, made for fats/vetten: 347gcont saturated fatty acids/waamn }lglucideslkoolhydraten,•0,9 g of which sucregwaarvan suikers: og, protein/proteïneœ g anwwente0*et 40c/bewaœneenmaandüyen011/t
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
35
/100
Nutrition profile
processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Processing
Weakest area
Nutrition profile
Data confidence
high
Data confidence
Data confidence 83/100
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
35/100
35
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Minimally processed
Minimally processed
100
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
47/100
47
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
Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium
Pulls the score down
No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
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
Pantry. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
44
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
77/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Pantry. Ingredients: Choux, poireau, viande et gras de porc, _œuf_, épinard, oseille, oignon, fond de veau, ail, persil, ciboulette, farine de _blé_, sel, poivre.. 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
93/100
high reliability
Pantry. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
36
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
Pantry. Ingredients: oeufs de truite 96,5% (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sel.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
33
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
90/100
high reliability
Selle toote puhul ei aktiveerunud laste-keskseid riskisignaale. See ei asenda nõustamist; mõju sõltub kogusest, sagedusest ja üldisest toitumismustrist.
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage