View full-size photo · Photo: Open Food Facts contributors, CC BY-SA
Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken
Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken by Foodji provides 96 kcal per 100 g, with 8.6 g of sugars and 6.2 g of protein. That is 241% more sugar than the average product in this category. Its Nutri-Score is D. It is listed in the Rice dishes category.
Nutrient levels per 100 g
Levels use UK front-of-pack reference thresholds.
Nutrition facts
Serving size: 473 g
| Nutrient | Per 100 g | Per serving | % DV* | Category avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 96 kcal | 454 kcal | 263 −64% | |
| Total fat | 3.5 g | 16.6 g | 21% | 3.3 +5% |
| Saturated fat | 0.5 g | 2.4 g | 12% | 0.8 −40% |
| Carbohydrates | 9.9 g | 46.8 g | 17% | 46.5 −79% |
| Total sugars | 8.6 g | 40.7 g | 2.5 +241% | |
| Protein | 6.2 g | 29.3 g | 59% | 7.5 −17% |
| Salt | 1.8 g | 8.4 g | 1.7 |
*% Daily Value for a serving, based on a 2,000-calorie diet (FDA reference values). Category average across 1100 Rice dishes products on Foodmetria.
Compared with other rice dishes
Bar shows the share of products in this category that contain less of the nutrient.
Ingredients
Ingredient list not available.
Product details
- Serving size
- 473 g
- Labels & certifications
- VegetarianVegan
- Sold in
- Germany
- Barcode
- 4001590253650
Prices reported by shoppers
Loading prices…
Frequently asked questions
How many calories are in Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken?
Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken contains 96 kcal per 100 g and about 454 kcal per serving (473 g).
How much sugar is in Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken?
Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken has 8.6 g of sugars per 100 g, which is considered moderate by UK front-of-pack guidelines.
Is Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken healthy?
It has a Nutri-Score of D (A is best, E is worst). Scores describe nutritional quality and processing, not suitability for your individual diet.
Is Nasi Goreng mit planted.chicken vegan?
Based on its ingredient list, it appears to be vegan. Always check the package label.
Source: Open Food Facts (ODbL). Last updated August 7, 2026. Spotted a mistake? Edit this product on Open Food Facts. Not medical advice — always check the package label.
Reviews
Compare & rankings
Healthier alternatives
Best in category →Same category, meaningfully better on at least one measure and no worse on the others. Each card shows what improves.
a NOVA 3 
a NOVA 4 
a NOVA 4 
a More rice dishes
View all →
c 
b NOVA 3 
b NOVA 3 
a NOVA 3 
c 
b NOVA 4 
