Les gourmandises de sophie Cochon guimauve · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Les gourmandises de sophie Cochon guimauve packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Les gourmandises de sophie Cochon guimauve

Name: Les gourmandises de sophie Cochon guimauve
Brand: Les gourmandises de sophie
SKU: 3700345911029

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 Les gourmandises de sophie 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 (50%).

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

CategorySnacks

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signal

Performance

Nutrition score38/100 · Grade E

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 38/100

Weak

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

Strongest area

Label quality

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 profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.

Nutrition profile

Weak

38/100

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

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

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 (50%).
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, quantity, ingredients, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

Snacks. Ingredients: Sötningsmedel/sødestoffer (maltitoler, sorbitoler, steviolglykosider), stabiliseringsmedel/stabilisator (gummi arabicum), ammoniumklorid (=salmiak), lakritsextrakt, aromer, vegetabiliska oljor (kokos, raps), fläderbärs-/hyldebær/hyllebær ekstrakt, ytbehandlings-/overladebehandlingsmiddel (karnaubavax/voks). Evidence quality: high

67/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

97/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

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

88/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

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

69/100

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.

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

Snacks. Ingredients: Raisins secs bio 40%, huile végétale de tournesol bio 20%, _Noix de cajou_ bio 20%, Physalis bio 10%, Cannerberge bio, (sucre de canne bio, huile végétale de tournesol bio), 10%, _Amandes_ bio.. 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

90/100

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

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

90/100

Label quality

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

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

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

50/100

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

60/100

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 (50%).

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

CategorySnacks

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signal

Performance

Nutrition score38/100 · Grade E

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 38/100

Weak

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

Strongest area

Label quality

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 profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.

Nutrition profile

Weak

38/100

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

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

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 (50%).
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

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

67/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

97/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

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

88/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

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

69/100

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.

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

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

90/100

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

Mixed

51/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

90/100

Label quality

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

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

Snacks. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Snacks

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

50/100

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

60/100

Label quality

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

Les gourmandises de sophie Cochon guimauve

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 38/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

Les gourmandises de sophie Cochon guimauve

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 38/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Cloetta norge as Läkerol Salvi

Croustisud Chips de remolacha bio

Nature + Mon encas'slim à moi

Open Food Facts Bonbon au miel

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid