By Humphrey Ukeaja
Over the past few years, food manufacturers, health advocates and sections of the media have increasingly promoted the fortification of ultra-processed products such as bouillon cubes, noodles, sugary beverages and packaged snacks as part of the response to Nigeria’s hidden hunger crisis.
Fortification involves adding essential vitamins and minerals to foods during production to prevent or reduce nutrient deficiencies and their associated health problems.
Proponents of extending fortification to industrially produced ultra-processed foods argue that products such as these can serve as vehicles for delivering micronutrients, including vitamin A, iron, zinc, folic acid, vitamin B12 and iodine.
But this approach raises an important public health question: Can foods that are often high in sodium, sugar, unhealthy fats and additives genuinely be promoted as part of the solution to malnutrition?
For Nigerian consumers, the message can become confusing. On one hand, public health campaigns increasingly encourage people to reduce their consumption of unhealthy ultra-processed foods. On the other, some of these same products are being promoted as sources of beneficial micronutrients.
Hidden hunger remains a challenge
There is no doubt that micronutrient deficiencies remain a serious challenge in Nigeria. However, describing hidden hunger as an overlooked problem should not obscure the interventions that have existed for decades.
Nigeria has implemented micronutrient supplementation programmes targeting women and children, alongside food fortification and agriculture-sensitive nutrition interventions.
Yet nutritional outcomes remain poor, partly because many households cannot consistently afford diverse, nutrient-rich foods amid food insecurity, rising food prices and declining purchasing power.
This is where the debate over ultra-processed food fortification becomes important.
Rather than addressing the underlying factors that prevent households from accessing healthy and diverse diets, promoting fortified ultra-processed products risks treating the symptoms while leaving the structural causes largely untouched.
Nigeria faces another nutrition crisis
At the same time, Nigeria is confronting a growing burden of diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
Unhealthy diets, physical inactivity and other risk factors are contributing to conditions such as hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and some forms of cancer.
This means Nigeria is dealing with multiple nutrition challenges simultaneously: undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies on one side, and rising diet-related NCDs on the other.
In such an environment, nutrition policies must consider not only whether a food contains added vitamins and minerals, but also its overall nutritional quality and potential long-term health consequences.
The problem with “nutri-washing”
There are legitimate concerns about the increasing promotion of ultra-processed foods as vehicles for improving nutrition.
Food companies can highlight the presence of vitamins and minerals on product labels while consumers may pay less attention to other nutritional characteristics, including high sodium, sugar or unhealthy fat content.
Critics describe this practice as “nutri-washing”—using positive nutritional claims to improve the public perception of products whose overall nutritional profile may remain unhealthy.
The concern is particularly significant when such products are marketed to low-income and vulnerable households as affordable alternatives to more diverse, nutrient-dense foods.
Adding micronutrients to an unhealthy product does not necessarily transform the product into a healthy diet.
Fortification should not replace food-system reform
Nigeria’s nutrition strategy should focus on improving people’s access to safe, affordable and nutritious foods rather than making ultra-processed products increasingly central to the food system.
Government policies should support agriculture and food systems that make fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains and animal-source foods more accessible and affordable.
Investment in local agriculture, food production, storage, processing and distribution can help address some of the economic barriers that prevent households from consuming diverse diets.
Home and community gardening initiatives could also help households increase access to locally grown vegetables, fruits and herbs.
Where fortification is necessary, greater emphasis should be placed on nutritious staple foods rather than encouraging greater dependence on ultra-processed products.
For example, nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions can support nutrient-rich crops and staples, including biofortified cassava, zinc-rich maize and orange-fleshed sweet potatoes.
Such approaches can contribute to improved micronutrient intake without simultaneously encouraging greater consumption of products high in sodium, sugar or unhealthy fats.
Protecting public health from conflicts of interest
The Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) have an important responsibility to ensure that national nutrition policies are guided by independent public health evidence.
Corporate participation in policy discussions is not inherently inappropriate. However, safeguards are necessary where commercial interests could conflict with public health objectives.
This is particularly important when policies concern foods that are heavily consumed by children and other vulnerable groups.
Large-scale fortification of products such as bouillon cubes, for instance, should be carefully assessed alongside Nigeria’s efforts to reduce population sodium intake.
A policy designed to address micronutrient deficiencies should not inadvertently undermine another public health objective.
Nigeria needs a broader nutrition strategy
The debate should therefore move beyond the question of whether ultra-processed foods can be fortified.
The more important question is whether Nigeria wants its nutrition strategy to make ultra-processed products increasingly central to the national diet, or whether it wants to build a food system in which healthy, diverse and nutritious foods are accessible to everyone.
Fortification can play an important role in addressing specific micronutrient deficiencies. But it should not become a substitute for improving food security, strengthening local agriculture, reducing poverty and making nutritious foods affordable.
Nigeria needs nutrition policies that address both hidden hunger and the growing burden of diet-related NCDs.
Public health should remain the primary consideration—not the commercial interests of the companies producing the food.
The government must therefore continuously review its food fortification strategies, strengthen safeguards against conflicts of interest and invest in policies that expand access to safe, affordable and wholesome foods.
The ultimate goal should be simple: a food system that nourishes Nigerians, rather than one that merely makes unhealthy products appear more nutritious.
Humphrey Ukeaja is the Industry Monitoring Officer at Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA). He writes from Abuja.
