U Mendiants au chocolat lait amandes et framboise et écorce d'orange Saveurs · Nutrisiq

U Mendiants au chocolat lait amandes et framboise et écorce d'orange Saveurs packshot

Nutrition snapshot

U Mendiants au chocolat lait amandes et framboise et écorce d'orange Saveurs

Name: U Mendiants au chocolat lait amandes et framboise et écorce d'orange Saveurs
Brand: U
SKU: 3368950984236

The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

High signal

The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from U 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

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (39 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

CategoryMendiants

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity150 g

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score22/100 · Grade E

Ingredient-level explanation

Sucre, beurre de cacao, lait entier en poudre, amandes 9,3%, pâte de cacao, écorces d'orange confites 5,5% (sirop de glucose-fructose, écorces d'orange, sucre, acidifiant: acide citrique, conservateurs: sorbate de potassium, disulfite de sodium), framboises lyophilisées 2,7%, émulsifiant: lécithines de tournesol et de soja, extrait de vanille. cacao: 35% minimum dans le chocolat au lait seul. traces éventuelles de céréales contenant du gluten et autres fruits à coque.

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 22/100

Very weak

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 85/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result points to clear risk and low quality.

Nutrition profile

Very weak

22/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

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

Strong

88/100

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 broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (39 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

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, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Alain Ducasse Le chocolat mendiant noisettes caramelisees

Mendiants. Ingredients: chocolat noir (feves de cacao, beurre de cacao, sucre émulsifiant :lecithine de tournesol sans OGM, vanille, fleur de sel), _noisettes_ (30%), sucre, fleur de sel Cacao. 75% minimum 09/0. Evidence quality: high

33/100

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

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

33/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

84/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Ikalia Mendiants Choc Noir.

Mendiants. Ingredients: CHOCOLAT NOIR À 70% DE CACAO* MINIMUM: 73% (PÂTE DE CACAO* ET BEURRE DE CACAO* 74,5%, SUCRE DE CANNE* 25.5%)?, AMANDESt; RAISINS *100% DES INGRÉDIENTS D'ORIGINE AGRICOLE SONT Issus DE L'AGRICULTURE BIOLOGIQUE. CONTIENT DE L'AMANDE ET DES NOISETTESPEUT CONTENIR DES TRACES DE D'ARACHIDES ET DE SÉSAME INGRÉDIENTS CONFORMES AUX STANDARDS DU COMMERCE ÉQUITABLE HAVEUAR: CACAO ET SUCRE (73% DU TOTAL).. Evidence quality: high

0/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

0/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

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

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (39 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

CategoryMendiants

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity150 g

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score22/100 · Grade E

Ingredient-level explanation

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 22/100

Very weak

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 85/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result points to clear risk and low quality.

Nutrition profile

Very weak

22/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

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

Strong

88/100

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

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (39 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

Similar options worth comparing

Alain Ducasse Le chocolat mendiant noisettes caramelisees

33/100

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

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

33/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

84/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Ikalia Mendiants Choc Noir.

0/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

0/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

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

U Mendiants au chocolat lait amandes et framboise et écorce d'orange Saveurs

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 22/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Alain Ducasse Le chocolat mendiant noisettes caramelisees

Ikalia Mendiants Choc Noir.

U Mendiants au chocolat lait amandes et framboise et écorce d'orange Saveurs

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 22/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Alain Ducasse Le chocolat mendiant noisettes caramelisees

Ikalia Mendiants Choc Noir.

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs