Search catalog

Aino Aino Suklainen metsämarja · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Aino Aino Suklainen metsämarja

Name: Aino Aino Suklainen metsämarja
Brand: Aino
SKU: 6430064400814

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

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4

Lisaained:4 tk

Andmete katvus:85%

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

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 (41 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Rasvaton MAITO jauheesta (Suomi), KERMA (Suomi), sokeri, glukoosisiirappi, vadelma (2 %; EU ja muu kuin EU), dekstroosi, kaakaojauhe, mustikkamehutiiviste (0,3 %; EU ja muu kuin EU), muunnettu tärkkelys, emulgointiaine (rasvahappojen mono - ja diglyseridit), stabilointiaineet (guarkumi, johanneksenleipäpuujauhe), pakkaskuivattu vadelma (0,1 %; EU ja muu kuin EU), sakeuttamisaine (pektini), jauhettu vaniljatanko, luontainen vanilja-aromi, happamuudensäätöaine (sitruunahappo). Kaakaopitoisuus jäätelössä 0,8 %. SAATTAA SISALTAA PAHKINAA.

Tuvastatud lisaained (3)

E330 E412 E471

Product & Packaging

CategoryDairies

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity520 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

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 processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

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 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

Strong

88/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (41 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
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
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, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

TCE

Sana

Dairies. Ingredients: Lapte de vacă normalizat şi pasteurizat, culturi lactice selecţionate. Conţine lactoză.. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreBNOVA1Lower processing burden

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

TCE

Chefir

Dairies. Ingredients: Ingrediente: lapte de vacă normalizat şi pasteurizat culturi lactice selecţionate. Conţine lactoză.. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreBNOVA1Lower processing burden

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Valio

Profeel Mango

Dairies. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreABalanced nutrition

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts

4770265218873

Dairies. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreCDairies

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Signal classes

Need attention

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 4 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (41 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

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

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Tuvastatud lisaained (3)

E330 E412 E471

Product & Packaging

CategoryDairies

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity520 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

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 processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

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 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

Strong

88/100

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
A long ingredient list (41 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
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Aino Aino Suklainen metsämarja

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

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

Sana

Chefir

Profeel Mango

4770265218873

Aino Aino Suklainen metsämarja

Similar options worth comparing

Sana

Chefir

Profeel Mango

4770265218873

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

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

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs