Rich Ranch Potetgull

by KIM’s in Crisps Barcode 7039317008754
Poor nutritional quality

Rich Ranch Potetgull by KIM’s provides 520 kcal per 100 g, with 2 g of sugars and 5 g of protein. That is 61% less sugar than the average product in this category. Its Nutri-Score is D. It is listed in the Crisps category.

Nutrient levels per 100 g

Fat
31 g · High
Saturated fat
2.8 g · Moderate
Sugars
2 g · Low
Salt
1.4 g · Moderate

Levels use UK front-of-pack reference thresholds.

Nutrition facts

Serving size: 30 g

Nutrient Per 100 g Per serving% DV* Category avg
Calories 520 kcal 156 kcal 478 +9%
Total fat 31 g 9.3 g 12% 24.4 +27%
Saturated fat 2.8 g 0.8 g 4% 3.8 −26%
Carbohydrates 54 g 16.2 g 6% 54.3
Total sugars 2 g 0.6 g 5.2 −61%
Dietary fiber 4.2 g 1.3 g 5% 5.1 −18%
Protein 5 g 1.5 g 3% 8.4 −41%
Salt 1.4 g 0.4 g 1.7 −19%

*% Daily Value for a serving, based on a 2,000-calorie diet (FDA reference values). Category average across 3450 Crisps products on Foodmetria.

Compared with other crisps

Calories higher 31%
Sugars lower 37%
Salt lower 47%
Saturated fat higher 44%
Protein top 79%
Fiber top 50%

Bar shows the share of products in this category that contain less of the nutrient.

Product details

Serving size
30 g
Sold in
Norway
Barcode
7039317008754

Prices reported by shoppers

Loading prices…

Frequently asked questions

How many calories are in Rich Ranch Potetgull?

Rich Ranch Potetgull contains 520 kcal per 100 g and about 156 kcal per serving (30 g).

How much sugar is in Rich Ranch Potetgull?

Rich Ranch Potetgull has 2 g of sugars per 100 g, which is considered low by UK front-of-pack guidelines.

Is Rich Ranch Potetgull 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.

Source: Open Food Facts (ODbL). Last updated January 7, 2026. Spotted a mistake? Edit this product on Open Food Facts. Not medical advice — always check the package label.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tried Rich Ranch Potetgull? Be the first to share how it tastes.

Write a review

Your rating

Reviews are moderated. See our Privacy Policy.

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.

More crisps

View all →

More from KIM’s

View all →