Manila, Philippines – April 29, 2026 – Following recent assurances from the National Nutrition Council (NNC) that the proposed Philippine Nutrient Profile Model (PNPM) is not yet implementable and will not immediately lead to product bans, major food industry groups are highlighting important considerations regarding its current design and potential implications for consumer access and the national economy.
The Philippine Nutrient Profile Model (PNPM) is a policy with a stated aim to promote healthier consumption habits among Filipinos amid the mounting cases of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the country. The PNPM aims to classify packaged food and beverages according to their levels of sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and total fat. Once enacted, it could be used to implement front-of-pack labels on products that exceed set thresholds for said ingredients, restrict how food and beverages can be marketed, and even impose taxes on certain products.
In a joint press briefing, the Food Industry Asia (FIA) and the Philippine Chamber of Food Manufacturers, Inc. (PCFMI) together stressed that a more extensive and joint technical review is key to ensuring that the final version of the proposed regulation takes into consideration both the impact on consumers and manufacturers.
While committed to public health goals, the PNPM's current thresholds do not align with international standards for product development and safety, according to the food industry. Scientific analysis shows that an alarming 95% of commercially available food products would fail to meet the profiling thresholds, threatening widespread disruption to the food supply chain and consumer choice. This critical issue is compounded by the absence of a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) to understand the policy’s full ramifications.
“Working closely with the relevant stakeholders, like the food industry, and ensuring true inclusive dialogue is essential in shaping policies like the PNPM. It allows both public health goals and food supply chain realities to be considered, leading to solutions that are more practical, balanced, and widely supported,” says the PCFMI.
According to the government, the policy is aimed at being one of the responses to the worsening NCD cases in the Philippines, including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. This important aim further emphasizes the need for apt, inclusive, and rigorous testing of the thresholds with all the stakeholders, who will be impacted by this far-reaching regulation.
“Striking a balance is essential so that policies like the PNPM improve nutrition without placing undue burden on consumers and food manufacturers, especially small businesses that are already navigating rising costs,” FIA CEO Matt Kovac added.
The FIA and PCFMI, are calling for further refinement of the policy, pointing out that nutrient thresholds should be finalized only after validation studies on the feasibility of the proposed thresholds are done. The studies will show if the proposed thresholds are relevant, follow global standards for ease of export, and have a real-world impact, helping guide better decisions. In addition, this approach supports a food value chain that is both healthier and economically resilient, keeping the Philippines competitive for global food investors.
Without correct validation of the PNPM, this could lead to more food taxes being imposed on consumers, making already high food prices even more difficult to afford. Further, not enough data has been shown on the impact that the current taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages have on their stated goal of reducing obesity and diabetes in the country, since it was implemented in 2018.
Any policy imposed on the agri-food sector must undergo rigorous evaluation, given its impact on the broader economy. The sector, in fact, contributed $164.6 billion to national GDP last year—roughly one-third of total economic output—and supported 18.8 million jobs, or 38% of the country’s total employment[1].
Rising costs of basic goods
While it is critical to address the country's health concerns, the PNPM is being introduced as Filipinos grapple with the rising cost of basic goods and commodities triggered by the global fuel crisis.
Inflation rose to a 20-month high of 4.1 percent in March from 1.8 percent in the comparable period last year and 2.4 percent from the previous reporting month[2]. Higher fuel costs linked to Middle East tensions drove the spike in consumer prices, adding pressure on food and other goods.
The policy will directly affect affordable grocery staples such as instant noodles, canned goods like sardines, ready-to-drink beverages, and packaged snack foods, among others. With manufacturers reformulating goods or redesigning packaging, consumers will likely feel the burden of the added cost.
It must be noted that low-income families spend about 42%[3] of their food budget on affordable staples just to meet daily needs. The food industry wants the PNPM to lead the consumers towards better nutrition choices without making these essential foods harder to afford or access.
In addition, if packaged foods become more expensive or limited, consumers may turn to cheaper, unregulated options that lack clear nutritional information and safety standards[4]. This could pose an even greater risk to their health.
Economic pressure on SMEs
Food manufacturers, especially the smaller ones, are also facing potential financial risks. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, the majority or 30.5 percent of manufacturers in the country produce food products[5]. Across the sector, more than 99 percent of manufacturers are classified as micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs)[6]
Given their financial capacity, the immediate compliance with PNPM could lead to higher costs, production slowdown, or even business closures with wider economic impact.
For example, new warning labels mean redesigning packaging. Smaller firms produce in lower volumes, so the additional spending will hit them harder, forcing them to pass on the costs to the consumers.
Changing ingredients or reformulation, meanwhile, is expensive and time-consuming, as companies need to test new recipes and get approvals. For SMEs, this is risky because they do not have the same resources as big companies to absorb failed trials or added costs[7].
Guidelines moving forward
In the end, while the PNPM is an important step to address rising NCDS, it must balance health goals with real-world implications, despite it being tagged as only a model and not implementable yet, based on recent discussions with the government. With proper studies and inclusive technical consultation, the policy can be both effective and practical.
Working together, government and industry can ensure it improves public health without making food less affordable or harming the food supply chain.
###
About the Philippine Nutrient Profile Model (PNPM)
The PNPM is under development by the National Nutrition Council (NNC).
It is meant to classify packaged food and beverages according to their levels of sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and trans-fat and to use that classification as the foundation for three major regulatory interventions:
mandatory front-of-pack warning labels (FOPL) on products that exceed set thresholds,
and restrictions on how food and beverages can be marketed to children.
food taxes
Key policy developments:
2024: NNC planned to adopt a nutrient profile model based on Pan American Health Organization guidelines and held consultations.
Health groups pushed for fast adoption, while industry groups called for full regulatory impact assessment due to cost and access concerns.
WHO Philippines also began contracting work to finalize the PNPM.
2025: Work on PNPM finalization (validation, market analysis, and guidelines) has started, while health advocates renewed calls for immediate implementation of warning labels.
2026: The PNPM remains pending with the NNC.
No front-of-pack labeling law is enacted yet.
Policy discussions continue as final technical work approaches completion.