Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
31
/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
_Hareng_* 97% (Clupea Harengus) pêché en Atlantique Nord-Est FAO 27 II Mer de Norvège et autres sous-zones par sennes, chalut et autres méthodes, sel
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
31
/100
Nutrition profile
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Label quality
Weakest area
Nutrition profile
Data confidence
high
Data confidence
Data confidence 87/100
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
31/100
31
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Highly processed
Highly processed
34
Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.
Environmental signal
Weak
41/100
41
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
92/100
92
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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
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
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