Ladrôme Spray Buccal Propolis - 30 ML - Ladrôme · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Ladrôme Spray Buccal Propolis - 30 ML - Ladrôme

Name: Ladrôme Spray Buccal Propolis - 30 ML - Ladrôme
Brand: Ladrôme
SKU: 3486330017425

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 Ladrôme 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 (18 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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

CategoryComplements Alimentaires

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score69/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

eau, miel* (13 %), sirop de blé* (garanti sans gluten), glycérol végétal, extraits hydro - alcooliques de propolis* ; sauge* (Salvia officinalis) , échinacée* (Echinacea purpurea) ; thym* (Thymus vulgaris) ; plantain* (Plantago lanceolata) ; souci* (Calendula officinalis).

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 69/100

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 75/100

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

69/100

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

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

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

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (18 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, quantity, nutrition panel, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Decathlon Energy Gel

Complements Alimentaires. Ingredients: Glukosesirup (68%), Wasser, Fruktose (11%), Maltodextrin (6%), Säureregulator. Zitronensäure, Natriumcitrat, Aroma, Konservierungsstoff: Kaliumsorbat, Zinkcitrat, Vitamine E, B1, B6, B12, Karottenkonzentrat (Daucus Carota L.), und schwarze Johannisbeere (Ribes nigrum L.). Kann eventuelle Spuren von Fisch, Milch, Soja, Gluten enthalten, Ei, Sellerie. 1 Energy gel regelmäßig, alle 45 Minuten bis 1 Stunde während der Anstrengung einnehmen. Nach der Einnahme trinken ein paar Bissen Wasser. Neben der körperlichen Aktivität ist es wichtig, eine abwechslungsreiche und ausgewogene Ernährung und einen gesunden Lebensstil zu pflegen.Halten Sie sich an einem kühlen und trockenen Ŏrt.. Evidence quality: high

44/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageComplements Alimentaires

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

44/100

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Aptonia Isotonic

Complements Alimentaires. Evidence quality: medium

24/100

nutrition score

Complements Alimentaires

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

73/100

medium 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

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.

Nutrivercell DUAB

Complements Alimentaires. Ingredients: Agent de charge carbonate de calcium, extrait de canneberge (Vaccinium macro - carpon, supports maltodextrine, acide citrique, hydroxyde de magnésium). propolis (supports poudre de carou - be, dioxyde de silicium [nano]). anti - agglomérant : stéarate de magnésium acide stéarique, arôme menthol, arôme vanille, sulfate de zinc. Gélule : gélatine *Fabriqué en France: Origines Matières Premières UE/Non UE. PRECAUTIONS D'EMPLOI : Tenir hors de la portée des jeunes enfants. Ne pas dépasser la dose journalière recommandée. Les compléments alimentaires doivent être utilisés dans le cadre d'un mode de vie sain et ne pas être utilisés comme substituts d'un régime alimentaire varié et équilibré. De manière générale, il est recommandé d'inviter les femmes enceintes et allaitantes à prendre l'attache d'un professionnel de santé avant toute complémentation.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

81/100

high 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

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

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.

Open Food Facts Bion 3 Junior Goût Framboise 30 Comprimés

Complements Alimentaires. Ingredients: Agent de charge : sorbitol ; Carbonate de calcium (amidon de maïs) ; Colorant : poudre de betterave rouge (maltodextrine); Ascorbate de calcium ; Huile de colza hydrogénée ; Acidifiant : acide malique ; Préparation de ferments Tri-Bion (dextrine, amidon de maiïs, Lactobacillus gasseri PA 16/8, Bifidobacterium bifidum MF 20/5, Bifidobacterium longum SP 07/3. Peut contenir des traces de protéines de lait, de poisson, de soja et de phénylalanine) ; Fumarate de fer (huile de palme hydrogénée) ; Arôme framboise ; Anti-agglomérant : sels de magnésium d'acide gras (origine végétale) ; Acétate de DL-a-tocophéryle (amidon modifié) ; Nicotinamide; Oxyde de zinc ; Acétate de rétinyle (amidon de maïs) ; D-pantothénate de calcium ; Cholécalciferol (saccharose, amidon de maïs, huile de palme); Biotine ; Cyanocobalamine ; Chlorhydrate de pyridoxine ; Mononitrate de thiamine ; Riboflavine ; Edulcorants : acésulfame K, saccharine de sodium; Acide folique.. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageComplements Alimentaires

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

81/100

high 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

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

Quite good

74/100

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 (18 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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

CategoryComplements Alimentaires

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Nutrition score69/100 · Grade B

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 69/100

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 75/100

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

69/100

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

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

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

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (18 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

Decathlon Energy Gel

44/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageComplements Alimentaires

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

44/100

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Aptonia Isotonic

Complements Alimentaires. Evidence quality: medium

24/100

nutrition score

Complements Alimentaires

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

73/100

medium 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

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.

Nutrivercell DUAB

—

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

81/100

high 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

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

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.

Open Food Facts Bion 3 Junior Goût Framboise 30 Comprimés

—

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageComplements Alimentaires

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

81/100

high 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

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

Ladrôme Spray Buccal Propolis - 30 ML - Ladrôme

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

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 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Decathlon Energy Gel

Aptonia Isotonic

Nutrivercell DUAB

Open Food Facts Bion 3 Junior Goût Framboise 30 Comprimés

Ladrôme Spray Buccal Propolis - 30 ML - Ladrôme

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

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 69/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Decathlon Energy Gel

Aptonia Isotonic

Nutrivercell DUAB

Open Food Facts Bion 3 Junior Goût Framboise 30 Comprimés

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs