THE Director General of the National Agency for Food, Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Professor Mojisola Adeyeye, recently announced that the agency would begin the enforcement of the ban on the importation, manufacture, distribution, sale and use of alcoholic beverages in sachets, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and glass bottles of 200ml and below. And true to her words, NAFDAC has since commenced the enforcement in states such as Plateau and Osun, seizing such products and shutting factories producing alcohol in unapproved packages. In Osun State, NAFDAC officials reportedly visited some of the factories where the alcoholic beverages were being produced in sachets, PET and glass bottles of 100ml and below in Osogbo, Ilesa and Ile-Ife. And if reason does not prevail to halt the move, the shutting of factories and seizure of alcoholic beverages produced in packages that the ordinary Nigerian can afford will spread across the country in a matter of days. And that could be attended by dire consequences in terms of incomes and job losses across the value chain of the product.
Already, members of the Distillers and Blenders Association of Nigeria (DBAN) have staged a protest at the Lagos office of NAFDAC to express their displeasure with the ban. The Food Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association and the National Union of Food Beverages and Tobacco Employees also rejected the plan, saying it would send “over 500,000 breadwinners out of jobs and into the oversaturated Nigerian labour market.” Truth be told, we, too, consider job losses amounting to 500,000 at this trying time to be a monumental trade-off for the attainment of the official goal of ensuring that alcoholism is reduced in society and that underage persons do not have access to alcohol use and consumption. That objective is laudable but what has to be given up to achieve it is not affordable at this time, especially when ban on the production, sale, distribution and use of alcoholic drinks in affordable packages is not the only option available to prevent underage persons from having access to alcohol.
The government’s argument that the sale of alcohol in sachets contributes to alcoholism and underage drinking may seem unassailable. However, we think that this is an issue that requires more consultations with stakeholders for many reasons. One, this is not the time to encourage job losses under any guise, particularly as the government is not providing jobs. Two, banning hard drinks in sachets will not stop people from buying bottles of the same alcohol. If the argument is that people buy sachet alcohol because it is cheap, they can also argue that it is the rich that can afford them in larger packs or containers. Three, since there is no proven evidence that alcohol in small packs cause more harm to consumers than the one in bigger bottles, a blanket ban on alcohol in sachets is, in a sense, a denial of the rights of poor citizens who may want to drink alcoholic beverages. After all, alcohol taken in moderation is not illegal; it is a moral issue. Again, hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and so on are known to be very expensive, yet individuals who are hooked on such drugs do all sort of things, including taking precipitate and criminal actions, to gain access to the use of the drugs. Consequently, pricing alcoholic beverages out of the reach of the ordinary citizens by allowing its sale only in bigger bottles may not stop its consumption by that category of people. It can only increase the desperation to acquire the means to buy alcohol in bigger packs and such desperation may involve criminality.
While we agree that alcoholism is not good, we do not subscribe to the government’s seeming attempt to enforce a policy that is tantamount to discriminatory access to alcohol in society, as that would not be lawful. After all, the problem is not about alcohol per se but about abuse. For instance, if alcohol is not illegal and it is okay for adults to use it, who determines whether such adults want to have the alcohol in sachets or in bottles? And why would the government want to deprive adult consumers of the opportunity to have their alcohol in low-cost packages? How is such an issue of concern to the government even as underage people could still continue to have access to alcohol in bottles anyway if there is no age specification for sale by law? It would seem as if the government is simply concerned with restricting access to alcohol to rich persons as its current posture does not prevent anybody rich, whether young or old, from taking alcohol, now presented and preserved in high-cost packages. This would be an untoward and misplaced concern, even as it verges on overt discrimination on account of social and economic status.
If indeed the government is interested in preventing underage people from having access to alcohol, it should work on enforcing the age limit set for access to alcohol in the country. If you are not an adult, it is unlawful for you to procure, use or consume alcohol but it does not seem that anyone is bothered about enforcing the law. In the civilised countries, you need a means of identification to prove that you are of age before you can buy alcohol but in this country, sellers of alcoholic beverages are too concerned about their revenue to give any thought to the social consequences of selling alcoholic beverages to their underage clients. Even at that, it is the duty of the government to enforce its own laws and bring to book anyone who operates or conducts himself/herself contrary to the set rules.
We urge the government to take the route of enforcement of the extant law to deny underage persons access to the use of alcohol rather than limiting its consumption to bottles instead of smaller packs. Notwithstanding the fact that the discussions on the policy to ban alcoholic beverages in small packs reportedly started in 2018, further consultations, discussions and even a rethink of the policy will not be out of place judging by the socioeconomic consequences of the policy, the inauspicious timing of its implementation, the seemingly discriminatory nature of its application and the apparent ineffectiveness of the policy to attain the official goal.