"Problematic colourant"? Of course it's problematic. Because it's a colorant. For food! Why do you need to add color to food?
> Point is, the problem is what specifically is present or missing. Not whether it fits into some ill-defined notion of processed.
But this is what the standard you don't like is doing. It's classifying food according to what is present or missing. In particular, nutrients that you need to have in your food and stuff you don't need to.
Is it the fact that it's a general classification rather than a case-by-case analysis that is bothering you? Would you prefer it if there was a long list of foods with an annotation "processed", "ultra-processed" etc with a small discussion of what's in them that shouldn't be in there and what's not in that should?