La Farandole des Tartes Tarte Normande · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

La Farandole des Tartes Tarte Normande packshot

Nutrition snapshot

La Farandole des Tartes Tarte Normande

Name: La Farandole des Tartes Tarte Normande
Brand: La Farandole des Tartes
SKU: 3456580051135

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 La Farandole des Tartes 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.
Formulation markers such as kurkumiin (E100), mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), karageenaan (E407) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (57 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

CategorySweet Pies

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity500 g

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

100

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score62/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Pommes (41%), farine de blé, eau, sucre, huile et graisse végétale (colza, palme), œufs frais, sirop léger de poire (eau, sucre, sirop de glucose-fructose, poires, correcteur d'acidité: E330), blancs d'œufs, semoule de blé, poudre de lait entier, amidons modifiés de maïs et de manioc, amidon de maïs, beurre, sel, gélifiant E407, conservateurs: E202 et E270, poudre à lever: E450 et E500, émulsifiant : E471, arômes, correcteur d'acidité: E330, colorants E100 et E160a. Elaboré dans un atelier utilisant : fruits à coque, lupin et soja.

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

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 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

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
Formulation markers such as kurkumiin (E100), mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), karageenaan (E407) support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (57 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

Open Food Facts Tarte myrtille

Sweet Pies. Ingredients: Farine de blé, beurre, miel, sucre, œuf. Fourrage : sirop de glucose, saccharose, pulpe de myrtilles. Gélifiants: pectine de fruits (E440) et alginate de sodium (E401) correcteur d'acidité: acide citrique (E330) et citrate de calcium (E333), arôme. Conservateur : sorbate de potassium (E202).. Evidence quality: high

24/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

80/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

24/100

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

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

81/100

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 Tarte abricot

Sweet Pies. Evidence quality: medium

22/100

nutrition score

Sweet Pies

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

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

Strongest: Environmental signalWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

22/100

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

67/100

Label quality

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

Apior Tarte myrtilles

Sweet Pies. Ingredients: Ingrédients fourrage myrtilles 50%, beurre, miel de lavande, farine, sucre, oeufs, levure.. 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 nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

80/100

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

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.

Open Food Facts Tarte des alpes noix miel

Sweet Pies. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Sweet Pies

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

68/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

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

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

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.
Formulation markers such as kurkumiin (E100), mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), karageenaan (E407) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (57 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

CategorySweet Pies

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity500 g

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

100

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score62/100 · Grade C

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 62/100

Quite good

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 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

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
Formulation markers such as kurkumiin (E100), mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), karageenaan (E407) support a more processed classification.
Impact: low
A long ingredient list (57 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

Open Food Facts Tarte myrtille

24/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

80/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

24/100

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

Strong

80/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

81/100

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 Tarte abricot

Sweet Pies. Evidence quality: medium

22/100

nutrition score

Sweet Pies

Score summary

Nutrition score

Very weak

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

Strongest: Environmental signalWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Very weak

22/100

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

67/100

Label quality

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

Apior Tarte myrtilles

Sweet Pies. Ingredients: Ingrédients fourrage myrtilles 50%, beurre, miel de lavande, farine, sucre, oeufs, levure.. 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 nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

80/100

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

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.

Open Food Facts Tarte des alpes noix miel

Sweet Pies. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Sweet Pies

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

68/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

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

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

La Farandole des Tartes Tarte Normande

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 62/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Tarte myrtille

Open Food Facts Tarte abricot

Apior Tarte myrtilles

Open Food Facts Tarte des alpes noix miel

La Farandole des Tartes Tarte Normande

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 62/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Tarte myrtille

Open Food Facts Tarte abricot

Apior Tarte myrtilles

Open Food Facts Tarte des alpes noix miel

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs