Following
the tension caused by the reports that some carbonated drinks in the
market contain contents that make it harmful to be consumed with drugs,
Simbo Olorunfemi has waded into the matter.
As we all know, on account of the loopholes and laxity on the part
of some of the regulators, a number of multinationals in Nigeria tend to
get away with a lot they would not even dare dream of in other places.
While some are experts at compromising the system, many simply take
advantage of our lackadaisical attitude to the issue of standard, even
when it comes to health and safety. It is no surprise that Nigeria has
become a dumping ground for all sorts of inferior goods, fake products,
e-waste and even toxic waste, simply because we are unable to secure our
own interest, police our borders and take the issue of safety of the
people seriously.
It is against that backdrop that I immediately took interest in the
unprecedented judgement by Justice Adedayo Oyebanji, in the suit filed
Dr. Emmanuel Fijabi Adebo, and his company, Fijabi Adebo Holdings
Limited, against NBC Plc and NAFDAC. Reviewing excerpts from the
judgement, I was particularly intrigued at the statement of defence by
Nigerian Bottling Company (NBC), exonerating itself from responsibility
on the grounds that its products were only meant for local distribution
and consumption. I was particularly glad that Justice Oyebanji rebuffed
that argument in these words: “It is imperative to state that the
knowledge of the Nigeria Bottling Company that the products were to be
exported is immaterial to its being fit for human consumption. The court
is in absolute agreement with the learned counsel for the claimants
that soft drinks manufactured by Nigeria bottling company ought to be
fit for human consumption irrespective of colour or creed.”
But it was even the response from the Nigerian Bottling Company
(NBC) after the story broke in the press that compelled my intervention
on the matter, within hours, that it was published by PREMIUM TIMES. I
had doubts about the logic in NBC’s argument that the singular reason
why the standard for Benzoic acid level is lower in the United Kingdom
was simply on account of its temperate climate. I could not make sense
of why the level would be expected to be lower than in a tropical
region. But being no expert, I could not push it further. I only queried
that position and sought to know what the permissible standards are in
other tropical countries like Nigeria so we can have a comparative
analysis. I equally wondered aloud what the case must be like for
countries exposed to different climatic conditions, asking if products
there are region-specific in production and distribution.
But I became worried when I noticed that a few people who I would
expect to be more scientifically-inclined than this layman increasingly
weighed more on the side of the manufacturer on the basis of what they
claimed to be ‘hard science’, summarily dismissing the concerns raised
by the judgement, with some even querying the competence of the learned
Judge in this matter, being no Scientist. Someone dismissed the
judgement, at best, as ‘legal superstition’. Yet the more I looked at
it, the more difficult for me to find legs for the argument they
adduced.
I equally noticed that the Federal Ministry of Health in its
statement seemed to have fallen short of a categorical position on the
matter, beyond declaring the products safe for consumption, when, in
fact, the court never declared it unsafe. It cleverly refused to
frontally address the issue of the likelihood of benzoic acid, at some
level when exposed to ascorbic acid and other elements, becoming
carcinogenic, which is the burning issue at hand. It chose to plat safe,
choosing to only advise “all Nigerians to take medicines with potable
water (as) this would help to prevent unexpected drug-food
interactions.” Perhaps, it is because it is still conducting its own
investigation.
I was left with the same lingering questions, not answered by the
statement from the Federal Ministry of Health. It claims that “Standards
Organisation of Nigeria (SON) as the standard setting body in Nigeria
in consultation with technical experts and relevant stakeholders
elaborated the standard of benzoic acid in soft drinks to be at 250mg/kg
based on the national climatic and storage conditions – this standard
has been in existence since 1997 and revised in 2008.” In other words,
the standard for Nigeria appears to have been last revised nine years
ago! That, for me, is disturbing. I felt compelled to find out what
really is it with this preservative that would make the standard once
set by Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as high as 600mg/kg to be
reviewed in 2016 to 250mg/kg? What prompted that sharp cut? What could
have prompted UK and other European countries to set their own standard
at 150mg/kg? Is it just because of the temperate climate? Can we really
be sure that the peculiar circumstance of Nigeria has been taken care of
in this matter?
I decided to do a bit of study on the subject. What did I find?
1. A reaction occurs when sodium benzoate is used in beverages that
also contain ascorbic acid (vitamin C). “The two substances, in an
acidic solution, can react together in the presence of light to form
small amounts of benzene, a chemical that causes leukemia and other
cancers. Though the amount of benzene that forms is really small,
leading to only a very small risk of cancer, the risk can be real.
