Search catalog

Atria Chicken Rogan Josh · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Atria Chicken Rogan Josh

Name: Atria Chicken Rogan Josh
Brand: Atria
SKU: 6407860060290

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

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:68%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

High sodium content (480 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as kurkuma support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (54 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

126 kcal

Protein / 100g

4.29 g

Sugar / 100g

4 g

Nutrition score60/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Rogan Josh-kastike 57 % (vesi, broilerinliha (14 %), laktoositon ruokakerma, tomaattipyre, sipuli, fariinisokeri, rypsiöljy, mausteet (mm. juustokumina, kurkuma, korianteri, chili, valkosipuli, neilikka, kaneli, laakerinlehti), jodioitu suola, muunnettu maissitärkkelys, tomaattijauhe, aromit (mm. paprika), keitetty risi 43% (vesi, riisi). Broilerinlihan alkuperä Suomi. Kuumennusohje: Avaa kalvoa hieman kulmasta ja kuumenna mikroaaltouunissa (750 W) n. 3 min. Anna vetäytyä hetki, poista kalvo kokonaan varovasti repäisemällä. Sekoita. Rasia voidaan lämmittää ainoastaan mikroaaltouunissa,

Product & Packaging

CategoryMeals

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity350 g

Packagingmuovi,pahvi

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

60/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 60/100

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

60/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

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

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 (480 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as kurkuma support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 78%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

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

Similar options worth comparing

Лента

Ролл Цезарь

Meals. Ingredients: Тортилья (мука пшенич.в/ с вода, соль, дрожжи, сахар, консервантЕ282), стрипсы (филе куриное, молоко, яйцо, паниров. смесь (мука, крахмал кукурузный, соль, яичн. продукты, компл. пищ. добавка(соль, сахар, загустител ь мальтодекстрин, ароматизатор экстракт чеснока), ароматизаторы, красители:Е100,E160; усилитель вкуса/ аромата 621), масло растительное, перец красный острый,соль), соус чесночный (майонез (масло подсолнечное, вода, регулятор кислотностиЕ260, крахмал кукурузный, яичный продукт, загустители:E415,E412; соль, консерванты: Е200,E385; ароматизато р Горчица, подсластители:E950,E951; краситель E160), сметана, перец черный, чеснок, соль, укроп)), капуста китайская, помидор. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Selver

Makaroni-singisalat

Meals. Ingredients: MAKARON 35% [MAKARON sh NISU, rapsiõli], majonees [rapsiõli, vesi, LÖSSIpulber, suhkur, sool, SINEPIpulber, modifitseeritud tärklis, paksendajad (E415, E412), MUNApulber, happesuse regulaator E260, säilitusaine E202], sink 16% [sealiha, vesi, tärklis, sool, glükoos, stabilisaatorid (E450, E451), modifitseeritud tärklis, maitsetaimed, vürtsid, paksendaja E407, lõhna - ja maitseaine, antioksüdant E316, toiduvärv E120, säilitusaine E250], marineeritud kurk sh SINEP, keedetud porgand, sool, suhkur, maitsetaimed, maltodekstriin, glükoos, lõhna - ja maitseaine, vürtsid, SELLERIekstrakt. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

NOVA4Well-documented label

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

HoviRuoka

Vihispizza

Meals. Ingredients: VEHNÄjauho, vesi, kasvisseos (tomaatti, porkkana, sipuli, paprika, purjo, valkosipuli), tomaattimurska (tomaatti, tomaattitäysmehu, happamuudensäätöaine (sitruunahappo)), tomaattikastike (tomaattipyree ja - murska, vesi, sokeri, suola, etikka, rapsiöljy, mustapippuri, säilöntäineet (E202, E211), teksturoitu vehnä (vehnäjauho, väri E150c), rapsiöljy, vegaaninen raaste (vesi, kookosöljy, modifioitu perunatärkkelys, merisuola, modifioitu tapiokatärkkelys, vegaaninen mauste, oliivi - ja pihlaja-aromi, väri (betakaroteeni)), sokeri, suola, vehnäraski (kuivattu vehnähapantaikina), mausteseos (mm. paprika, kurkuma, oregano), tärkkelys (modifioitu perunatärkkelys(E1422), maltodextriini), säilöntäaine (E202). Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Lidl

Lasagne Carbonara

Meals. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreCMeals

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Similar options worth comparing

Лента

Ролл Цезарь

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Selver

Makaroni-singisalat

NOVA4Well-documented label

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

HoviRuoka

Vihispizza

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Lidl

Lasagne Carbonara

Meals. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreCMeals

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Signal classes

Need attention

High sodium content (480 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as kurkuma support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (54 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

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

126 kcal

Protein / 100g

4.29 g

Sugar / 100g

4 g

Nutrition score60/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryMeals

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity350 g

Packagingmuovi,pahvi

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

60/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 60/100

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

60/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

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

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 (480 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as kurkuma support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 78%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

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

Atria Chicken Rogan Josh

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Ролл Цезарь

Makaroni-singisalat

Vihispizza

Lasagne Carbonara

Atria Chicken Rogan Josh

Similar options worth comparing

Ролл Цезарь

Makaroni-singisalat

Vihispizza

Lasagne Carbonara

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 60/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs