Can a law designed to regulate nutrition professionals adequately protect public health without creating uncertainty around the food knowledge Nigerians inherit from their families and communities?
That question is at the centre of growing debate over HB.2659, the proposed Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria (Establishment) Bill, 2025, before the National Assembly.
The bill seeks to establish a statutory council to regulate nutrition practice in Nigeria. But it has drawn criticism from groups concerned about the proposed regulatory framework, its relationship with existing professional regulation, and the protection of traditional and indigenous food knowledge.
The Center for Food Safety and Agricultural Researc (CESFAR) has called for amendments, arguing that the legislation should explicitly protect traditional food knowledge and family-based nutritional guidance while maintaining appropriate standards for trained nutrition professionals.
Other critics, including the Institute for Dietetics in Nigeria, have raised a separate concern: that the proposed council could duplicate existing regulatory responsibilities and create confusion over professional qualifications and clinical practice.
The debate is therefore about more than who should be allowed to practise nutrition. It is also about how Nigeria can protect the public, respect its cultural heritage and create a clear, effective system for professional regulation.
What is HB.2659?
HB.2659 is the Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria (Establishment) Bill, 2025, sponsored by Hon. Chike John Okafor.
It is a proposed law intended to establish a regulatory council for nutrition practice in Nigeria, with responsibilities relating to the profession and its practitioners.
The bill was listed for first reading in the House of Representatives in December 2025. On October 20, 2026, the House Committee on Nutrition and Food Security held a public hearing on the proposal to gather views from stakeholders.
The intention behind professional regulation is important. Nutrition advice can influence decisions about infant feeding, pregnancy, chronic illnesses, weight management and other aspects of health. People seeking specialised nutrition services need confidence that practitioners have the appropriate education, training and competence.
However, critics argue that legislation must draw a clear boundary between regulated professional services and ordinary activities such as cooking, sharing recipes, preserving food and passing on inherited knowledge about local diets.
The concern is that unclear definitions or insufficient exemptions could create uncertainty about which activities fall within the proposed council’s authority.
Why are critics opposed to the bill in its present form?
1. The protection of traditional food knowledge
Across Nigeria, families and communities pass down knowledge about local ingredients, food preparation, fermentation, preservation, seasonal eating and traditional diets.
This knowledge is often shared in homes, farms, markets and community settings. It may be passed from parents to children, from farmers to younger generations, and among traditional food processors.
CESFAR argues that the bill should explicitly protect indigenous food knowledge and family-based nutritional guidance.
Its concern is that if the law does not clearly distinguish traditional knowledge-sharing from regulated professional practice, ordinary Nigerians could be uncertain about whether some forms of food-related advice fall under professional regulation.
That does not establish that the bill automatically criminalises sharing a recipe or advising a family member about food. Rather, it raises a question lawmakers should resolve clearly in the text of the legislation.
2. Could ordinary Nigerians be affected?
Consider a grandmother explaining how her family prepares a traditional meal, a farmer discussing local crops, or a food processor teaching others how to preserve ingredients.
These activities are not automatically the same as providing clinical nutrition treatment or presenting oneself as a registered professional.
Critics want the legislation to make that distinction explicit.
Without clear boundaries, they argue, the law could create uncertainty for community educators, traditional food practitioners and people who share inherited knowledge outside a formal professional setting.
A well-drafted law should make it clear that ordinary food preparation, cultural practices and non-commercial sharing of traditional knowledge are not treated as professional practice merely because they involve food or nutrition.
3. Will the bill create overlapping regulatory bodies?
Concerns about traditional knowledge are not the only issue.
The Institute for Dietetics in Nigeria has argued that HB.2659 could overlap with the proposed Dietitians Council of Nigeria framework under HB.515, potentially creating competing responsibilities for professional education, accreditation, registration and clinical practice.
The institute says lawmakers should consider a unified regulatory framework rather than establish bodies with overlapping mandates.
This matters because unclear professional boundaries can create uncertainty for universities, healthcare institutions, employers and practitioners, as well as unnecessary administrative costs.
The National Assembly should therefore establish whether the proposed council fills a genuine regulatory gap and how its functions would relate to existing and proposed professional frameworks.
4. Could regulation become more important than access to affordable nutrition?
Nigeria faces significant challenges involving food affordability, food security and malnutrition.
A regulatory council may help establish professional standards, but creating an institution does not, by itself, make nutritious food more affordable or improve access to reliable nutrition services.
Lawmakers should consider how the proposed framework would contribute to public health outcomes, particularly for low-income households and communities with limited access to qualified practitioners.
The legislation should support professional accountability without creating unnecessary barriers to legitimate community education, local food initiatives and evidence-based public nutrition programmes.
Why should the bill not be passed in its present form?
The case against passing HB.2659 without substantial review rests on four key arguments.
First, the scope of regulated practice must be clear. The law should define professional nutrition services precisely and distinguish them from ordinary food preparation, family guidance, cultural practices and the sharing of traditional knowledge.
Second, traditional food knowledge deserves explicit safeguards. Nigeria’s diverse food cultures are part of its living heritage. Legislation should not leave communities uncertain about whether the transmission of inherited food knowledge could attract professional regulation.
Third, the regulatory structure must be justified. Lawmakers should assess whether a new council is necessary, how its responsibilities would differ from other regulatory frameworks, and whether overlapping mandates could increase costs or create confusion.
Fourth, the public interest must remain central. Any new system should improve competence, accountability and access to safe nutrition services without imposing disproportionate restrictions on legitimate activities or creating avoidable burdens for the public.
These concerns do not mean professional nutrition regulation is unnecessary. They mean that regulation should be proportionate, clearly defined and designed to solve identifiable problems.
What amendments should lawmakers consider?
CAfPRA has called for amendments to protect traditional food knowledge and family-based nutritional guidance while preserving standards for trained professionals.
A stronger legislative framework should consider the following safeguards:
- Clear definitions: Specify which activities constitute regulated professional nutrition practice, with clear distinctions between professional services and everyday food-related activities.
Explicit cultural protections: Protect the sharing of traditional recipes, inherited food knowledge and community practices, provided these are not misrepresented as regulated professional services.
- Public-health safeguards: Preserve the ability to address fraudulent health claims, unsafe practices and demonstrably harmful advice through appropriate laws and evidence-based standards.
- A clear regulatory structure: Assess existing and proposed professional frameworks to prevent conflicting mandates and unnecessary duplication.
- Proportionate enforcement: Ensure that penalties are clearly tied to defined offences and cannot be applied arbitrarily to ordinary cultural or family activities.
- Inclusive consultation: Engage qualified nutritionists, dietitians, public-health professionals, traditional knowledge holders, farmers, food processors and affected communities before finalising the legislation.
- These are proposed safeguards for legislative consideration, not a claim that every provision is already contained in the bill.
The bigger picture: Food is also culture, livelihoods and heritage
Food in Nigeria is more than a matter of nutrients and dietary recommendations. It is connected to agriculture, family life, local economies, cultural identity and community knowledge.
From traditional methods of fermenting foods to the cultivation and preparation of indigenous crops, generations have developed ways of producing, processing and consuming food within their local environments.
Such knowledge should not automatically be treated as a substitute for scientific evidence or specialised medical advice. Traditional practices can be examined against current evidence, and harmful practices should not be shielded from legitimate public-health safeguards.
But neither should inherited knowledge be marginalised simply because it exists outside a formal professional system.
The challenge for lawmakers is to protect both public safety and cultural heritage while ensuring that people who provide specialised nutrition services meet appropriate professional standards.
What happens next?
The House Committee on Nutrition and Food Security held a public hearing on HB.2659 on October 20, 2026, as part of the legislative process.
The concerns raised by CESFAR and other stakeholders place the burden on lawmakers to examine the bill’s definitions, regulatory powers, relationship with other professional frameworks and protections for traditional knowledge.
Before advancing the legislation, lawmakers should make the relevant provisions available for public scrutiny, explain the regulatory gaps the bill is intended to address, and demonstrate how the proposed council would improve public protection.
The key question is not whether Nigerians need qualified nutrition professionals. They do.
It is whether HB.2659, in its present form, offers the clearest, fairest and most effective way to regulate the profession without creating avoidable risks for cultural knowledge, community practice and the public.
Until those questions are satisfactorily addressed, critics argue that the bill should be amended substantially or withdrawn for further review rather than advanced in its current form.
The bottom line: Nigeria can promote professional standards and protect traditional food knowledge at the same time. The law must make room for both.
