Skip to main content

Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style

Vegetables Per 100 g · Per 100g serving

Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style is a vegetable, providing just 33.0 calories per 100g. It provides useful amounts of Iron and Sodium, contributing 44% and 32% of the Daily Value per 100g. This vegetable is virtually fat-free. Vegetables provide essential vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber with relatively few calories. They are a cornerstone of virtually every dietary guideline worldwide. Our database tracks 57 nutrients for this food, plus insulin index, environmental footprint data.

33.0
Calories
kcal
1.4
Protein
g
0.27
Fat
g
7.2
Carbs
g
1.4
Fiber
g

Top Nutrients

💎
Iron
3.5 mg
44% DV
💎
Sodium
472 mg
32% DV
💎
Copper
0.16 mg
18% DV

Data for 57 of 150 tracked nutrients

Nutrient Fingerprint

How this food scores across key nutrient categories, as a percentage of the daily recommended value per 100 g. Based on USDA DRIs for adults.

Complete Nutrient Profile

Macronutrients 8
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Water SR89.1g
2%
Calories SR33.0kcal
Energy (kJ) SR138kj
Protein SR1.4g
3%
Total Fat SR0.27g
Carbohydrate SR7.2g
6%
Fiber SR1.4g
4%
Ash SR2.0g
Minerals 10
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Calcium SR17.0mg
2%
Iron SR3.5mg
44%
Magnesium SR19.0mg
5%
Phosphorus SR48.0mg
7%
Potassium SR369mg
11%
Sodium SR472mg
32%
Zinc SR0.34mg
3%
Copper SR0.16mg
18%
Manganese SR0.22mg
9%
Selenium SR0.60µg
1%
Vitamins 16
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Vitamin A (RAE) SR49.0µg
5%
Vitamin A (IU) SR985IU
Retinol SR0µg
Vitamin C SR8.6mg
10%
Vitamin D SR0µg
Vitamin D (IU) SR0IU
Thiamin (B1) SR0.07mg
6%
Riboflavin (B2) SR0.06mg
5%
Niacin (B3) SR1.3mg
8%
Pantothenic Acid (B5) SR0.28mg
6%
Vitamin B6 SR0.18mg
14%
Folate SR14.0µg
4%
Folic Acid SR0µg
Folate (food) SR14.0µg
Folate (DFE) SR14.0µg
Vitamin B12 SR0µg
Fatty Acids 5
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Saturated Fat SR0.04g
Monounsaturated Fat SR0.04g
Polyunsaturated Fat SR0.11g
Trans Fat SR0g
Cholesterol SR0mg
Amino Acids 18
NutrientPer 100gUnitPer Serving% DV
Tryptophan SR0.01g
Threonine SR0.03g
Isoleucine SR0.03g
Leucine SR0.04g
Lysine SR0.04g
Methionine SR0.007g
Cystine SR0.009g
Phenylalanine SR0.03g
Tyrosine SR0.02g
Valine SR0.03g
Arginine SR0.03g
Histidine SR0.02g
Alanine SR0.04g
Aspartic Acid SR0.18g
Glutamic Acid SR0.57g
Glycine SR0.02g
Proline SR0.03g
Serine SR0.03g

Nutrient Density Score

The NRF9.3 score measures overall nutritional quality per 100 kcal. It rewards 9 nutrients to encourage (protein, fiber, vitamins A, C, E, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium) and penalizes 3 to limit (saturated fat, added sugars, sodium). Higher is better; negative scores indicate the food is high in limit nutrients relative to its beneficial content.

107
NRF9.3 Score
Excellent · per 100 kcal
Poor (<0) Moderate Good Excellent (100+)

NRF9.3 index: Fulgoni et al. (2009), J Nutr 139(8). DVs based on FDA 2020 reference values.

Nutrient Interactions in This Food

Nutrients in this food that enhance or compete with each other during absorption.

✔ Synergies — nutrients that help each other

Vitamin C + Iron●●●

Vitamin C dramatically enhances non-heme iron absorption by reducing Fe³⁺ to Fe²⁺ in the gut. Adding 75 mg vitamin C to a meal can increase iron absorption 3–4 fold.

Hallberg et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 1989

Dietary Fat + Vitamin A●●●

Vitamin A is fat-soluble and requires dietary fat for absorption. Adding fat to a meal significantly increases beta-carotene and retinol absorption.

Ribaya-Mercado et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2007

⚠ Antagonisms — nutrients that compete

Potassium vs Sodium●●

High potassium intake promotes renal sodium excretion and attenuates the blood pressure–raising effect of sodium. A higher K:Na ratio is associated with lower cardiovascular risk.

Aburto et al., BMJ, 2013

Manganese vs Iron●●

Manganese and iron share the DMT1 transporter and compete for absorption. High iron status reduces manganese absorption and vice versa.

Erikson et al., Pharmacol Ther, 2007

Vitamin C vs Copper●●

High-dose vitamin C (>1,500 mg/day) may reduce copper absorption by reducing Cu²⁺ to Cu⁺, though the clinical significance at normal intakes is minimal.

Harris, Am J Clin Nutr, 2003

Amino Acid Profile

Essential amino acid composition compared to the WHO/FAO adult reference pattern. The Amino Acid Score indicates protein quality — 100 means all essential amino acid requirements are met.

