IQ Bar Salted Caramel Chip
Photo: Open Food Facts contributors (CC BY-SA)

Energy bars

IQ Bar Salted Caramel Chip

Score

Okay 47 out of 100 High confidence
  • Ultra-processed
  • High in saturated fat
  • Contains non-nutritive sweeteners
  • Contains added sugars
  • Seed-oil free

Why it scores 47

IQ Bar Salted Caramel Chip scores 47 out of 100 (Okay) under GoodSwap’s published rules. What moved the score most:

  1. minus 20 points Caramel: An added sugar. Strong
  2. minus 18 points Ultra-processed (NOVA 4): Classified NOVA 4: made with industrial ingredients and additives. Strong
  3. minus 5 points Saturated fat 5.6 g / 100 g: High in saturated fat. Strong

Every line of the math is on The Receipt below, with its evidence tier and sources.

The Receipt

Salted Caramel Chip

START100

Ingredients

  • Caramel minus 20 points
    Strong An added sugar. [1][2][3]
  • Protein blend (unspecified) minus 2.5 points
    Info An ingredient typical of ultra-processed foods (NOVA group 4). [4]
  • Pea protein minus 2.5 points
    Info An ingredient typical of ultra-processed foods (NOVA group 4). [4]
  • Natural flavors minus 1.5 points
    Info "Natural flavor" is a legal category (21 CFR 101.22(a)(3)): flavor substances from spices, fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy or fermentation. [5][4]
  • Stevia (steviol glycosides) minus 1.5 points
    Emerging WHO (2023) recommends against using non-sugar sweeteners to control body weight (conditional recommendation); US dietary guidelines advise limiting them. [6][2]
subtotal−28

Processing

  • Ultra-processed (NOVA 4) minus 18 points
    Strong Classified NOVA 4: made with industrial ingredients and additives. [4]
  • 3 kinds of ultra-processing markers minus 3 points
    Emerging Industrial additive classes found: flavoring, industrial protein and non-nutritive sweetener. [4]
subtotal−21

Nutrition per 100 g

  • Saturated fat 5.6 g / 100 g minus 5 points
    Strong High in saturated fat. [7]
  • Salt 1.1 g / 100 g minus 3 points
    Strong High in salt. [8]
  • Energy 378 kcal / 100 g minus 2 points
    Info Energy-dense for its weight. [2]
  • Fiber 15.6 g / 100 g plus 4 points
    Strong A good source of fiber. [2]
  • Protein 26.7 g / 100 g plus 2 points
    Info A good source of protein. [2]
subtotal−4

TOTAL 47Okay

100 − 53 = 47

Can’t score above 79. Contains caramel, an ingredient of high concern. [1][2][3]

Can’t score above 79. High in fat and saturated fat (above the front-of-pack "high" level). [9]


GTIN 00198715835557 · 2026-05-13

score v1.3.0 · kb 2026.10.11

High confidence

Same product, same score. Every time.

Nutrition per 100 g

Energy378 kcal
Fat24.4 g
Saturated fat5.6 g
Trans fat0 g
Carbohydrates20 g
Sugars2.2 g
Added sugars0 g
Fiber15.6 g
Protein26.7 g
Salt1.1 g

Serving: 1 bar (45 g)

Ingredients

High Moderate Not recognized Tap an ingredient for its evidence and rules.
Label text, as published

Nuts (Almonds, Macadamia Nuts), Protein Blend (Pea Protein, Pea Nuts), Protein Crisps [Pea Protein, Tapioca Starch]), Natural Flavors, Prebiotic Blend (Tapioca Fiber, Vegetable Fiber), Coconut Oil, Unsweetened Chocolate, Water, Sea Salt, Lion's Mane, Stevia, Plant Extract, Vitamin E, Caramel

Allergens and diets

Contains: Tree nuts

  • Palm-oil-free

Always check the package: recipes change.

Sources

  1. Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children

    World Health Organization · Mar 4, 2015 · Agency assessment

    “In both adults and children, WHO recommends reducing the intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake”

    who.int

  2. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture · January 2026 · Regulator

    “Limit foods and beverages that include artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives, and low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners.”

    cdn.realfood.gov

  3. Added and free sugars should be as low as possible

    European Food Safety Authority · Feb 28, 2022 · Agency assessment

    “Sugar consumption is a known cause of dental caries.”

    efsa.europa.eu

  4. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them

    Public Health Nutrition · April 2019 · Peer-reviewed

    doi.org

  5. 21 CFR 101.22 Foods; labeling of spices, flavorings, colorings and chemical preservatives

    Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), U.S. Office of the Federal Register · Dec 19, 2016 · Law

    “whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.”

    ecfr.gov

  6. WHO advises not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control in newly released guideline

    World Health Organization · May 15, 2023 · Agency assessment

    “The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review of the available evidence which suggests that use of NSS does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.”

    who.int

  7. Saturated fatty acid and trans-fatty acid intake for adults and children: WHO guideline

    World Health Organization · Jul 17, 2023 · Agency assessment

    “WHO recommends that adults and children reduce saturated fatty acid intake to 10% of total energy intake (strong recommendation).”

    who.int

  8. Sodium reduction (fact sheet)

    World Health Organization · May 11, 2026 · Agency assessment

    “For adults, WHO recommends less than 2000 mg/day of sodium (equivalent to less than 5 g/day salt), or just under a teaspoon.”

    who.int

  9. Guide to creating a front of pack (FoP) nutrition label for pre-packed products sold through retail outlets

    Department of Health and Social Care / Food Standards Agency (GOV.UK) · Nov 8, 2016 · Regulator

    “Table 3: Criteria for drinks (per 100ml)”

    assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

  10. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses

    BMJ · Feb 28, 2024 · Peer-reviewed

    “Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes.”

    doi.org