Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin vs Bonbons au miel de romarin
Overall, Bonbons au miel de romarin has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.
Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin
Bonbons au miel de romarin
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin | Bonbons au miel de romarin |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 378 kcal | 382 kcal |
| Fat | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 60 g | 63 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk, Peanuts | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Bonbons au miel de romarin has no fat, while Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin has 0.5 g.
- Only Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin lists: Milk, Peanuts.
Ingredients
Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin
socce de canne . bonbons miel sève de CQit à u-chaUdt00 Le consèd de Corentin : lasè.e&pin reconrxepa-rses vertus antiseptiques sur les voies respiratoires et ure bonne excuse potar céder à la tentation ! Bonbons miel arôme sève de pin : Sucre de canne* 61%, sirop de glucose*, miel* 3,3%, huile essentielle de pin* Ingrédients issus de {'agriculture biologique. Fabriaué dans un atelieçqui utilise fruits à coques, arachides, lait. kca ) 00.1 g-TGl.ucides : 93 g : 0553 20 5249
Bonbons au miel de romarin
Sirop de glucose, sucre, miel de Romarin (10%).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin or Bonbons au miel de romarin?
Overall, Bonbons au miel de romarin has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. We compare Nutri-Score, processing level and seven nutrients per 100 g. Your own needs (for example low sugar or high protein) may make a different choice better for you.
Which has fewer calories?
Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin has fewer calories: 378 kcal versus 382 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bonbon Dur Miel Seve De Pin has less sugar: 60 g versus 63 g per 100 g.