Search catalog

Bauck Mühle Falafel mix · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Signal unavailable

Bauck Mühle Falafel mix

Name: Bauck Mühle Falafel mix
Brand: Bauck Mühle
SKU: 4015637823942

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

NOVA3

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

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.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (20 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

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

Nutrition

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

chickpea grist*, chickpea flour*, sea salt, cumin*, parsley*, garlic*, coriander*, white pepper* / *certified organic produce / may contain traces of nuts and sesame seeds,

Product & Packaging

CategoryFood

Label information quality84/100

Data confidence

Quantity160 g

PackagingTracce di frutti a guscio e semi di sesamo. incarto interno plastica L 05 PP FR A 21 PAP scatola carta R+E 涵+ Plastica Raccolta differenziata Consultare le direttive comunali locali. Séparez les éléments avant de trier Controllat e, sachet

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

—/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

84/100

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 (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (20 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, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Maggi

Lihaliemi

Food. Ingredients: Jodioitu suola, maltodekstriini, perunatärkkelys, vehnäproteiinihydrolysaatti (vehnägluteeni, suola, palmuöljy, dekstroosi, sokeri), sokeri, värit (sokerikulööri, ammoniumsulfiittimenetelmän sokerikulööri), ekstraneitsytoliiviöljy (5%), naudanliha (2,2%), aromit, hiivauute, arominvahvenne (dinatrium-5'-ribonukleotidit). mustapippuri, hapettumisenestoaine (rosmariiniuute). Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4Well-documented label

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Knorr

Köttbuljong

Food. Ingredients: Salt, vegetabiliskt fett (palm, shea, sal), stärkelse, arom, socker, jästextrakt, nötköttsfett 3 %, buljongpulver av oxben 2,1 %, karamelliserad sockersirap, lökpulver, maltodextrin, persilja, morot, kryddor (bl.a. sellerifrö), antioxidationsmedel (rosmarinextrakt).. Evidence quality: high. Nutrition score is currently hidden

NOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Natur compagnie

vištienos sultinys

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

Food

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Urtekram

Bouillon Umami

Food. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreEFood

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (20 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

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

Nutrition

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

chickpea grist*, chickpea flour*, sea salt, cumin*, parsley*, garlic*, coriander*, white pepper* / *certified organic produce / may contain traces of nuts and sesame seeds,

Product & Packaging

CategoryFood

Label information quality84/100

Data confidence

Quantity160 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

—/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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 data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

84/100

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 (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (20 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

Bauck Mühle Falafel mix

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

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

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Lihaliemi

Köttbuljong

vištienos sultinys

Bouillon Umami

Bauck Mühle Falafel mix

Similar options worth comparing

Lihaliemi

Köttbuljong

vištienos sultinys

Bouillon Umami

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

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

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid