Search catalog

Happy Coco Happy coco red berries · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Happy Coco Happy coco red berries

Name: Happy Coco Happy coco red berries
Brand: Happy Coco
SKU: 8719325822717

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

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA3

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:65%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

High saturated fat (7.6 g/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.
A long ingredient list (32 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

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

124 kcal

Protein / 100g

0.89 g

Sugar / 100g

7.1 g

Nutrition score56/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Kokoscreme* 77% (Kokosmark*, Wasser), Rohrohrzucker*, Erdbeeren* 3,1%, Sauerkirschen* 2,4%, rote Johannisbeeren* 2,4%, schwarze Johannisbeeren* 2,4%, Himbeerpüree* 1,2%, Stärke*, schwarzes Karottensaftkonzentrat*, Zitronensaftkonzentrat, Stabilisator (Guarkernmehl*), vegane Joghurtkulturen. *aus kontrolliert ökologischem Anbau

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity250 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

56/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 56/100

Mixed

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 result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

56/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High saturated fat (7.6 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (32 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
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

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

Need attention

High saturated fat (7.6 g/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.
A long ingredient list (32 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

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

124 kcal

Protein / 100g

0.89 g

Sugar / 100g

7.1 g

Nutrition score56/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Quantity250 g

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA group

Nutrition score

56/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 56/100

Mixed

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 result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

56/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

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

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High saturated fat (7.6 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
A long ingredient list (32 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
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

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

Happy Coco Happy coco red berries

Nutrient profile

Need attention

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 56/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Happy Coco Happy coco red berries

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Need attention

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 56/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Kõrge küllastunud rasva sisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Suhkruga joogid lapse puhul

Kõrge küllastunud rasva taustsignaal