Wind Down Collection

Name: Wind Down Collection
Brand: Twinings

Twinings

0070177231231

Processing

Ultra-processed

Group 4 of 4 on the NOVA scale

Additives listed

None we have assessed

Counted from the label, not by quantity

Nutrients

–

Nothing above the low band

Or no figures recorded at all

Three separate readings, kept apart on purpose. This is not a score, and none of it says this product is harmful.

Additives

No additives listed in the source data for this product. That can mean it genuinely has none, or that the entry is incomplete. The pack itself is the authority.

Ingredients

Passionflower, Apple Pieces, Camomile, Cinnamon Bark, Natural Apple Flavouring with other Natural Flavourings, Cardamom, Cloves, Natural Vanilla Flavouring with other Natural Flavourings, Camomile, Passionflower, Lavender, Orange Blossom, Valerian Root, Natural Blood Orange Flavouring, Natural Flavouring, Passionflower, Apple Pieces, Limeflower, Valerian Root, Natural Raspberry Flavouring with other Natural Flavourings, Beetroot, Niacin, Natural Flavouring

As printed on the pack, in the producer's own order: ingredients are listed by weight, so what comes first is most of what is in it. E numbers link to their assessment where we have one.

Processing level

NOVA group 4: Ultra-processed

Industrial formulations with additives, isolates and ingredients you would not cook with at home. The strongest modern evidence links high intake of these to poorer health outcomes.

Nutrients per 100g

Fat

–

No data

Saturates

–

No data

Sugars

–

No data

Salt

–

No data

Judged on the UK FSA front of pack thresholds for solid foods. A dash means the source has no figure, which is not the same as a low one.

Where this came from

Product data from Open Food Facts, which is crowd sourced and can be incomplete or out of date. Photograph from the same source, under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. Our copy is from 17 August 2026: Open Food Facts is checked every night, and a product is rewritten only when its record there has changed, so an older date means the source has not moved rather than that we stopped looking. Something wrong? Correcting it at the source fixes it here and everywhere else that uses the same data. If the problem is one of our additive assessments, tell us.

Scan another barcode Search