The House of Representatives has stepped down a bill seeking to prohibit the production, importation, distribution, sale and consumption of unbranded and unfortified edible oils in Nigeria.
The bill, sponsored by Chike Okafor (APC, Imo), was brought before the House for second reading but faced strong opposition from lawmakers who argued that its provisions could negatively affect rural producers and duplicate the functions of existing regulatory agencies.
The sponsor, while presenting the bill, said the health implications of consuming unbranded and unfortified edible oils had become alarming, citing the increasing incidence of heart-related diseases and other health challenges.
According to Mr Okafor, 67 per cent of Nigerians consume unbranded edible oil, while only 31 per cent of edible oils in circulation in the country are fortified.
He said the proposed legislation aimed to protect Nigerians from the harmful effects of consuming unsafe, unfortified edible oils.
“The statistics of harmful and damaging effects of unbranded oils on our people from the consumption of very poisonous, unfortified and unbranded edible oil are alarming. The number of patients with heart-related diseases and heart attacks is on the increase. Sixty-seven per cent of Nigerians consume unbranded edible oil.
“Only 31 per cent of edible oils in circulation in Nigeria are fortified. The World Health Organisation says fortification of staple foods is a proven cost-effective strategy to address micronutrient deficiencies and improve public health,” he said.
The bill sought to prohibit the production, importation, distribution and sale of unfortified and unbranded edible oils in Nigeria.
It also proposed that relevant authorities collaborate with research institutes, universities and state ministries to facilitate the production of improved seedlings and establish cooking oil processing mills through public-private partnerships.
Mr Okafor said the measures were intended to improve food safety, protect public health and reduce preventable deaths associated with the consumption of unsafe edible oils.
The bill further provided penalties, including imprisonment, for violations, as well as a transition period for existing businesses to comply with the proposed regulations.
He urged his colleagues to support the bill, saying the matter was one of public health and national importance.
“Let us go into the public hearing and then take on all the other issues that will come with it. But this is a call for the health of Nigerians,” he said.
Debate
However, several lawmakers opposed the bill, particularly its proposed prohibition of unbranded edible oils, saying the measure could adversely affect millions of rural Nigerians whose livelihoods depend on small-scale oil production.
Paschal Agbodike (APGA, Anambra) said the bill could take away the means of livelihood of rural dwellers whose products might not be registered with the relevant regulatory agencies.
He said many communities, particularly in the South-east, had a long tradition of producing palm oil and other edible oils through family-owned and local industries.
“Most of us were trained by our parents using local industries where they produce red oil, and he is telling us that the bill is calling to prohibit production,” Mr Agbodike said.
He questioned whether small-scale producers should be required to operate as large registered companies before they could legally produce and sell edible oils.
“Are you saying there must be a very big registered company before they can operate?” he asked.
Gaza Jonathan (LP, Nasarawa) also opposed the bill, arguing that its subject matter largely fell within the existing responsibilities of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).
Mr Jonathan said the focus should instead be on strengthening legislative oversight over NAFDAC and other regulatory institutions to ensure that existing laws are properly enforced.
“When you look at this bill, I have been trying to see how I can marry it with the functions of NAFDAC. There is already an institution that is carrying out this function, which is NAFDAC,” he said.
He described the proposed legislation as potentially duplicating the responsibilities of existing agencies, noting that the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) also had responsibilities relating to the quality of products manufactured and sold in the country.
Mr Jonathan, however, called for greater attention to food safety, saying regulatory enforcement should not focus primarily on drugs while neglecting the food consumed by Nigerians.
“Thus far, there has been a lot of emphasis on drugs. More emphasis now needs to be put into food,” he said.
Satomi Ahmad (APC, Borno) also argued that existing agencies, including SON, already had the mandate to regulate product quality.
He said the solution was to strengthen the capacity and operational framework of existing institutions rather than create additional legislation that could result in overlapping responsibilities.
“Instead of creating another bill, we should be strengthening the existing institutions’ modalities in monitoring and coordinating local content production, so that we will get what is best for our people to consume,” Mr Ahmad said.
Sada Soli (APC, Katsina), however, defended the bill, saying it did not seek to establish a new regulatory agency but was intended to address gaps in the existing legal framework.
He said the proposed legislation could complement existing laws, including those governing NAFDAC, rather than undermine them.
According to him, some provisions of the bill were designed to address areas not sufficiently covered by existing legislation.
“This legislation is not creating an agency. It is trying to improve an existing framework, which is not harmful,” Mr Soli said.
He argued that the bill would not prohibit local production but would seek to improve the quality and safety of locally produced edible oils.
Mr Soli said the proposal was also aimed at improving public health, protecting the environment and encouraging local production.
Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau) also acknowledged the importance of the bill but said its provisions should be harmonised with existing laws and the mandates of relevant regulatory agencies.
He said the House should consider amending existing legislation instead of creating a new law that could duplicate the functions of several agencies.
“The bill is good, but my major concern is the fact that we have existing Acts. We have a lot of institutions that have the responsibility to monitor these activities,” Mr Gagdi said.
He urged the sponsor to review the provisions concerning NAFDAC and other agencies and to consider incorporating the proposed measures into existing laws.
“I am not saying the bill is not good, but I am of the opinion that it should be adjusted by way of amending some of our existing legislation,” he said.
Akeem Adeyemi (APC, Oyo) said the title and scope of the bill were already within the mandate of NAFDAC.
He warned that passing separate legislation for every category of unbranded product could lead to an unwieldy legislative framework.
“The title of the bill is completely the function of NAFDAC. If we go out and waste our time on this bill, we are talking about unbranded oil. Somebody will come up and talk about unbranded garri tomorrow. Somebody will talk about unbranded wheat,” Mr Adeyemi said.
Ibe Osonwa (LP, Abia) also opposed the bill, citing the possible impact on rural communities.
He drew attention to the provision which sought to make it unlawful for any person or cooperative body to produce, import, distribute or sell unbranded or unfortified edible oils.
Mr Osonwa said such a provision could criminalise the activities of small-scale producers and deprive rural communities of an important source of income.
“We all represent people from rural areas. I represent people from rural areas in Abia State. This will be prohibiting my people from making any kind of living in a difficult time that we have today,” he said.
Sponsor steps down bill
Responding to the concerns raised by lawmakers, Mr Okafor said the intention of the bill was not to undermine NAFDAC or criminalise legitimate local production.
He said the proposed law was intended to reinforce the existing regulatory framework and improve enforcement.
Mr Okafor acknowledged lawmakers’ concerns about the bill’s relationship to the mandates of NAFDAC and other regulatory agencies.
READ ALSO: Senate mourns ex-lawmaker, hails role in Tinubu’s emergence as president
“I think we are not understanding that what this bill is trying to do is to reinforce existing provisions,” he said.
He noted that the bill already contained provisions assigning enforcement responsibilities to NAFDAC and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.
However, following concerns raised during the debate, the sponsor moved to step the bill down for further review.
“I can see the fear and the emotions. So, Mr Speaker, permit me. I want to move to step it down so we can align properly,” he said.
Mr Okafor said the bill would be reviewed to ensure that its provisions were properly aligned with the NAFDAC Act and the mandates of other relevant agencies.
“We can align it properly with the functions of NAFDAC, with a view to amending some sections of the NAFDAC Act to be able also to have them do this function accordingly,” he said.
The House subsequently stepped down the bill for further consultations and harmonisation with existing laws and regulatory frameworks.
