Search catalog

Uncle Ben's Pitkäjyväinen riisi · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Uncle Ben's Pitkäjyväinen riisi packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Uncle Ben's Pitkäjyväinen riisi

Name: Uncle Ben's Pitkäjyväinen riisi
Brand: Uncle Ben's
SKU: 5410673728968

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

Nutri-ScoreC

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:65%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.

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

349 kcal

Protein / 100g

7.3 g

Sugar / 100g

0.476 g

Nutrition score65/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality81/100

Data confidence

Quantity1kg

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental Impact

Environmental signal

Nutrition score

65/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 65/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

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

65/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

NOVA —

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

81/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

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

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, fiber per 100g, ingredients or ingredients, NOVA group, ingredients, and allergens. 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

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.

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

349 kcal

Protein / 100g

7.3 g

Sugar / 100g

0.476 g

Nutrition score65/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality81/100

Data confidence

Quantity1kg

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental Impact

Environmental signal

Nutrition score

65/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 65/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

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

65/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

NOVA —

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

81/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

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

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high

Uncle Ben's Pitkäjyväinen riisi

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

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

Environmental Impact

Nutrition score 65/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Uncle Ben's Pitkäjyväinen riisi

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

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

Environmental Impact

Nutrition score 65/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid