On 23 April 2026, the Standing Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Sport discussed lifestyle-related prevention. The agenda included topics such as nutrition, Nutri-Score, the updated Wheel of Five, marketing to children, tobacco, vapes, alcohol, obesity, prevention policy and health information.
This debate is relevant to the food sector. Prevention policies are increasingly being reflected in product information, labelling, claims, product ranges, advertising, school and healthcare settings, and regulatory oversight.
The debate about the Wheel of Five stood out. Not because healthy eating was being called into question. The main question was whether dietary advice should be broadened to encompass more than just health.
The updated Wheel of Five was the subject of criticism from several MPs. The main point of the criticism was that health advice, sustainability, climate policy and behavioural change were becoming too intertwined.
That is a serious point. After all, dietary advice should primarily be about health. If factors such as climate, agricultural policy or sustainability targets are also taken into account, this must be clearly stated. Otherwise, confusion will arise as to the purpose of the advice.
The Wheel of Five is used in public information campaigns, education, policy-making and public communications. If such a tool is no longer seen as providing impartial health advice, it loses public support. This is not just a political problem; it also affects businesses that wish to provide their customers with clear and factual information.
Nutrition is not simply a matter of adding up categories. A product may fall within a desired category yet still be highly processed. Wholemeal bread, for example, may fit within dietary guidelines, but if it comes from an industrial supply chain with a long shelf life, technical processing aids and additives, the question remains valid: are we assessing the actual product, or primarily the “wholemeal” category?
And that question applies more broadly. Because a plant-based product isn’t automatically better. Many plant-based alternatives are highly processed, made up of isolated ingredients and rely on additives to achieve flavour, texture or shelf life. That doesn’t mean plant-based is wrong. It does mean that “plant-based” in itself is not a mark of quality.
When it comes to animal products, too, a nuanced approach is needed. The public debate often quickly shifts towards “eating less meat” or “consuming fewer animal products”. However, high-quality protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and other nutrients play a clear role in the diet. Particularly for the elderly, the sick, those recovering from illness and people with increased protein requirements, sufficient protein can be of great importance.
General dietary advice that does not take sufficient account of the target group, product quality and the degree of processing may backfire in practice.
In the debate on healthy eating, there is a strong focus on food groups: meat, dairy, vegetables, fruit, cereals, pulses and plant-based foods. But for the food sector, how a product is formulated and processed is just as important.
Many consumers are advised to make healthier choices, but then find themselves surrounded by highly processed products which, on paper, seem to fit the bill, even though their ingredients are barely recognisable. Think of breakfast products, bread products, snacks, meat substitutes, dairy alternatives and ready meals.
A second strand of the debate concerned the line between providing information and steering behaviour. Information on healthy eating is useful. Consumers need reliable information. However, as soon as such information is linked to price incentives, standards, supply management or policy measures, the government’s role changes.
A recommendation is not the same as policy.
A health policy is not the same as a sustainability agenda.
A decision aid is not the same as behaviour modification.
It is precisely when it comes to food that these lines can easily become blurred.
This is important for businesses, as policy decisions can ultimately have an impact on product ranges, purchasing terms, school and healthcare settings, product claims, labelling and advertising restrictions.
Product communication is becoming increasingly important for producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, fresh food retailers and short-supply-chain businesses.
The pressure is mounting around:
Businesses must therefore draw a clear distinction between factual product information, legally permitted claims, commercial positioning and policy messages.
Health is important. But big words are risky. Anyone who uses the word “healthy” in commercial communications is quickly venturing into the realm of health claims. Anyone who uses the word “sustainable” must be able to substantiate what they mean by it. Anyone who uses terms such as “artisanal”, “local” or “pure” must ensure that these terms reflect the reality of the product.
For food companies, the sensible approach is:
The parliamentary debate on lifestyle-related disease prevention shows that nutrition is becoming an increasingly important part of policy. That is understandable, but it calls for a focused approach.
Health information must remain recognisable as health information. If sustainability, climate or behavioural objectives are included, this must be clearly stated. Otherwise, confusion will arise and trust will diminish.
For entrepreneurs in the food sector, the lesson is a practical one. Ensure that product information is accurate. Take a critical view of highly processed foods. Distinguish between health, sustainability, origin and marketing. Use claims with care.
Consumers aren’t looking for political debate on their plates. They want reliable food, clear information and products with the right ingredients.
Source: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/commissieverslagen/detail?id=2026D20763&did=2026D20763
