Business
By Anthony Isibor
SHOPPERS in many supermarkets in the cities are routinely engaged in comparing prices, brands and sizes of products displayed on the shelves. Some check for the expiry date, while others spend much time studying the long list of ingredients printed on the back of the products.
Yet even when consumers read labels, another question remains: can they trust what the label says?
A 2019 study by Foluke Adenike Olatona, C.O. Nwankwo, A.O. Ogunyemi and K.E. Nnoaham, Consumer knowledge and utilization of food labels on pre-packaged food products in Lagos State, Nigeria, found that only five per cent of 420 respondents had good knowledge of food-label information. Just 29.2 per cent made good use of the information on food labels.
The finding is significant in a country where regulators have repeatedly banned or restricted hazardous substances, only for some of them to continue turning up in products sold to consumers.
The problem is not simply that Nigerians do not read labels.
Sometimes the dangerous substance is not declared on the label at all, when “bromate-free” bread contains bromate.
Potassium bromate is one of the clearest examples. NAFDAC lists potassium bromate among substances banned as dough improvers or ingredients in flour and bread improvers. Its pharmacovigilance publication records the ban in 2002.
Yet a 2014 study by J.A. Oyekunle, A.S. Adekunle, A.O. Ogunfowokan, G.O. Olutona and O.B. Omolere, Bromate and trace metal levels in bread loaves from outlets within Ile-Ife Metropolis, Southwestern Nigeria, found bromate in sampled bread at concentrations ranging from 2.051 to 66.224 micrograms per gram.
The researchers noted that many bakers had not complied with the bromate-free rule, despite some loaves carrying “bromate free” labels.
The issue has persisted long after the ban.
NAFDAC has seized consignments of potassium bromate and shut bakeries found using it. The agency has also warned that post-market surveillance is necessary because manufacturers can alter production processes after obtaining regulatory approval.
That is a crucial weakness in the system: registration does not necessarily mean permanent compliance.
The problem becomes even more striking with skin-lightening cosmetics.
A 2023 study published in Scientific Reports, “Quality assessment of hydroquinone, mercury, and arsenic in skin-lightening cosmetics marketed in Ilorin, Nigeria,” by Olasunkanmi David Bamidele and seven other researchers, tested 10 products bought from cosmetic outlets in Ilorin.
“Every product contained hydroquinone, mercury and arsenic in varying quantities.
“Only three had hydroquinone within the permitted 2 per cent limit. Mercury was detected in every sample, with concentrations ranging from 0.08 to 2.52 micrograms per gram; arsenic was also detected in all 10 samples.
”Six products did not disclose hydroquinone at all. None of the 10 disclosed mercury or arsenic on their labels. Only six were registered with NAFDAC.
So a consumer who followed the standard advice, read the label before buying, could still have bought a product containing substances that laboratory analysis subsequently found.
NAFDAC’s own records show that mercury-containing creams and soaps were banned in Nigeria in 2002, while creams containing more than two per cent hydroquinone were also banned.
The issue remains serious enough that in March 2026, Nigeria approved its first National Policy on Cosmetics Safety and Health after nearly two decades of stalled attempts.
The World Health Organisation said the policy would strengthen regulation, surveillance and early warning systems for unsafe cosmetics and improve implementation of Nigeria’s commitments under the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
Research has shown that Agriculture provides perhaps the clearest evidence that a ban on paper does not necessarily translate into a ban in the marketplace.
An investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, published in September 2025, found that 37 shipments of paraquat and atrazine arrived at major Nigerian ports in 2024, despite Nigeria’s restrictions on the chemicals.
The investigation put the value of the shipments at about $5 million and subsequently found atrazine still being sold in Kano.
The finding raises a basic regulatory question: how does a chemical that should no longer be entering the Nigerian market pass through the country’s import system?
Paraquat and atrazine are not identical cases and should not simply be labelled “cancer-causing chemicals”. But both have been subject to serious health and environmental concerns and regulatory restrictions. Their continued appearance in Nigeria demonstrates the larger problem of controlling hazardous chemicals after government has announced restrictions.
The same concern applies to older banned pesticides. NAFDAC’s banned-pesticide list includes chemicals such as lindane, DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor.
Yet research and investigations have continued to document the presence or circulation of some of these substances in Nigeria.
Then there is formalin. Formaldehyde, the main chemical in formalin, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic to humans.
