Who Is Protecting Nigeria’s Food Basket? Calls Grow For Action Against Fake & Unsafe Food

By AMINA USMAN ABDULRAHMAN

Food Safety Under Renewed Scrutiny

THE circulation of suspected counterfeit and adulterated food products has renewed questions about how effectively Nigeria protects consumers from unsafe goods. As concerns spread from misleading packaging to allegations of unauthorised colourants in palm oil, stakeholders are demanding more consistent inspections, stronger enforcement and greater accountability across the food supply chain.

The challenge is particularly serious because food fraud does not always announce itself. A counterfeit product may resemble a trusted brand, while adulteration may alter a food’s composition without producing an obvious change in its appearance. Meanwhile, expired goods, poor storage and contamination during transportation can create additional hazards.

Against this background, Dr. Aniekwe Donald, a Nigerian medical doctor and patient-care advocate popularly known online as The Tall Nigerian Doctor, has warned about the alleged use of Sudan dyes to enhance the appearance of palm oil. His warning has intensified calls for regulators to investigate suspected violations and establish the facts through credible evidence.

Sudan dyes are synthetic, oil-soluble colourants used mainly in industrial applications, including colouring plastics, oils and waxes. Although laboratories use Sudan stains to identify fats and lipids in biological samples, Sudan dyes are not authorised food colourants. Their vivid red appearance has made them a concern in cases of alleged illegal use in products such as palm oil, chilli powder and curry.

In a video shared on social media, Aniekwe cautioned that operators who deliberately alter food products to improve their appearance or marketability could expose consumers to potentially harmful substances. He consequently urged regulators to take firm action against those found to have deliberately compromised food safety.

However, a warning is not a substitute for an investigation. Any claim about a particular product must be supported by reliable testing, documented findings and an appropriate regulatory response.

The Alleged Palm Oil Problem Needs Transparent Investigation

Aniekwe described an encounter with a palm oil seller who reportedly preferred groundnut oil when eating white yam. According to the doctor, the seller explained that she no longer trusted the quality of palm oil sold in Lagos markets.

The account illustrates how concerns about possible adulteration can influence consumer behaviour, particularly when the product is a familiar ingredient in everyday cooking. Yet the experience of one seller cannot, on its own, establish the scale of a wider food safety problem.

The doctor also referred to an analysis reportedly released by the Lagos State Consumer Protection Agency, which allegedly detected Sudan dyes in palm oil samples collected from markets. However, the specific results, the number and origin of the samples, and the scope of the findings require confirmation from the agency’s original report.

That distinction matters. If laboratory testing confirms the presence of unauthorised colourants in food, regulators must establish the affected products, investigate their supply chains and determine the appropriate response. If the evidence does not support a broader claim, authorities should communicate that conclusion just as clearly.

Transparent reporting can prevent both dangerous products and unsupported allegations from undermining public confidence. It can also help investigators identify whether a problem originates with a manufacturer, importer, wholesaler or retailer rather than assigning blame prematurely.

Counterfeiting & Adulteration Demand Different Responses

Although the two practices may occur together, counterfeit food and adulterated food are not identical.

Counterfeiters misrepresent products as genuine goods. They may imitate established brands, use unauthorised branding or provide false information about where a product was manufactured.

Adulterators, on the other hand, change a food product’s composition through dilution, ingredient substitution or the addition of unauthorised substances. Depending on the material involved and the extent of exposure, such changes can compromise product quality or safety.

These distinctions matter because investigations must establish what actually happened. A product with suspicious packaging may require authentication, while a product suspected of chemical contamination may need laboratory analysis. In some cases, authorities may need both approaches.

Furthermore, the absence of obvious warning signs does not establish that food is safe. Unusual smells, damaged packaging, discolouration and unexpected changes in taste can justify caution, but they cannot conclusively prove fraud. Equally, contaminants may remain undetectable without appropriate testing.

Therefore, authorities need a combination of product authentication, laboratory capacity, supply-chain tracing and market surveillance. Relying on consumers to identify every suspicious item places an unreasonable burden on the people the system is supposed to protect.

Household Budgets Can Increase Exposure to Risk

Food safety also intersects with the cost-of-living crisis. When household incomes fall short of essential expenses, price becomes a powerful factor in purchasing decisions.

Amina Bello, a 29-year-old petty trader, said consumers sometimes choose between similar-looking products based on affordability. She emphasised that financial hardship does not mean people are willing to expose their families to unsafe food.