47
Amino Acid Score
Low
Leucine
Limiting Amino Acid
18
Amino Acids Tracked

Tip: The limiting amino acid is Leucine. Pair with dairy, eggs, and meat for a complete amino acid profile.

All Amino Acids (18)
Amino Acidg / 100gmg / g protein
Tryptophan0.016.9
Threonine0.0322.9
Isoleucine0.0319.4
Leucine0.0427.8
Lysine0.0428.5
Methionine0.0074.9
Cystine0.0096.2
Phenylalanine0.0320.8
Tyrosine0.0213.2
Valine0.0320.1
Arginine0.0320.1
Histidine0.0216.0
Alanine0.0431.2
Aspartic Acid0.18125.0
Glutamic Acid0.57399.3
Glycine0.0216.7
Proline0.0322.2
Serine0.0323.6

How Cooking Changes Nutrients

Estimated percentage of each nutrient retained after cooking, based on USDA retention factors for the “Tomatoes” food category. Values of 100% mean no loss; lower values indicate nutrients lost to heat, water, or oxidation.

Source: USDA Table of Nutrient Retention Factors, Release 6 (2007). Retention values are category-level averages — actual retention depends on cooking time, temperature, and water volume.

USDA Retention Factors

Insulin Response

The Insulin Index (II) measures the actual insulin response to food on a scale where white bread = 100. Unlike the Glycemic Index (which only measures blood sugar), the II captures the full hormonal response — including the effect of protein and fat on insulin secretion. This is why high-protein foods like meat and dairy can have significant insulin scores despite having low or zero GI values.

67
Insulin Index
High Insulin Response
Insulin Index Scale 67
0 Low ≤30 Mod ≤60 High ≤100 120
Macro Model ●● Estimated from macronutrient composition (R²=0.49)

Source: Holt et al. 1997; Bao et al. 2016; Bell 2014

Environmental Impact

Environmental footprint per kilogram of food produced. Data represents the global average for the “Tomatoes” category.

2.1
kg CO₂e / kg
Low Impact
0.80
m² land / kg
Land Use
370
L water / kg
Water Use
7.2
g SO₂e / kg
Acidification
How this compares (GHG emissions)
Potatoes (0.5)Chicken (9.9)Beef (99.5)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions2.1 kg CO₂e / kg
Land Use0.80 m² / kg
Water Use370 L / kg
Eutrophication7.5 g PO₄e / kg
Acidification7.2 g SO₂e / kg
⚠️ Important context about this data
  • Global averages: These figures are production-weighted averages from a meta-analysis of ~38,700 farms across 119 countries (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Actual impact varies enormously by farming method, geography, and supply chain.
  • System boundary: Cradle-to-retail only — does not include consumer transport, home cooking energy, or food waste.
  • Soil carbon not included: This data does not account for soil carbon sequestration. Some argue that well-managed regenerative grazing partially offsets ruminant emissions; however, full lifecycle accounting — including methane, land-use change, and the opportunity cost of using land for grazing vs. reforestation — typically makes the net footprint of ruminant meat higher, not lower. This is especially relevant in temperate grassland regions like Ireland.
  • Not gospel: This data is informational and illustrative. It is useful for understanding relative magnitudes, but should not be treated as precise measurements for any individual product or farm.

Source: Poore & Nemecek (2018), Science 360(6392). Meta-analysis of ~38,700 farms, 119 countries, 46 product categories.

Global Supply: Vegetables

Top 10 countries by per capita supply of the “Vegetables” food group (kcal/capita/day, 2023). This is food group–level data from FAO Food Balance Sheets, not specific to this individual food.

1.
310
2.
306
3.
258
4.
221
5.
209
6.
204
7.
192
8.
190
9.
186
10.
183

Global Supply Trend (1961–2023)

+76%
1961: 38 kcal2023: 67 kcal

Source: FAO Food Balance Sheets (2023). Supply = production + imports − exports − waste, converted to kcal/capita/day.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many calories are in Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style?

Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style contains 33.0 kcal per 100 grams, making it a low-calorie food. The energy comes from 1.4g of protein (17% of calories), 0.27g of fat (7%), and 7.2g of carbohydrates (88%). Carbohydrates are the primary energy source.

What is Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style most nutritious for?

The standout nutrient in Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style is Iron, providing 3.5 mg per 100g (44% of the Daily Value). It is also a notable source of Sodium (32% DV). Our database tracks 57 individual nutrients for this food, allowing detailed comparison across vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids.

Is Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style high in protein?

At 1.4g per 100 grams, Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style is not a significant source of protein. Pair with protein-rich foods like legumes, meat, fish, or dairy to meet daily protein needs.

How much fiber is in Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style?

Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style contains 1.4g of fiber per 100 grams, which is a small amount. To increase fiber intake, consider pairing with high-fiber foods such as legumes, whole grains, or vegetables.

What is the insulin index of Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style?

Tomato products, canned, sauce, spanish style has a high insulin response (II: 67) (estimated from macronutrient composition) on the insulin index scale (white bread = 100). Foods with high insulin scores stimulate significant insulin release, which may be relevant for blood sugar management. Note that the insulin index can differ substantially from the glycemic index — dairy products and high-protein foods often have higher insulin responses than their GI would suggest.