Search catalog

KalaKalle Broilerikukko · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

KalaKalle Broilerikukko

Name: KalaKalle Broilerikukko
Brand: KalaKalle
SKU: 6408110005177

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

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:57%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Protein (13 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

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.

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.
A long ingredient list (31 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

Protein / 100g

13 g

Sugar / 100g

0.8 g

Nutrition score64/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Suomalainen broilerinliha 49.5 %, ruisleipä (_täysjyväruisjauho_, _ruisrouhe_, _ruislese_, vesi, _vehnäjauho_, _vehnägluteeni_, hiiva, jodioitu merisuola, _ruismallas_ ja _ruismallasuute_), rypsiöljy, vesi, suola

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality73/100

Data confidence

Quantity182 g

PackagingSäilykepurkki

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

64/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 64/100

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

64/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

73/100

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 (88%).
Impact: medium
Protein (13 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
High sodium content (520 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (31 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Source provenance supports confidence.
Impact: low

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

Protein (13 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.

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.

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.
A long ingredient list (31 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

Protein / 100g

13 g

Sugar / 100g

0.8 g

Nutrition score64/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality73/100

Data confidence

Quantity182 g

PackagingSäilykepurkki

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

64/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 64/100

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

64/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

73/100

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 (88%).
Impact: medium
Protein (13 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
High sodium content (520 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (31 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Source provenance supports confidence.
Impact: low

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

KalaKalle Broilerikukko

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

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 64/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

KalaKalle Broilerikukko

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

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 64/100

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