Search catalog

Ķelmēni Rankas rudzu rupja maize · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Ķelmēni Rankas rudzu rupja maize packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Low signal

Ķelmēni Rankas rudzu rupja maize

Name: Ķelmēni Rankas rudzu rupja maize
Brand: Ķelmēni
SKU: 4751001080084

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

Nutri-ScoreBNOVA2

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:73%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (10.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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.

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 (100%).

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

Energy / 100g

274 kcal

Protein / 100g

5.6 g

Sugar / 100g

7.8 g

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

_rudzu_ rupjie milti, ūdens, cukurs, _rudzu_ iesals, ķimenes, pārtikas sāls, _kviešu_ klijas

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality100/100

Data confidence

Quantity460 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

73/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 73/100

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

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

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

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

100/100

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
Fiber (10.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (100%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sodium per 100g or salt per 100g. 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

Supporting factors

Fiber (10.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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.

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 (100%).

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

Energy / 100g

274 kcal

Protein / 100g

5.6 g

Sugar / 100g

7.8 g

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

_rudzu_ rupjie milti, ūdens, cukurs, _rudzu_ iesals, ķimenes, pārtikas sāls, _kviešu_ klijas

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality100/100

Data confidence

Quantity460 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

73/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 73/100

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

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

Nutrition profile

Quite good

73/100

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

100/100

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
Fiber (10.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (100%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

No significant negative factors emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sodium per 100g or salt per 100g. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Ķelmēni Rankas rudzu rupja maize

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Ķelmēni Rankas rudzu rupja maize

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 73/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Suhkruga joogid lapse puhul