Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
73
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Ingredient-level explanation
water, quinoa, white 29 %, vegetables with 18,1 % (double concentrated of tomato, pieces of green peppers, chunks of onions, pieces of red peppers), preparation of chicken 7 % (thigh meat chicken, water, potato starch), extra virgin olive oil, sesame seeds full of 2,3 %, herbs, sea salt, spices, raw cane sugar,
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
73
/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
high
Data confidence
Data confidence 87/100
High reliability
The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
73/100
73
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
Quite good
66/100
66
Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.
Label quality
Strong
88/100
88
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
A long ingredient list (42 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
Related products
Pantry. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
44
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
77/100
high reliability
high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage
Pantry. Ingredients: Choux, poireau, viande et gras de porc, _œuf_, épinard, oseille, oignon, fond de veau, ail, persil, ciboulette, farine de _blé_, sel, poivre.. 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
93/100
high reliability
Pantry. Evidence quality: medium
nutrition score
Score summary
36
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
75/100
medium reliability
Pantry. Ingredients: oeufs de truite 96,5% (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sel.. Evidence quality: high
nutrition score
Score summary
33
Nutrition score
label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.
Data confidence
90/100
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