Search catalog

null cârnați superiori · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Signal unavailable

null cârnați superiori

Name: null cârnați superiori
Brand: null
SKU: 6420412001107

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

NOVA2

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:38%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (45 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

Need attention

Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.

What would improve the assessment

Environmental indication needs more packaging, origin, or declared environmental metadata.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Cârnati Superiori Cảmati Superiori Produs din eame afumat şi uscat, în membrana naturală comestibilă, Ingrediente: Came porc, sänina, proteină vegetală din soia, sare, condimente și extracte de condimente; antioxidant: acid ascorbic, ascorbat de sdiur conservanti: nitrit de sodiu, acetat de sodiu; potențiator de aroma: monoglutamat de sodiu; zahanuri: dextroză, zahär, coloranti carmin, hemoglobinà, earamel; arome; culturi starter. Aergent sola. Carmea utilizată provine din UE. Ambalat in abmosferà protectoare. Condiții de depozitare: 4-14 °C, in ga uscate prevăzute cu ventilație. Umiditate: 75-80%. Declarație nutritională valori medii pentru 100g. Valoare eergetica: 1688kJ409kcal, Gräsimi: 39g, din care acizi grasi a15,2g, Glucide: 0,4g, din care zaharuri: 0,379. Proteine: 14g, Sare: 3,19 - a de S.C Junbo Oom SR.L Numar lot: 325300 Bocsa Caras-Severit 423923 Fax 0065526349 1309-0 Expirà la: 04/11/2021

Product & Packaging

CategoryFood

Label information quality48/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Nutrition score

—/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Low reliability

low2/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Osaline
attributeGroups.processing
Osaline
stats.additives
Puudub
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Moderately processed

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

No reliable assessment

—

Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.

Label quality

Mixed

48/100

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.

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (45 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, category, packaging, origin, or ingredients, quantity, category, nutrition panel, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (45 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

Need attention

Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.

What would improve the assessment

Environmental indication needs more packaging, origin, or declared environmental metadata.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryFood

Label information quality48/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Nutrition score

—/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Low reliability

low2/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Osaline
attributeGroups.processing
Osaline
stats.additives
Puudub
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Moderately processed

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

No reliable assessment

—

Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.

Label quality

Mixed

48/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (45 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high

null cârnați superiori

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

null cârnați superiori

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Töödeldud lihatooted ja nitritid

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Töödeldud liha ja nitritite hariv signaal