Search catalog

PullaPirtti Lapin Jääkäri · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Low signal

PullaPirtti Lapin Jääkäri

Name: PullaPirtti Lapin Jääkäri
Brand: PullaPirtti
SKU: 6405506008101

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

Nutri-ScoreBNOVA3

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:70%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (13 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (440 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
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

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score A supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Protein / 100g

7.7 g

Sugar / 100g

1.4 g

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Täysjyväruis 60% (jauho, rouhe, mallas), vesi, hiivaleipävehnäjauho, kaurarouhe, suola, hiiva Täysjyväruista 75% viljaraaka-aineista. Saattaa sisältää pieniä maidon ja kananmunan jäämiä

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Quantity500 g

Packagingkartonki,muovi

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

73/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 73/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Environmental signal

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

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Strong

95/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

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 A supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (13 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (440 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (14 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
Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, 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

Supporting factors

Fiber (13 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (440 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
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

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score A supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Protein / 100g

7.7 g

Sugar / 100g

1.4 g

Nutrition score73/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Täysjyväruis 60% (jauho, rouhe, mallas), vesi, hiivaleipävehnäjauho, kaurarouhe, suola, hiiva Täysjyväruista 75% viljaraaka-aineista. Saattaa sisältää pieniä maidon ja kananmunan jäämiä

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality74/100

Data confidence

Quantity500 g

Packagingkartonki,muovi

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

73/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 73/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Environmental signal

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

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Strong

95/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

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 A supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (13 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (440 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (14 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
Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium

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

PullaPirtti Lapin Jääkäri

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

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 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

PullaPirtti Lapin Jääkäri

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

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

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

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid