Search catalog

La Gastronomia di Angelo Treo · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

La Gastronomia di Angelo Treo

Name: La Gastronomia di Angelo Treo
Brand: La Gastronomia di Angelo
SKU: 3760019710143

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA3

Lisaained:1 tk

Andmete katvus:78%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (38 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

Nutrition

Nutrition score65/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

eau, farine de mais, la préparation des aliments sur la base cle champignons et de truffes (3%) (champignons 66% (Agaricus bisporus), eau, huile de tournesol, de ( hapelure (farine de blé, levure, sel), sel, truffe noire (Tuber aestivum) 1%, persil, épices, ail en poudre, poivre en poudre), sel, correcteur d'acidité : acide tartaric Je, conservateur : acide sorbique. Il contient aluten, peut contenir d traces de lan et œuf.

Tuvastatud lisaained (1)

E200

Product & Packaging

CategoryPolenta

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity250 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

65/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 65/100

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

High reliability

high5/5 kontrollitud

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (38 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

Treo

Polenta Speck et fromage

Polenta. Ingredients: Eau, farine de maïs, sel, speck déshydraté (1%) (şpeck, sel, dextrose, arômes), fromage en poudre (0,4%) (fromage en poudre, lactosérum en poudre, sel de fonte; citrate de sodium), correcteur d'acidité; acide tartrique, arôme, oignon frit (oignons, huile de tournesol), bouillon de cube (sel, maltodextrine, extrait pour bouillon, extraits de levure (gluten d'orge), huile d'oliye, oignón en poudre, poireau en poudre, tomate en poudre, aîl en poudre), çiboulette, conservațeur: acide sorbique. Allergènes: gluten, lait et produits laitiers. Peut contenir des traces d'oeuf.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Saint Jean

Polenta à poêler Nature

Polenta. Ingredients: Eau, semoule de mais précuite, lait écrémé en poudre, beurre, sel, poivre.. Fabriqué dans un atelier utilisant: gluten, oeufs, soja, sésame et fruits à coque.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA3Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Céréal bio

Polenta à trancher

Polenta. Ingredients: Eau, semoule de maïs* 17,3%, sel marin.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA3Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (38 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

Nutrition

Nutrition score65/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Tuvastatud lisaained (1)

E200

Product & Packaging

CategoryPolenta

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity250 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

65/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 65/100

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

High reliability

high5/5 kontrollitud

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (38 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

La Gastronomia di Angelo Treo

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

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 65/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Polenta Speck et fromage

Polenta à poêler Nature

Polenta à trancher

La Gastronomia di Angelo Treo

Similar options worth comparing

Polenta Speck et fromage

Polenta à poêler Nature

Polenta à trancher

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

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 65/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid