As other have said it comes down to choice, there are advantages and disadvantages depending on the color temp. To me anything in that 3500-4500k range is a nice sweet spot as utlimately it the middle ground and we are the ones viewing the plants in the end .
Bluer light (4500k+ when talking white) reduces stretch and cause the the plant to produce hormones that will keep it a bit more dense and compact, energy wise for the plants photo receptors a bluer light is actually less efficient than a warmer light (1.9umol vs 2.1 or something like that) because the wavelengths need to be down converted slightly to be used more so by our plants.
Redder light (less than 3500k when talking white) causes stretch and the plants to produce those hormones that trigger flowering functions, and energy wise as stated above its more efficient than the bluer light.
So its really choice as can you flower under bluer light, or veg under redder light forsure, is it ideal no, but use what you have as the difference isn't really a huge amount or say you may have height restrictions and want to keep things a bit more squat (typically my case).
Key point just for info sake, all white leds are actually just blue leds with a phosphor coating, so thats why when looking at spectrum graphs they always have that spike in the blue region of your nanometer range. Saying that the more blue the led is typically the more efficient it is as far as light production vs energy use standpoint goes, as the when you start going redder some of that energy is lost when the phospor is down grading it to a longer wavelength aka redder. So for us its a weird situation where redder light is more efficient for the plant from an energy perspective, but bluer leds are more efficient from an energy consumption perspective.
Again why the middle ground works.