FCCPC Must Make Food Fortification Verifiable Consumer Protection Standard

We must recognise that food safety is not measured only by whether products are legally manufactured or readily available. We must also ask whether their promised nutritional value is present. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC)’s directive to vegetable oil and salt manufacturers whose products failed fortification standards addresses the gap between what consumers are promised and what they receive.

A two-month assessment conducted by the commission with the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition analysed 200 samples from markets and households across Nigeria. It found that 12 percent of vegetable oil samples and two percent of salt samples failed required fortification levels. We should not dismiss these findings. These products are routinely consumed, and fortification is intended to prevent micronutrient deficiencies.

We must understand what is at stake. Food fortification adds vitamins and minerals, including vitamin A, iron, folic acid, zinc and iodine, during processing. It helps reduce hidden hunger and deficiencies affecting growth, development and health, particularly among pre-school children and women of reproductive age. When standards are not met, consumers may pay for products without receiving expected nutritional benefits. This is not merely a technical failure; it is a failure of product integrity and consumer value.

The findings expose weaknesses in monitoring. Only six vegetable oil manufacturers had registered on the Digital Fortification Quality Traceability Plus platform developed by GAIN. Of the 100 vegetable oil samples examined, only eight results from three companies were uploaded. We should therefore examine the wider compliance system, not only manufacturers whose products failed testing. Digital traceability cannot provide effective oversight when participation and reporting remain limited.

We must support the FCCPC directive compelling defaulting producers to comply, while insisting that enforcement be sustained, transparent and coordinated. The Commission has referred its findings to the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) under the agencies’ memorandum of understanding (MoU). Cooperation is necessary because consumer protection, product regulation and public health responsibilities must reinforce one another.

Compliance cannot be secured through directives alone. Manufacturers, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, must register products, adopt traceability systems and maintain quality controls. Regulators must verify compliance, publish findings and apply proportionate consequences where standards are ignored. Consumers need information to identify properly fortified products and store them appropriately.

The FCCPC Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Tunji Bello, stated: “Consumer protection is not limited to resolving complaints or addressing harmful business practices; it also involves ensuring that consumers are not denied the value and benefits they are entitled to expect from products in the marketplace.” We should treat this principle as the standard against which this intervention is judged.

Ultimately, we must move from episodic sampling to continuous accountability. We need wider manufacturer registration, independent testing, reliable digital records and visible enforcement. Fortification claims must correspond with actual product quality. The success of this directive will not be measured by notices issued, but by whether compliant products reach consumers. Food fortification is a public health commitment. We must make its delivery measurable, enforceable and dependable.