Search catalog

Friggs Rice cake cheese · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Friggs Rice cake cheese

Name: Friggs Rice cake cheese
Brand: Friggs
SKU: 7310186055804

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

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA3

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:66%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (2.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (640 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as kurkuma support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (21 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%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

440 kcal

Protein / 100g

8.5 g

Sugar / 100g

5 g

Nutrition score53/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

FRIGGS Raakariisistä valmistettu juuston makuinen riisikakku. Ainesosat: Raakariisi (täysjyvä) (78 %), rapsiöljy, mausteseos (9,8 %) (herajauhe (maidosta), juustojauhe (13%), suola, hiivauute (hiivauute, suola, auringonkukkaöljy), aromi (maito), happamuudensäätöaine (maitohappo, kalsiumlaktaatti), mausteuute (kurkuma), väri (paprikauute).

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity125 g

PackagingMuovi

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

53/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 53/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

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 result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Highly processed

Highly processed · Limited estimate

Highly processed

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

Environmental signal

Weak

35/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

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

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (2.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (640 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 67%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
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

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

Fiber (2.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sodium content (640 mg/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Formulation markers such as kurkuma support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (21 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%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

440 kcal

Protein / 100g

8.5 g

Sugar / 100g

5 g

Nutrition score53/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity125 g

PackagingMuovi

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

53/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 53/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

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 result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Highly processed

Highly processed · Limited estimate

Highly processed

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

Environmental signal

Weak

35/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

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

Declared Eco-Score D supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (2.9 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High sodium content (640 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 67%.
Impact: medium
The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.
Impact: low
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.

Friggs Rice cake cheese

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 53/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Friggs Rice cake cheese

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 53/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge soolasisaldus

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Kõrge soolasisaldus lapse menüüs

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud