Ile de Ré Chocolats Chocolat à tartiner crepes dentelles · Nutrisiq

Ile de Ré Chocolats Chocolat à tartiner crepes dentelles packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Ile de Ré Chocolats Chocolat à tartiner crepes dentelles

Name: Ile de Ré Chocolats Chocolat à tartiner crepes dentelles
Brand: Ile de Ré Chocolats
SKU: 3760008562500

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 Ile de Ré Chocolats 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

CategoryBreakfasts

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signal

Performance

Nutrition score25/100 · 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 25/100

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

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 77/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.

Nutrition profile

Weak

25/100

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 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

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

Mellifère Miel Acacia d'Occtitanie

Breakfasts. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

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

76/100

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

Moderately 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

Mellifere Miel acacia d'Occitanie

Breakfasts. Ingredients: Miel d'acacia d'Occitanie (France).. Evidence quality: high

38/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

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

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

38/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately 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

79/100

Label quality

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

Méllifère Miel Fleurs d'Occitanie

Breakfasts. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

76/100

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

Moderately 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

67/100

Label quality

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

Mellifere Miel printemps d'Occitanie

Breakfasts. Evidence quality: high

40/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

80/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

61/100

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

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

CategoryBreakfasts

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signal

Performance

Nutrition score25/100 · 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 25/100

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

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 77/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.

Nutrition profile

Weak

25/100

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 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

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

Mellifère Miel Acacia d'Occtitanie

Breakfasts. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

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

76/100

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

Moderately 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

Mellifere Miel acacia d'Occitanie

Breakfasts. Ingredients: Miel d'acacia d'Occitanie (France).. Evidence quality: high

38/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

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

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

38/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately 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

79/100

Label quality

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

Méllifère Miel Fleurs d'Occitanie

Breakfasts. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

76/100

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

Moderately 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

67/100

Label quality

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

Mellifere Miel printemps d'Occitanie

Breakfasts. Evidence quality: high

40/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

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

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

80/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

40/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

61/100

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.

Ile de Ré Chocolats Chocolat à tartiner crepes dentelles

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 25/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Mellifère Miel Acacia d'Occtitanie

Mellifere Miel acacia d'Occitanie

Méllifère Miel Fleurs d'Occitanie

Mellifere Miel printemps d'Occitanie

Ile de Ré Chocolats Chocolat à tartiner crepes dentelles

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 25/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Mellifère Miel Acacia d'Occtitanie

Mellifere Miel acacia d'Occitanie

Méllifère Miel Fleurs d'Occitanie

Mellifere Miel printemps d'Occitanie

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid