Karéléa Shiratakis de Konjac · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Karéléa Shiratakis de Konjac

Name: Karéléa Shiratakis de Konjac
Brand: Karéléa
SKU: 3760020504724

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Low signal

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Karéléa 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.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryKonjacs

Label information quality86/100

Data confidence

QuantityPoids net : 310 g / Poids net égoutté : 200 g

PackagingPlastique

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 1

Performance

Nutrition score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

eau, poudre de konjac 3%, stabilisant : hydroxyde de calcium.

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 76/100

Strong

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 83/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

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

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
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, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

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.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

CategoryKonjacs

Label information quality86/100

Data confidence

QuantityPoids net : 310 g / Poids net égoutté : 200 g

PackagingPlastique

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 1

Performance

Nutrition score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

eau, poudre de konjac 3%, stabilisant : hydroxyde de calcium.

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 76/100

Strong

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Environmental signal

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 83/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

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

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
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

Karéléa Shiratakis de Konjac

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Karéléa Shiratakis de Konjac

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid