Le Traiteur de Bourbon Achards de legumes · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Le Traiteur de Bourbon Achards de legumes packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Le Traiteur de Bourbon Achards de legumes

Name: Le Traiteur de Bourbon Achards de legumes
Brand: Le Traiteur de Bourbon
SKU: 3345100004280

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Le Traiteur de Bourbon Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

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

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.
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

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Quantity1 kg

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signal

Performance

Nutrition score62/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

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

Nutrition score 62/100

Quite good

environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Environmental signal

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 75/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

62/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

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

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

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
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, ingredients or ingredients, NOVA group, ingredients, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Croustisud Chips de pomme de terre bio au paprika

Plant-based. Ingredients: Pommes de terre* (57,7%), huile de tournesol * (35%), fécule de pommes de terre*, sel, paprika* (1,7%), tomate*, oignon*, ail*.. Evidence quality: high

55/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

91/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

66/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Canneberge biologique

Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium

73/100

nutrition score

Plant-based

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.

Strongest: Environmental signalWeakest: Label quality

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

60/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Greenfood Goji berries

Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de Goji.. Evidence quality: high

45/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

88/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

45/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Nature + CANNEBERGE

Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de canneberge BIO, Jus de canne évaporé BIO, Huile de tournesol BIO (- de 1%). Evidence quality: high

44/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

87/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

44/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Signal classes

Need attention

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

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.
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

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Quantity1 kg

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signal

Performance

Nutrition score62/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

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

Nutrition score 62/100

Quite good

environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Environmental signal

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 75/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

62/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

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

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

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

Similar options worth comparing

Croustisud Chips de pomme de terre bio au paprika

Plant-based. Ingredients: Pommes de terre* (57,7%), huile de tournesol * (35%), fécule de pommes de terre*, sel, paprika* (1,7%), tomate*, oignon*, ail*.. Evidence quality: high

55/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

91/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

66/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Canneberge biologique

Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium

73/100

nutrition score

Plant-based

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

environmental signal is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.

Strongest: Environmental signalWeakest: Label quality

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

60/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Greenfood Goji berries

Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de Goji.. Evidence quality: high

45/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

processing is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

88/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

45/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Nature + CANNEBERGE

Plant-based. Ingredients: Baies de canneberge BIO, Jus de canne évaporé BIO, Huile de tournesol BIO (- de 1%). Evidence quality: high

44/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

87/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

44/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Le Traiteur de Bourbon Achards de legumes

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 62/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Croustisud Chips de pomme de terre bio au paprika

Open Food Facts Canneberge biologique

Greenfood Goji berries

Nature + CANNEBERGE

Le Traiteur de Bourbon Achards de legumes

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 62/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Croustisud Chips de pomme de terre bio au paprika

Open Food Facts Canneberge biologique

Greenfood Goji berries

Nature + CANNEBERGE

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid