Search catalog

Home Garden Pasta De Tomate · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Home Garden Pasta De Tomate

Name: Home Garden Pasta De Tomate
Brand: Home Garden
SKU: 6425744151070

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

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA2

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:77%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

High sodium content (880 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (18 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.

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

106 kcal

Protein / 100g

2.5 g

Sugar / 100g

20.2 g

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

PASTA TOMATE CONCENTRATIE 30%. Produs pasteurizat. Ingrediente: pastă tomate de concentratie 36-38%, apa, sare 1. Substanţă uscată solubilä 28-30% Origine pasta tomates NON UE. A se păstra în încăperi uscate, aerisite, ferite de inghet, la temperaturi de max. 25°C. După deschidere, a se pástra la frigider, dar nu mai mult de 72 de ore. A se consuma de preferinţă, înainte de: vezi data inscripţionată pe capac VALORI NUTRITIONALE LAZA

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality81/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Nutrition score

51/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 51/100

Mixed

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

high

Data confidence

High reliability

high5/5 kontrollitud

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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 result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

51/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Moderately processed

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

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 broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sodium content (880 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (18 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low

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

High sodium content (880 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (18 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.

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

106 kcal

Protein / 100g

2.5 g

Sugar / 100g

20.2 g

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality81/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 2

Nutrition score

51/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 51/100

Mixed

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

high

Data confidence

High reliability

high5/5 kontrollitud

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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 result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

51/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

Moderately processed

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

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 broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 2 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sodium content (880 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (18 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low

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

Home Garden Pasta De Tomate

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 51/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Home Garden Pasta De Tomate

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 51/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Kõrge soolasisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Suhkruga joogid lapse puhul

Kõrge soolasisaldus lapse menüüs