Search catalog

Tartu Mill Kama · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Low signal

Tartu Mill Kama

Name: Tartu Mill Kama
Brand: Tartu Mill
SKU: 4740493666654

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

Nutri-ScoreANOVA2

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:75%

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.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (17 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

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 score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Nisu, rukis, oder, hernes. klaasi peti, keefiri, jogurti või hapupiimaga. Maitse Kasutamine: 3-4 tl kamajahu (~25 g) segatakse ühe Järgi lisatakse suhkrut või soola. Kamajahu ENG Kama Flour. Health Estonian and

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality83/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Nutrition score

76/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 76/100

Strong

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate 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 result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Moderately processed

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

83/100

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 partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (17 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, quantity, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Elovena

Jugu sitruuna

Plant-based. Ingredients: Kaurapohja (vesi, gluteeniton kaura 8%), sokeri, sitruuna 4,2% (tiivisteestä), tärkkelys (peruna, maissi), rapsiöljy, sakeuttamisaineet (pektiini, gellaanikumi), sitruskuitu, perunaproteiini, kalsium, happamuudensäätöaine (natriumsitraatti), väri (beetakaroteeni, paprikaväri), suola, aromit, vitamiinit (B2, B12, D2), hapate. Gluteeniton, maidoton, vegaaninen.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

First Price

Pickled onions

Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreCPlant-based

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Saarioinen

6412000016389

Plant-based. Ingredients: Sokeri, mansikka, vesi, sakeuttamisaine (E440), happa muudensäätöaine (E 330), säilöntäaine (E 202). 100 g tuotetta sisältää 35 g marjaa.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Salvest

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Plant-based. Ingredients: Hapukapsas (48%), kartul, porgand, odrakruup, sibul, rapsiöli, sool, suhkur, maitsetaimed, vürtsid.. 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.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (17 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

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 score76/100 · Grade A

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality83/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Nutrition score

76/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 76/100

Strong

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate 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 result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

76/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Moderately processed

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

83/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (17 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

Tartu Mill Kama

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

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 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Tartu Mill Kama

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

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 76/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid