Dietitians and nutritionists on Monday protested at the National Assembly, urging lawmakers to reject a bill seeking to establish the Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria over concerns that it could create overlapping regulatory authorities and compromise patient safety.
The protesters, under the Institute for Dietetics in Nigeria, called on the House of Representatives to discontinue consideration of the proposed legislation, identified as HB 2659, in its present form.
They also urged the Federal Government and the National Assembly to conclude the legislative process for establishing the Dietitians Council of Nigeria under a separate bill, HB 515, introduced in 2022.
Addressing journalists during the protest in Abuja, the institute’s National President, Tajudeen Ahmed, said Nigeria needed a unified regulatory framework to protect patients, maintain professional standards and prevent inadequately trained individuals from performing sensitive clinical duties.
“Nutrition and dietetic practice directly affects human health and, in many cases, human life,” he said, warning that errors in clinical nutrition management could lead to deteriorating health, permanent disability or death.
Ahmed explained that qualified dietitians and nutritionists conduct nutritional assessments, identify nutrition-related problems and provide medical nutrition therapy for patients with conditions such as diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and severe malnutrition.
He said these responsibilities required specialised education, supervised clinical training, internship and professional competency assessments.
“It is therefore dangerous to create a regulatory arrangement capable of granting professional recognition or clinical authority to persons who have not undergone the prescribed education in nutrition and dietetics, supervised clinical training, internship and professional competency assessment,” he stated.
The institute argued that establishing separate councils with overlapping responsibilities for professional education, accreditation, registration and disciplinary procedures could create confusion in the regulation of nutrition and dietetics.
It warned that universities, polytechnics and colleges of health sciences and technology could face conflicting accreditation requirements, duplicated fees and uncertainty over the professional recognition of their graduates.
“Most relevant academic programmes in Nigeria are established as departments or programmes of ‘Nutrition and Dietetics’,” Ahmed said.
“It would be impracticable for one council to regulate the nutrition component of an integrated programme while another regulates its dietetics component.”
The institute also expressed concern that patients, employers and healthcare institutions could find it difficult to distinguish between professional titles such as nutritionist, registered nutritionist, clinical nutritionist, dietitian and registered dietitian.
It maintained that such uncertainty could lead to clinical responsibilities being assigned to practitioners without the specialised training required to perform them safely.
Ahmed acknowledged the contributions of experts in biochemistry, agriculture, food science, physiology, medicine, pharmacy and public health to nutrition research and policymaking.
However, he argued that membership of a multidisciplinary scientific organisation should not automatically qualify an individual to practise clinical nutrition or dietetics.
He specifically referenced the Nutrition Society of Nigeria, which the institute said had reportedly supported HB 2659, insisting that participation in nutrition science was different from qualification to practise as a regulated professional.
“Membership of a multidisciplinary scientific society must never be treated as automatic proof of professional qualification to practise nutrition or dietetics,” he said.
The institute added: “Multidisciplinary cooperation must not be confused with professional equivalence.”
It said Nigeria’s challenges, including malnutrition, childhood stunting, maternal anaemia and diet-related non-communicable diseases, required qualified professionals working within clearly defined areas of practice.
“A regulatory law must protect patients, establish clear educational and professional standards, define protected titles and reserve high-risk clinical functions for persons with the requisite qualifications,” Ahmed stated.
The institute stressed that its opposition to the proposed bill was not a rejection of collaboration among professionals in nutrition research, agriculture, food systems, public health, education and policymaking.
Rather, it said professional recognition and clinical responsibilities should be based on verifiable qualifications, training and competence.
It urged lawmakers to avoid establishing two statutory councils with competing or overlapping mandates and called for the completion of the legislative process for HB 515 and its transmission for presidential assent.
“This is not a contest between organisations. It is a matter of public health, patient safety, professional integrity and responsible legislation,” the statement added.
The institute maintained that the overriding consideration should be the protection of Nigerians rather than the institutional interests of professional organisations.
“Nigeria must not enact a law that creates parallel professional authorities, weakens established competency standards or opens the door for inadequately trained persons to undertake sensitive nutrition and clinical dietetic responsibilities,” it said.
The proposed legislation has brought the appropriate regulatory framework for nutrition and dietetics into focus, with the institute urging the National Assembly to prioritise patient safety and clear professional standards in its consideration of the competing bills.