Fortifying Ultra-Processed Foods: Public Health Solution Or Corporate Health Risk?
By Humphrey Ukeaja
When a food product is high in salt, sugar and unhealthy fats, adding vitamins and minerals to it does not automatically make it healthy.
Yet this is increasingly how the fortification of ultra-processed foods is being presented in Nigeria: as a public health intervention capable of tackling hidden hunger.
That framing deserves closer scrutiny.
Over the past few years, food manufacturers, health advocates and sections of the media have promoted the fortification of products such as bouillon cubes, instant noodles, sugary beverages and pre-packaged snacks as part of the response to micronutrient deficiencies.
Fortification itself is not new.
It involves adding essential vitamins and minerals to staple foods during production to prevent health problems caused by nutrient deficiencies.
The concern arises when the same approach is extended to industrially produced ultra-processed foods, many of which are high in sodium, sugar and unhealthy fats and contain numerous additives.
Proponents argue that such products can be used to deliver micronutrients including vitamin A, iron, zinc, folic acid, vitamin B12 and iodine.
But this creates a difficult public health message: should consumers avoid these products because of their unhealthy nutritional profile, or consume them because they have been fortified?
In Nigeria, the danger is that fortified ultra-processed products could increasingly be presented as part of the solution to malnutrition without sufficient attention to their role in the country’s growing burden of diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
Hidden hunger is real, but so is the unhealthy food environment
A recent publication described hidden hunger in Nigeria as one of Africa’s least discussed barriers to economic growth, while portraying food corporations, particularly Nestlé, as champions in the fight against micronutrient deficiencies through fortification.
But hidden hunger is not an overlooked problem in Nigeria.
For decades, the country has implemented micronutrient supplementation programmes targeting women and children at household and health-facility levels, alongside food fortification and agriculture-sensitive nutrition interventions.
The continuing challenge is access.
Many households cannot afford diverse, nutrient-rich and wholesome foods because of inflation and food insecurity.
The answer, therefore, cannot simply be to make ultra-processed foods the vehicle for delivering nutrients
At the same time, Nigeria faces another public health crisis that deserves far greater attention: the rising burden of diet-related NCDs.
An unhealthy food environment, aggressive marketing and gaps in food policies are helping to drive increased consumption of ultra-processed foods.
According to the article, NCDs account for 29 per cent of deaths in Nigeria and are projected to overtake infectious, maternal, neonatal and nutritional diseases as the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.
Nigeria is therefore confronting a complex nutritional reality.
Tackling micronutrient deficiencies must not come at the expense of policies aimed at preventing diet-related diseases.
The problem with ‘nutri-washing’
In properly regulated food environments, governments have a responsibility to make healthy diets easier and more affordable to access.
This means supporting agriculture, improving food availability and ensuring that people can obtain diverse diets containing fruits, vegetables, legumes, fibre and animal-source proteins, while also regulating the consumption of heavily processed foods.
The article argues that some food industry interests are taking a different route.
Through research institutions, non-profit allies and front groups, the industry is said to be encouraging governments to support the addition of micronutrients such as fibre, phytase, minerals and vitamins to products including bouillon and breakfast beverages, while advocating modest reductions in nutrients of concern such as sugar, sodium and unhealthy fats.
Presented as a nutrition intervention, this approach risks becoming what has been described as “nutri-washing” using the presence of beneficial nutrients to improve the public image of products whose overall nutritional profile remains unhealthy.
The concern is not simply what is added to these products, but what consumers may be encouraged to overlook because of the added nutrients.
Who benefits when ultra-processed foods become the answer to hunger?
There is a broader policy question here.
If ultra-processed products are increasingly classified as affordable, accessible sources of essential nutrients for low-income households, the country risks normalising their place in everyday diets instead of addressing why nutritious foods are unaffordable or inaccessible in the first place.
The institutionalisation of industry-led approaches under the banner of “Positive Nutrition”, the article argues, could weaken mandatory public health regulations and allow corporate interests to shape national food policies.
More importantly, presenting artificial fortification as the primary response to hunger could divert attention and resources from structural solutions: strengthening local agriculture, improving food security and expanding access to fresh and minimally processed foods.
That could gradually displace traditional food systems and reinforce what the article describes as a “corporate diet” designed around commercial interests rather than genuine nourishment.
Public health must come before corporate interests
This is why corporate participation in the development of national food fortification policies requires careful scrutiny.
The Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) have a responsibility to guard against conflicts of interest and ensure that public health remains the overriding consideration, particularly when policies affect vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.
Large-scale fortification of bouillon and other processed seasonings also raises concerns because it could incentivise their daily consumption at a time when Nigeria is seeking to reduce sodium intake.
A policy designed to address one nutritional problem should not inadvertently deepen another.
Nigeria needs food policies that put nourishment first
The Nigerian Government should review its food fortification strategies to identify and eliminate conflicts of interest that could place corporate profit ahead of public health.
More importantly, policies and programmes should focus on making safe, nutritious and wholesome foods more accessible and affordable.
Even relatively simple interventions can help.
Home gardening, for instance, can increase household access to locally grown herbs, fruits and vegetables that provide essential micronutrients.
Agricultural fortification should also prioritise whole staples rather than ultra-processed products.
Options such as iron-fortified cassava, zinc-fortified maize and orange-fleshed sweet potatoes can improve nutrient intake without adding the sodium and cardiovascular risks associated with many ultra-processed foods.
The central question, then, is not whether Nigerians need more vitamins and minerals. They do.
