Search catalog

Rimi Rice cakes with tomato and basil · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Rimi Rice cakes with tomato and basil

Name: Rimi Rice cakes with tomato and basil
Brand: Rimi
SKU: 4752050999044

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4

Lisaained:1 tk

Andmete katvus:63%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

High sodium content (520 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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.
Formulation markers such as letsitiin (E322) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (25 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

448 kcal

Protein / 100g

6.8 g

Sugar / 100g

2.1 g

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Rice 80%, vegetable oil (rapeseed), maltodextrin, salt, tomato powder 1.2%, dextrose, garlic powder, herbs (basil 0.2%, oregano, parsley), onion powder, yeast extract, acid E330, paprika extract, flavoring, basil extract, emulsifier E322 (sunflower), antioxidant E392. Rice origin: EU

Tuvastatud lisaained (1)

E160C

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity0,25 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

51/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 51/100

Mixed

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 uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

51/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Weak

35/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

64/100

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 Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (520 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: fiber per 100g, allergens, and front image. 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

High sodium content (520 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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.
Formulation markers such as letsitiin (E322) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (25 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

448 kcal

Protein / 100g

6.8 g

Sugar / 100g

2.1 g

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Tuvastatud lisaained (1)

E160C

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity0,25 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

51/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 51/100

Mixed

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 uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

51/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Weak

35/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

64/100

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 Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (520 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (2 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: fiber per 100g, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Rimi Rice cakes with tomato and basil

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 51/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Rimi Rice cakes with tomato and basil

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 51/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge soolasisaldus

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kõrge soolasisaldus lapse menüüs

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs