Understanding the Yumiq-Score and the Yumiq star

What is the purpose of the Yumiq-Score?

The Nutri-Score answers a specific question: what is the nutritional profile of this product? TheYumiq-Scoreasks a broader question: how good is this product once you also consider its processing, environmental impact, additives and certifications? It appears on every Yumiq product page as a rating out of 100 accompanied by a label ranging from "Poor product" to "Excellent product".

This article describes what the score takes into account, how it should be read and, above all, what it does not indicate. To understand each indicator, see alsoAll scores compared: Nutri-Score, NOVA, Green-Score.

The three basic indicators

The score combines three objective indicators, already published and documented elsewhere:

• The Nutri-Score: the nutritional profile of the product, from A to E.
• NOVA: the degree of industrial processing, from group 1 (unprocessed or minimally processed foods) to group 4 (ultra-processed).
• The Green-Score: the environmental impact, from A+ to F, calculated and published by Open Food Facts.

These three indicators do not carry the same weight. The weighting displayed in the application is as follows:Processing ×3, Environment ×4, Nutrition ×2. The Nutri-Score therefore carries the least weight. This choice is intentional: the Nutri-Score depends heavily on the category. An organic artisan butter remains classified as D or E because it is naturally high in fat, which is not a moral flaw. Industrial processing and environmental impact are considered more discriminating within the same category.

What is added and what is deducted

Two adjustments are added to the three basic indicators:

• A bonus for certified quality labels: organic and related organic labels, AOP, IGP, STG, Label Rouge, MSC or ASC for fisheries and aquaculture, fair trade. These are third-party certifications. Simple claims, such as "made in France", "vegetarian" or "preservative-free", do not count.
• A penalty for risky additives: this applies to additives flagged by EFSA (risk of overexposure) or ANSES in the Open Food Facts taxonomy, as well as non-nutritive sweeteners. The more there are, the greater the penalty, up to a ceiling.

Regarding sweeteners, Yumiq's position is explicit: aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, acesulfame K or stevia are classified as moderate risk, in the same way as controversial colourings. Their long-term effects remain debated in the scientific community, and a single one is enough to penalise the score.

The philosophy: penalise flaws, reward modestly

The score follows a simple logic, which the application itself sets out:Heavily penalise shortcomings, modestly reward quality. A major flaw, such as a risky additive, ultra-processing or a poor environmental score, carries more weight than a good result on another criterion. There is no magic compensation: label bonuses are capped and remain lower than the penalty for an ultra-processed product.

A generally good product receives a positive score. To distinguish those that are truly outstanding, Yumiq uses a second indicator: the star.

What about user reviews?

Ratings left by the community are also included in the calculation, as a weighted average based on their number. In practice, a product without reviews is rated solely on its objective data. As reviews accumulate, they carry more weight in the result. A product with only one review therefore remains very close to its objective score.

The Yumiq star: five cumulative conditions

TheYumiq staris not a rating; it is a distinction. It is awarded only if the following five conditions are met:

• the product is inNOVA 1, meaning unprocessed or minimally processed;
• itsGreen-Score is A or A+;
• it containsno more than one additive;
• this or these additives arenot risky: no risky additives reported, no non-nutritive sweeteners;
• it bears at leastone certified quality label(Organic and related organic labels, AOP, IGP, STG, Label Rouge, MSC or ASC, Fairtrade).

Nutri-Score is deliberately absent from these criteria. The star rewards the producer's effort, not the nutritional composition of the category. When a product does not have the star, the product page states the reason(s): not NOVA 1, insufficient Green-Score, more than one additive, a risky additive, or lack of a label.

Reading the score on a product page

On the page, the score out of 100 is accompanied by a label. Clicking or tapping on the score opens the calculation details for that product: the contribution of each component, from Nutri-Score to additives via labels, and the mention "Data not available" when information is missing.

• Look first at thecomponents that pull the score down: this is often more informative than the final figure.
• Compareproducts of the same type: a high score for a ready meal and for a raw vegetable does not have the same meaning.
• Do not seek precision to the exact point: two neighbouring scores do not indicate two truly different products.

Limitations to be aware of

The Yumiq-Score is a tool for interpretation, not a verdict. Several limitations should be kept in mind.

• Data coverage.The score is based on information from collaborative databases such as Open Food Facts. A missing component (no NOVA, no Green-Score) contributes zero points: it is neither penalised nor rewarded. The score is then less informative.
• Products without data.If none of the three basic indicators are available, the score is not calculated and the page displays "Unknown".
• Green-Score has its own limitations.It also depends on the information available for the product.
• A score is not personalised advice.It does not take into account your needs, your allergies, or how often you consume the product.
• A weighting choice.Giving more weight to the environment and processing than to nutrition is a deliberate choice, which is explained but open to debate.

A complement to Nutri-Score, not a replacement.

Nutri-Score remains a reliable reference for comparing products within the same category based on their nutritional profile. Yumiq-Score does not replace it: it places it in a broader context by adding processing, environmental impact, additives and labels. The two assessments may differ, and that is precisely their value: a product can have a good Nutri-Score and be ultra-processed, or vice versa.

To learn more about the comparison between indicators, readWhich nutritional score is the most reliable?.

Sources

• Public Health France - Nutri-Score
• Monteiro C. A. et al. - Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them (Public Health Nutrition, 2019)
• Open Food Facts - Green-Score: the environmental impact of food products