Reject Nutritionists Registration Council Bill, Dietetics Institute Urges National Assembly, Warns Against Quackery

Says proposed council could duplicate existing regulatory powers

Sunday Aborisade in Abuja 

The Institute for Dietetics in Nigeria (IDN) has urged the National Assembly to reject a proposed bill seeking to establish the Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria, warning that its passage could create competing regulatory authorities, weaken professional standards and expose Nigerians to inadequately trained practitioners.

The institute, which supports statutory regulation of qualified nutrition and dietetics professionals, said the proposed legislation, identified as HB 2659, would substantially overlap with the Dietitians Council of Nigeria (Establishment) Bill, 2022, designated HB 515.

It called on the House of Representatives to discontinue consideration of HB 2659 in its present form and urged the Federal Government and National Assembly to conclude the legislative process for establishing the Dietitians Council of Nigeria.

Addressing journalists at the National Assembly premises on Monday, its National President, Tajudeen Olutope Ahmed, said the institute maintained that Nigeria needed a unified regulatory framework capable of protecting patients, establishing clear professional standards and preventing unqualified individuals from undertaking sensitive clinical responsibilities.

“Nutrition and dietetic practice directly affects human health and, in many cases, human life,” the institute said.

He stressed that errors in clinical nutrition management could result in deteriorating health, permanent disability or death.

He added that qualified dietitians and nutritionists-dietitians undertake nutritional assessments, identify nutrition-related problems, provide medical nutrition therapy and manage patients with conditions including diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and severe malnutrition.

According to the institute, these responsibilities require 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,” it stated.

The IDN argued that establishing two councils with overlapping authority over professional education, accreditation, registration, clinical practice and disciplinary procedures would introduce uncertainty into the regulation of nutrition and dietetics in Nigeria.

It warned that such an arrangement could impose additional costs on educational institutions and healthcare providers, while creating confusion over professional qualifications and the scope of practice of different categories of practitioners.

The institute’s intervention comes amid a legislative debate over the appropriate regulatory structure for professionals working in nutrition and dietetics, with the proposed HB 2659 seeking to establish a separate council for nutritionists.

The IDN said the existence of two statutory regulators could complicate the administration of academic programmes, particularly because many relevant courses in Nigerian tertiary institutions are organised under the integrated discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Ahmed said: “Most relevant academic programmes in Nigeria are established as departments or programmes of ‘Nutrition and Dietetics’.

“It would be impracticable for one council to regulate the nutrition component of an integrated programme while another regulates its dietetics component.”

The institute 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.

It further cautioned that patients, employers and healthcare institutions could struggle to distinguish between professional titles such as nutritionist, registered nutritionist, clinical nutritionist, dietitian and registered dietitian.

Such uncertainty, it argued, could result in clinical responsibilities being assigned to individuals without the specialised training required to perform them safely.

The IDN also raised concerns about the distinction between participation in nutrition science and qualification to practise as a regulated professional.

While acknowledging the contributions of experts in biochemistry, agriculture, food science, physiology, medicine, pharmacy and public health, it maintained that membership of a multidisciplinary scientific society should not automatically confer professional competence to practise nutrition or dietetics.

The institute specifically referenced the Nutrition Society of Nigeria, which it said had reportedly supported HB 2659, arguing that membership of a scientific organisation should not be treated as a substitute for prescribed professional education and clinical training.

“Membership of a multidisciplinary scientific society must never be treated as automatic proof of professional qualification to practise nutrition or dietetics,” the IDN boss said.

He explained that researchers and specialists from different academic backgrounds could make valuable contributions to nutrition research, food security, public health and policymaking without necessarily possessing the clinical competencies required to assess patients, prescribe therapeutic diets or provide medical nutrition therapy.

The institute added: “Multidisciplinary cooperation must not be confused with professional equivalence.”

Beyond the legislative dispute, the IDN said Nigeria’s nutrition challenges, including malnutrition, childhood stunting, maternal anaemia and diet-related non-communicable diseases, required coordinated intervention by appropriately qualified professionals.

It maintained that an effective regulatory framework should establish minimum educational requirements, define protected professional titles, specify the scope of practice and reserve high-risk clinical functions for practitioners with the requisite qualifications.

“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,” it stated.

The institute cautioned lawmakers against adopting legislation that, in its view, could legitimise professional encroachment or weaken safeguards intended to protect patients.

It, however, emphasised that its position should not be interpreted as opposition to multidisciplinary collaboration in nutrition-related research, agriculture, food systems, public health, education or policy formulation.

Rather, it said, the central issue was ensuring that professional recognition and clinical responsibilities were based on verifiable qualifications, training and competence.

The IDN consequently urged the House of Representatives to halt further consideration of HB 2659 in its current form and asked the National Assembly to avoid establishing two statutory councils with competing or overlapping mandates.

It also called on the Federal Government and lawmakers to complete the necessary legislative processes concerning HB 515 and facilitate its transmission for presidential assent.

The institute further urged lawmakers to ensure that professional titles, entry qualifications, scopes of practice and clinical functions reserved for registered practitioners were clearly defined in the relevant legislation.

“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 IDN 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 institute urged the National Assembly and the Federal Government to prioritise a unified regulatory framework that would safeguard patients and ensure that only appropriately educated, trained and competent professionals undertake regulated nutrition and dietetics practice.

The National Assembly’s final decision on the competing legislative proposals is expected to determine the structure of statutory regulation for the professions and the safeguards governing their respective areas of practice.