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.
Nutrition snapshot
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
Structured source data
Ingredient-level explanation
Riz cuit 24% (eau, riz), _colin_ d'Alaska 23%, eau, légumes grillés (courgettes, oignons, aubergines, poivrons rouges, poivrons jaunes, tomates cerises, tomates, huile de tournesol, basilic, sel, arômes naturels), courgettes, poivrons rouges, _crème_ fraîche, huile de colza, _beurre_, amidon de riz, fibre de chicorée, arôme naturel (_poisson_, _lait_), poivre.
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
—
/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
medium
Data confidence
Data confidence 59/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
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
Very highly processed
12
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Mixed
57/100
57
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Quite good
66/100
66
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
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
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (45 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
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).