Benzene, which is carcinogenic, can be formed at very low level (ppb
level) in soft and fruit drinks containing both benzoates and ascorbic
acid. Exposure to heat and light was found to further stimulate the
reaction in a 2006 study by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in UK.
According to findings quoted in a study by Kisi and Acquah, “the
use of benzoic acid as an antimicrobial agent has been observed to have
adverse effects such as metabolic acidosis, convulsion, hyperactive and
hyperpnoea in experimental animals and humans given very high doses of
benzoic acid. The development of allergic reactions to benzoates in
humans, such as urticaria, non-immunological contact urticaria and
asthma, has also been reported in some studies.”
2. There is a bit of history to this matter of benzene in soft
drinks caused by the decarboxylation of benzoic acid in the presence of
ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300) or erythorbic acid (a diastereomer of
ascorbic acid, E315) dating as far back as 1990. Around 1990, FDA was
informed by the soft drink industry that benzene, a carcinogen, could
form at the ppb level in some beverages that contained benzoate
preservatives and ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
3. In the early 1990s, in the US, “the FDA had urged companies not
to use benzoate in products that also contain ascorbic acid, but in the
2000s companies were still using that combination. A lawsuit filed in
2006 by private attorneys ultimately forced Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and
other soft-drink makers in the U.S. to reformulate affected beverages,
typically fruit-flavored products.”
In some instances, some manufacturers had to withdraw large
quantities of products from sale after benzene contamination in some
production plants were discovered.
4. On account of studies by Health authorities in a number of
countries including US, UK, Canada and South Korea, measures have had to
be taken in response to this matter of benzene in soft drinks. In fact,
soft drinks manufacturers themselves have openly expressed concern
about this.
5. Reports have it that in 2008, Coca-Cola announced that it would
be phasing out sodium benzoate from many of its drinks, apart from Fanta
and Sprite. It does appear that the decision by UK authorities and
other countries to set their standard at 150mg/kg might not be
unconnected to this concern, which some of our scientists who have not
conducted any study, seek to dismiss with a wave of the hand.
6. Now, remember that my major source of concern is this argument
by NBC, which some of our people have simply accepted and routinely
regurgitated, is that the standard set at 150mg/kg by UK authorities
must have been on account of the temperate climate. But then, after
learning that benzene was present in some products, research was
undertaken by both FDA and the soft drinks industry in US to understand
the factors that contributed to benzene formation. This revealed that
“elevated temperature and light can stimulate benzene formation in the
presence of benzoate salts and vitamin C.”
So, I am left, again, with more questions:
If elevated temperature, as is the case in tropical Nigeria, is a
factor that can enhance benzene formation – a well documented
carcinogenic substance, how then does it make sense for the prescribed
benzoic acid level in Nigerian manufactured soft drinks to be higher
than that of a temperate United Kingdom and other European countries?
How does it make sense that soft drinks that we all can see are exposed
to the harsh elements, in the manner of its distribution and display in
the obvious elevated temperature in Nigeria have a benzoic acid level
higher than that of a temperate UK? What was on the mind of SON in
setting the standard in Nigeria? Why has SON not spoken up on this
matter, or has it? What exactly are NAFDAC’s grounds of appeal in this
case? Is it the N2 million fine imposed by the court or is it the
instruction by the court that it orders the Nigerian Bottling Company
(NBC) Plc to put a written warning on Fanta and Sprite bottles stating
that both soft drinks are poisonous when consumed along with Vitamin C?
What has NAFDAC got to lose in affirming this preventive instruction?
I struggle to understand why the permissible standard for benzoic
acid level in soft drinks will be higher in Nigeria, with its elevated
temperature, a proven contributory factor for benzene formation, in
comparison with countries such as UK with temperate climate. I struggle
to understand why Ghana has a permissible limit of 150 mg while
Nigeria’s is 250 mg. Or is Ghana a temperate region too? Even with the
permissible limit of 150 mg in Ghana, a study there found the level of
benzoic acid to have been as high as 564.00 mg/L in some of the soft
drinks examined! I wonder what it might be like in Nigeria if a study
were to be conducted on some of the soft drinks on the shelves. Perhaps,
could this be because I am no Scientist, even when the logic of the
concern is clear enough, as laid out? Or could there be something else
our regulators know that informs their lethargy?
- Simbo Olorunfemi works for Hoofbeatdotcom, a Nigerian Communications Consultancy. Twitter: @simboolorunfemi
No comments:
Post a Comment