St Pierre Brioche Loaf
Photo: Open Food Facts contributors (CC BY-SA)

Brioches

St Pierre Brioche Loaf

17.6 oz/500 g

Score

Bad 13 out of 100 Medium confidence
  • Ultra-processed
  • Contains added sugars
  • Contains emulsifiers studied for gut effects
  • Contains seed oils
  • Contains artificial flavors
  • No synthetic dyes

Why it scores 13

St Pierre Brioche Loaf scores 13 out of 100 (Bad) under GoodSwap’s published rules. What moved the score most:

  1. minus 20 points Sugar: An added sugar. Strong
  2. minus 20 points Invert sugar: An added sugar. Strong
  3. minus 18 points Ultra-processed (NOVA 4): Classified NOVA 4: made with industrial ingredients and additives. Strong

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

The Receipt

Brioche Loaf

START100

Ingredients

  • Sugar minus 20 points
    Strong An added sugar. [1][2][3]
  • Invert sugar minus 20 points
    Strong An added sugar. [1][2][3]
  • Vegetable oil (unspecified) minus 2.5 points
    Emerging High in omega-6 linoleic acid. [4][5][6][7]
  • Natural and artificial flavors minus 1.5 points
    Strong The label does not disclose which flavoring substances are used. [8][2]
  • Mono- and diglycerides minus 1.5 points
    Strong In the NutriNet-Santé cohort, higher intakes of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471 and E472) were associated with higher cardiovascular risk; cause and effect is not established. [9][10][11]
  • Sodium stearoyl lactylate minus 1.5 points
    Info An additive class typical of ultra-processed foods (NOVA group 4). [11]
  • Wheat gluten minus 0.5 points
    Info An ingredient typical of ultra-processed foods (NOVA group 4). [11]
  • Calcium propionate minus 0.5 points
    Regulatory Health Canada permits it only in listed foods, up to set limits (2,000 ppm in bread, as propionic acid). [12]
  • Milk protein concentrate / isolate minus 0.5 points
    Info An ingredient typical of ultra-processed foods (NOVA group 4). [11]
subtotal−48.5

Processing

  • Ultra-processed (NOVA 4) minus 18 points
    Strong Classified NOVA 4: made with industrial ingredients and additives. [11]
  • 5 kinds of ultra-processing markers minus 6 points
    Emerging Industrial additive classes found: color (added), emulsifier, flavoring, industrial protein and industrial sugar or starch hydrolysate. [11]
subtotal−24

Nutrition per 100 g

  • Sugars 11.9 g / 100 g minus 5 points
    Strong High in sugar. [1]
  • Saturated fat 4.5 g / 100 g minus 5 points
    Strong High in saturated fat. [13]
  • Salt 0.9 g / 100 g minus 3 points
    Strong High in salt. [14]
  • Energy 328 kcal / 100 g minus 2 points
    Info Energy-dense for its weight. [2]
subtotal−15

TOTAL 13Bad

100 − 87.5 = 12.5 → 13

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


GTIN 00811669020007 · 2026-04-16

score v1.3.0 · kb 2026.10.11

Medium confidence

Same product, same score. Every time.

Nutrition per 100 g

Energy328 kcal
Fat10.5 g
Saturated fat4.5 g
Trans fat0 g
Carbohydrates50.8 g
Sugars11.9 g
Added sugars9 g
Fiber1.5 g
Protein7.5 g
Salt0.9 g

Serving: 2 slices (67 g)

Ingredients

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

WHEAT FLOUR, WATER, SUGAR, VEGETABLE OIL (PALM AND CANOLA OILS), EGGS, INVERT SUGAR, BAKERS YEAST, SALT, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORINGS, SKIM MILK, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE, WHEAT GLUTEN, CALCIUM PROPIONATE (PRESERVATIVE), MILK PROTEINS, DRIED YEAST, BETA-CAROTENE COLOR.

Allergens and diets

Contains: Milk, Wheat, Gluten, Egg

  • Not vegan
  • Not gluten-free
  • Not 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. Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)

    BMJ · Apr 12, 2016 · Peer-reviewed

    “replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes.”

    doi.org

  5. Dietary Linoleic Acid and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

    Circulation · Oct 28, 2014 · Peer-reviewed

    “These data provide support for current recommendations to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat for primary prevention of CHD.”

    doi.org

  6. 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

  7. Food additive emulsifiers and risk of cardiovascular disease in the NutriNet-Santé cohort: prospective cohort study

    BMJ · Sep 6, 2023 · Peer-reviewed

    “This study found positive associations between risk of CVD and intake of five individual and two groups of food additive emulsifiers widely used in industrial foods.”

    doi.org

  8. Re-evaluation of mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) as food additives

    European Food Safety Authority · Nov 10, 2017 · Agency assessment

    “The available studies did not raise any concern with regard to genotoxicity.”

    doi.org

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

    Public Health Nutrition · April 2019 · Peer-reviewed

    doi.org

  10. 11. List of Permitted Preservatives (Lists of Permitted Food Additives)

    Health Canada · Oct 20, 2025 · Regulator

    “B.2 Butylated Hydroxyanisole n/a (a) Active dry yeasts (a) Preservative (a) 1,000 ppm n/a”

    canada.ca

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome

    Nature · Mar 5, 2015 · Peer-reviewed

    “carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate-80, induced low-grade inflammation and obesity/metabolic syndrome in wild-type hosts and promoted robust colitis in mice predisposed to this disorder.”

    doi.org

  15. Randomized Controlled-Feeding Study of Dietary Emulsifier Carboxymethylcellulose Reveals Detrimental Impacts on the Gut Microbiota and Metabolome

    Gastroenterology · March 2022 · Peer-reviewed

    “Relative to control subjects, CMC consumption modestly increased postprandial abdominal discomfort and perturbed gut microbiota composition in a way that reduced its diversity.”

    doi.org