NAFDAC has warned traders against using formalin to preserve fish and meat.
In the 2020 study “Formalin Content of Three Iced Fish Species (Mackerel, Horse Mackerel and Sadinella) Consumed in Calabar, Nigeria,” Michael Akomaye Akpe, Izubundu Brown Onyebuenyi and Faith Patrick Inezi tested fish bought from Watt Market in Calabar.
The researchers detected formalin in all three fish species tested. They nevertheless concluded that the measured concentrations were within the WHO limit and said consumption of the sampled fish did not pose an immediate health risk, while calling for continued monitoring.
The study does not prove that Nigerians are routinely being poisoned by formalin-preserved fish. It does, however, show why the practice deserves surveillance: the chemical was being investigated because of concerns over its use in food preservation.
However, the health concerns behind the restrictions are not merely regulatory technicalities. Some of the chemicals found in products that Nigerians consume or use have established links to serious disease, although the risk depends on the substance, dose, duration and route of exposure.
Arsenic is one of the clearest examples. The World Health Organisation classifies inorganic arsenic as a confirmed carcinogen. Long-term exposure can cause skin lesions and cancers of the skin, bladder and lungs, and has also been associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and impaired cognitive development following exposure early in life.
Formaldehyde, the chemical in formalin, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). IARC says there is sufficient evidence that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer and leukaemia, although much of the epidemiological evidence comes from occupational exposure.
Mercury presents a different set of risks. WHO says exposure can damage the nervous system and kidneys and can affect the lungs, skin and eyes. It is particularly dangerous during fetal development and early childhood; neurological effects can include tremors, memory problems and impaired cognitive and motor functions. WHO specifically identifies mercury-containing skin-lightening products as hazardous.
Potassium bromate, used illegally by some bread producers as a dough improver, is classified by IARC as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans. The classification reflects sufficient evidence of cancer in experimental animals, rather than proof that eating bromate-containing bread causes cancer in humans. IARC’s evidence also points to oxidative DNA damage and kidney tumours in experimental animals.
The pesticide story is similarly serious. Lindane, which has continued to appear in Nigeria’s informal pesticide market, is classified by IARC as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), with sufficient evidence that it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. DDT is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
These classifications do not mean that every person exposed to one of these chemicals will develop cancer or another disease. They identify hazards; the actual risk depends on the level and pattern of exposure. But they explain why regulators restrict or prohibit their use and why the continued appearance of such substances in food, cosmetics or agricultural products is a public-health concern.
Why do banned chemicals survive bans?
Across these cases, the same explanations keep appearing.
There are porous borders, there are informal supply chains, there are unregistered manufacturers and importers, there is limited post-market surveillance, there are financial incentives to use cheaper or more effective chemicals, even when their use is prohibited, and there is the difficulty of monitoring a huge market after a product has left the factory or port.
Although the consumer is left at the end of that chain, placing the entire responsibility on the consumer is unrealistic.
A shopper can check the expiry date. They can check the NAFDAC number. They can turn the package over and read the ingredients.
They cannot, however, determine whether an undeclared chemical is inside the product.
The 2023 Ilorin cosmetics study makes that point starkly: mercury and arsenic were found in products whose labels did not disclose them.
The 2014 Ile-Ife bread study makes it in another way: some bread carried “bromate free” claims even though laboratory testing found bromate.
The label is only as good as the enforcement behind it, and that is why Nigeria’s consumer-safety problem cannot be reduced to whether shoppers read labels.
Consumers need better awareness. They should be encouraged to examine ingredients, registration details, dates and warnings.
But regulators also have to ensure that what is printed on a package corresponds with what is inside it. And where products are not properly labelled, registered or safe, they should not reach the shelf.
Nigeria’s approval of a national cosmetics safety policy in March 2026 is an acknowledgement that stronger surveillance is needed.
The continuing presence of restricted chemicals, however, suggests that the harder task is enforcement.
A ban is not effective because it appears in a government document. It becomes effective when the chemical can no longer move easily through the ports, warehouses, factories, farms, markets and shops where Nigerians buy the products they consume and use every day.
For the shopper standing before a supermarket shelf, the question is simple: Is what is written on the label really what is inside the product?
A.I
Sept. 16, 2026
Tags: A.O. Ogunyemi Foluke Adenike Olatona Izubundu Brown Onyebuenyi K.E. Nnoaham Michael Akomaye Akpe NAFDAC