Tangy toms

Unknown brand

5010052114254

Processing

–

Not recorded

A gap in the source, not a sign it is unprocessed

Additives listed

None we have assessed

Counted from the label, not by quantity

Fat per 100g

20.95g

High

UK FSA front of pack threshold

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

03 Feb 24 3254 05:14 E9C Contains Sunflower Oil 63g e FM137652 Don't recycle at home RECYCLE WITH BAGS AT LARGE SUPERMARKE 5 010052 114254">

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

No processing group recorded against this barcode. Another pack of the same product, 5010052113288, is recorded as NOVA 4. That is a different pack, so it is a pointer rather than a reading for this one.

Nutrients per 100g

Fat

20.95g

High

Saturates

1.43g

Low

Sugars

3.33g

Low

Salt

4.19g

High

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.

Other packs of this product

Open Food Facts keeps a record for every barcode, so one product can appear several times. Each of these carries its own data, and may be fuller or thinner than this one.

Tangy toms
5010052113288 NOVA 4
Tangy Toms
5010052109892 no processing data

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Product data from Open Food Facts, which is crowd sourced and can be incomplete or out of date.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