The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have, one after another, downgraded the country’s growth projections. This is largely due to the devastating effects of the ongoing Middle East conflict.

These multilateral financial institutions cannot stress enough the negative consequences of the war, which has been driving up energy prices and, in turn, inflating shipping costs.

In its latest Asian Development Outlook, the ADB—along with the two Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF and WB—highlighted the Philippines’ vulnerable food security. Our high import dependence exposes the country to global supply chain disruptions and food inflation.

The country’s heavy reliance on imports for staples like rice, wheat, and fertilizer means high vulnerability to supply chain shocks caused by the turmoil in the Middle East.

Among our regional peers, the Philippines has the largest food trade deficit. Rice prices, in particular, remain volatile due to supply constraints and potential trade restrictions from exporting economies caught in the current conflict.

Yes, Virginia, the elevated pump price of petroleum products is taking its toll on our agriculture sector. Increasing input costs for farmers are compounded by the uncertainty in the supply of urea fertilizer. The country imports urea from Qatar and Saudi Arabia; any closure of the Strait of Hormuz that impacts global shipping affects 33 percent of the world's fertilizer supply.

Already, we are feeling the sting of potential food insecurity—an issue close to all our hearts—as the prices of basic food items skyrocket.

Unlike before, when grocery shopping was a delightful weekly task, these days it is stressful. My purchasing power has significantly reduced; what used to fill two boxes of goodies for my ₱5,000 budget now barely fills one.

Speaking of grocery items, I’ve learned that the National Nutrition Council will soon require local manufacturers to follow a new branding protocol for packaged items.

Dubbed the Philippine Nutrient Profile Model (PNPM), it is an adaptation of the Pan-American Health Organization model. It regulates food marketing and introduces front-of-pack warning labels aimed at combating rising lifestyle diseases.

Because the devil is in the details for me, I make it a practice to read the fine print of every product I buy. I certainly welcome this change in branding, which is meant to classify packaged food and beverages according to their levels of sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and trans-fat.

Industry players agree with the objective: the model aims to help consumers identify unhealthy products through warning labels, empowering them to make better choices.

The potential positive impact of this looming policy is that it may force manufacturers to reformulate products to be healthier without raising prices—though that will take time.

However, I’ve recently learned from the business community that manufacturers are ambivalent about the scheduled implementation. A number have expressed reservations regarding the timing, as costs are already high due to the current economic climate.

“Implementing this model during Middle East conflict-driven inflation poses a complex trade-off for consumers, particularly the poor, who are highly sensitive to food price volatility," one industry player shared.

Latest assessments indicate that many common products might be affected. As it stands, people with lower incomes spend a larger portion of their earnings on food. Many depend on affordable packaged items not by choice, but by necessity.

As most of us are already struggling, this new branding policy—while well-intentioned—could make things even harder.