Battered Cod Fillet Goujons

Name: Battered Cod Fillet Goujons
Brand: Harry Ramsden's

Harry Ramsden's

5010525357669

Processing

Ultra-processed

Group 4 of 4 on the NOVA scale

Additives listed

None we have assessed

Counted from the label, not by quantity

Fat per 100g

10g

Medium

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

Battered Cod Fillet Goujons Skinless and boneless cod fillet strips, coated in batter. 400ge Ingredients Cod (fish) (55%), Rapeseed oil, Water, Wheat flour (wheat flour, calcium, folic acid, iron, niacin, thiamin), Maize flour, Potato starch, Modified tapioca starch, Maize starch, Wheat starch, Palm oil, Salt, Wheat gluten, Deactivated yeast (barley, wheat), Dextrose, Onion powder, Barley malt vinegar powder, Garlic powder, Cider vinegar. ALLERGY ADVICE

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

10g

Medium

Saturates

0.90g

Low

Sugars

0.40g

Low

Salt

0.78g

Medium

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Product data from Open Food Facts, which is crowd sourced and can be incomplete or out of date.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