What would improve the assessment
- Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.
Nutrition snapshot
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Nutrition score
71
/100
Nutrition interpretation
Low signal
The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.
Help improve this record
Structured source data
Energy / 100g
156 kcal
Protein / 100g
4.4 g
Sugar / 100g
0.2 g
Ingredient-level explanation
quinoa* cuit 49% (eau, quinoa), quinoa* rouge cuit 20% (eau, quinoa), courgette* 14%, petits pois* 8,0%, huile d'olive*, brocolis* 4,0%, sel, ail*, coriandre*, curcuma*, poivre* blanc.
Food score panel
Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.
Nutrition score
71
/100
Nutrition profile
nutrition profile is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.
Strongest area
Nutrition profile
Weakest area
Label quality
Data confidence
medium
Data confidence
Data confidence 51/100
Medium reliability
Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.
Confidence layer
Category breakdown
The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.
Nutrition profile
Quite good
71/100
71
Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.
Processing
Moderately processed
Moderately processed · Limited estimate
67
Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.
Environmental signal
No reliable assessment
—
—
Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.
Label quality
Mixed
50/100
50
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
Supports the assessment
Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Pulls the score down
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low
Uncertain area
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 33%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Selle toote puhul ei aktiveerunud laste-keskseid riskisignaale. See ei asenda nõustamist; mõju sõltub kogusest, sagedusest ja üldisest toitumismustrist.