WHO Targets Added Flavors and Colors, and the Food Industry Fires Back

Eleven million deaths a year. That's the figure the World Health Organization attaches to unhealthy diets — and the number behind its new draft guidance that, for the first time, targets foods with added colors, flavors and sweeteners, not just their fat, salt and sugar content.

The draft food-profiling model, published last week, tells governments to consider regulating products formulated with additives designed to make them more appealing. It's a bridge between the WHO's healthy-diet recommendations and national policy tools such as warning labels and taxes, depending on each country's priorities. The proposal is open for consultation until November 27.

The food industry didn't wait for the deadline to object.

What's actually new in the guidance?

Until now, the UN health agency's food-profiling work focused on nutritional content — fat, salt and the like. This draft breaks that boundary. It flags the use of added colors, flavors and sweeteners as a factor governments can use to decide which foods belong in the "consume in moderation" category, and which products could face measures like warning labels or levies.

"This draft goes beyond traditional nutrient profiling by recognizing that foods may need to be considered not only for their nutrient content, but also for other aspects of their formulation," said Katrin Engelhardt, technical officer at the WHO's department of nutrition and food safety. The goal, she said, is preventing diet-related disease.

In plain terms: a product's ingredient list now matters as much as its nutrition panel.

Why is this fight about ultra-processed foods?

The model is the WHO's attempt to steer member states through an increasingly polarized debate over ultra-processed foods (UPFs) — a class of food and drink made with industrial techniques, additives and ingredients that often contain little whole food. Carbonated soft drinks and instant noodles are the textbook examples.

The science community is split. Many food scientists say UPFs pose numerous health risks. Others — alongside the industry — argue the category is defined too widely, which risks demonizing products that are perfectly healthy.

Lindsey Smith Taillie, co-director of the Global Food Research Program at the University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, backs the WHO's blended approach. The model targets unhealthy foods by combining both nutrient profiling and UPF classification, she said.

"These two frameworks have never been mutually exclusive and can and should be used by policymakers as the starting place," Taillie said, noting that healthiness is measured by multiple criteria.

Her takeaway: the two systems were always complements, and governments now have explicit permission to use them together.

What is the industry afraid of?

The International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), which represents major multinational food and beverage companies, said the proposed approach shifts attention away from nutritional quality and could sweep more products into the scope of potential regulation.

"Of particular concern is the potential to undermine established nutrition priorities and reformulation efforts," said IFBA Secretary General Rocco Renaldi.

The industry's worry list runs longer than that:

• Higher costs from reformulating products
• Stringent labeling requirements
• The risk of class-action lawsuits, as seen in the United States
• Higher taxes for processed food companies

Kraft Heinz CEO Steve Cahillane told Reuters last week that industry players should have a say in how the guidance develops.

"We're in the food business and we care about consumers deeply," Cahillane said. "And so we ought to have a seat at the table as these discussions evolve."

What happens next?

The WHO frames the model broadly, covering "industrially-produced foods to be consumed in moderation," and positions it as a connector between dietary advice and concrete government policy on individual products.

The clock runs to November 27. What lands after the consultation will signal whether governments gain a new, additive-aware template for labeling and taxation — or whether industry pushback forces the WHO back to nutrients alone.