“Sometimes, you see two products that look similar, but one is cheaper. When money is not enough, you naturally look for what you can afford. But that does not mean you want to buy something that will harm your family,” she said.

Her account highlights a basic consumer protection principle: safe food should not be treated as a luxury available only to those who can afford more expensive alternatives.

Where counterfeit or adulterated products enter the market, consumers may pay less initially but face uncertainty about what they are buying. Consequently, regular inspections and credible public warnings are essential, particularly in markets where buyers have limited access to reliable product information.

Bello called for stronger inspections and public education to help people recognise suspicious products and report concerns. Such measures could also help consumers understand the limits of visual checks and avoid treating low prices, unusual packaging or rumours as definitive proof of wrongdoing.

Consumers & Retailers Navigate an Uncertain Market

Olalekan Akinola, a 42-year-old public servant and father of three, said his shopping habits changed after he bought seasoning cubes whose taste differed from what he expected. He also recalled discovering that another food product he had purchased had expired.

Although he could not establish whether the seasoning cubes were counterfeit, the experience made him more careful about checking labels and packaging.

“Before, I would simply pick what I needed and pay. Now, I check the package properly because you cannot always tell by looking at it from a distance,” he said.

His experience illustrates the limits of consumer vigilance. Checking packaging and expiry dates can help identify some problems, but it cannot authenticate every brand or detect every contaminant.

Retailers face similar limitations. Chinedu Eze, a 45-year-old food retailer, said he bought from suppliers he considered reliable and inspected labels, packaging and expiry dates before displaying goods.

“Your customers are the people who keep your business running. If they lose confidence in you, they may stop coming. That is why I try to buy from suppliers I trust and inspect the goods before putting them on the shelves,” he said.

Eze urged traders to isolate suspicious products and contact suppliers rather than risk selling potentially unsafe goods. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that retailers could not independently verify the authenticity and safety of every item.

He therefore called for practical guidance from regulatory agencies on identifying questionable products and reporting suppliers. Such guidance could strengthen cooperation between regulators and responsible businesses while helping traders avoid inadvertently distributing unsafe goods.

Regulatory Enforcement Must Follow the Evidence

The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) has statutory responsibilities for regulating food products within its mandate, including product registration, surveillance and enforcement against counterfeit and unwholesome regulated products.

Yet the effectiveness of any regulatory framework depends on consistent implementation. Market inspections must connect with investigations into warehouses, manufacturing facilities, import channels and distribution networks. Otherwise, removing a suspicious product from one stall may leave its source and other supplies untouched.

When authorities identify a suspected violation, they should collect and test appropriate samples, trace the product’s origin, assess the extent of distribution and prevent further circulation where necessary. Where evidence establishes an offence, regulators should pursue the applicable sanctions or prosecution.

At the same time, manufacturers, importers and distributors must maintain product integrity and comply with relevant standards. Retailers should verify their suppliers as far as reasonably possible, preserve records and report suspicious deliveries.

Accountability must also remain evidence-based. Authorities should avoid treating unverified reports as proven findings, while businesses should not use uncertainty as an excuse to ignore credible safety concerns. Clear communication about investigations, product alerts and confirmed violations can help the public make informed decisions without creating unnecessary panic.

From Reactive Crackdowns to Prevention

The latest concerns highlight the need for a preventive approach to food safety. Rather than waiting for a complaint or viral warning, regulators should strengthen routine surveillance and identify vulnerable points in the supply chain.

Such an approach requires reliable laboratory testing, traceable distribution records, accessible complaint channels and coordination among relevant regulatory and consumer protection bodies. It also requires public education that explains how to report suspected products and why appearance alone cannot guarantee safety.

Consumers can take practical precautions by purchasing packaged foods from reputable outlets, checking expiry dates, inspecting seals and labels, and reviewing applicable registration details. However, regulators must provide dependable channels for reporting suspected violations and communicate verified risks promptly.

For unpackaged foods such as palm oil, appropriate laboratory testing is especially important because visual inspection cannot reliably determine whether unauthorised substances have been added.

Ultimately, a credible food safety system must protect consumers without making unsupported accusations against producers or traders. It must investigate complaints, publish reliable findings, trace unsafe goods and impose meaningful penalties when violations are established.

Nigeria’s food markets need more than occasional crackdowns. They need sustained surveillance, accountable businesses, competent enforcement and transparent evidence. By strengthening these safeguards, authorities can reduce the circulation of unsafe products, protect households across income groups and rebuild confidence in the food supply chain.