Search catalog

Fish Peas Kaija Wheat White Fillet · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Low signal

Fish Peas Kaija Wheat White Fillet

Name: Fish Peas Kaija Wheat White Fillet
Brand: Fish Peas Kaija
SKU: 4751003924638

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

Nutri-ScoreBNOVA4

Lisaained:2 tk

Andmete katvus:50%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Protein (8.9 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

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

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

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (41 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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

189 kcal

Protein / 100g

8.9 g

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Water boiled, Sunflower oil, Wheat germ, Wheat flour, Starch potato, Pea green, Orange, Soy protein isolate, Glucose, Sugar, Garlic powder, Onion powder, Carrot, Beet red, Pepper black pepper, Natural flavors, Citric acid E330, Acetic acid E260, Sunflower oil, Water boiled, Lemon juice

Tuvastatud lisaained (2)

E260 E330

Product & Packaging

CategoryFood

Label information quality57/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Nutrition score

71/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 71/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

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

71/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

57/100

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

Protein (8.9 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 33%.
Impact: medium

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, fiber per 100g, quantity, category, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Protein (8.9 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

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

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

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (41 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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

189 kcal

Protein / 100g

8.9 g

Nutrition score71/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Tuvastatud lisaained (2)

E260 E330

Product & Packaging

CategoryFood

Label information quality57/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Nutrition score

71/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 71/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

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

71/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

57/100

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

Protein (8.9 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 33%.
Impact: medium

Fish Peas Kaija Wheat White Fillet

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Fish Peas Kaija Wheat White Fillet

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 71/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs