WAGING WAR ON A SILENT KILLER: WHY NIGERIA’S FATS AND OILS REGULATIONS 2022 MATTER AND WHAT MANUFACTURERS MUST DO NOW
By Aniekan Akpan and Maria Amos

In the arsenal of public health threats facing Nigeria, industrially produced trans fats — iTFAs — are stealthy, persistent, and lethal. They are woven into the very fabric of modern diets, lurking in everyday staples: WAGING WAR ON A SILENT KILLER: WHY NIGERIA’S FATS AND OILS REGULATIONS 2022 MATTER AND WHAT MANUFACTURERS MUST DO NOWmargarine, pastries, street food, fried snacks. And while they may be tasteless, their consequences are not. iTFAs are known contributors to coronary heart disease and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) that collectively account for more than 30% of deaths in Nigeria annually.

This is why the federal government’s decision to adopt and enforce the Fats and Oils Regulations, 2022, spearheaded by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), marks a critical inflection point in the nation’s public health trajectory. These regulations are not merely technical amendments to food safety protocols—they are an assertive regulatory intervention, rooted in international best practices and designed to eliminate a toxic compound that has no physiological justification in the human diet.

But regulatory success in Nigeria, like elsewhere, has less to do with the strength of the law on paper and more to do with implementation, enforcement, and—importantly—industry compliance.

The Biochemistry of Harm

The science around iTFAs is settled. Industrial trans fats are chemically modified oils created through partial hydrogenation—a process that stabilises liquid vegetable oil, turning it into a semi-solid fat useful for commercial food production. While this transformation may benefit food shelf life and texture, it wreaks havoc on cardiovascular health.

Trans fat consumption increases low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol—the so-called “bad” cholesterol—while decreasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL), or “good” cholesterol. The resulting lipid profile elevates the risk of atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that iTFAs are responsible for more than 260,000 deaths globally every year, with a disproportionately high burden in low- and middle-income countries.

Unlike saturated fats, which are controversial but metabolically functional, iTFAs confer no nutritional value. They are, as the WHO has plainly stated, “an unnecessary toxic compound.” This scientific consensus led to the launch of the REPLACE action package in 2018, an initiative aimed at eliminating iTFAs from the global food supply by 2023.

Nigeria’s regulatory response was not only timely—it was imperative.

The Legal Regime: What the 2022 Regulations Actually Say

The Fats and Oils Regulations, 2022, issued under the NAFDAC Act and the Food, Drugs and Related Products Act, introduced a structured framework for regulating the presence of iTFAs in the Nigerian food environment.

The regulation is unambiguous: Regulation 7(3) imposes a legal limit of 2 grams of industrially produced trans fats per 100 grams of total fat content in any edible fat, oil, or fat-containing food product. This mirrors the WHO’s model regulations and places Nigeria in alignment with regulatory benchmarks already adopted in countries such as Denmark, India, and South Africa.

Importantly, the regulations apply extraterritorially—they govern both locally produced and imported products. That provision closes an oft-exploited loophole that allows domestic bans to be circumvented via transnational supply chains.

The regulations go further. Regulation 7(1) mandates full disclosure of fat composition on product labels—saturated, trans, mono-, and polyunsaturated fats, as well as cholesterol. Regulation 7(4) prohibits any “trans fat-free” or “cholesterol-free” claims unless scientifically verified and expressly approved by NAFDAC. The provision targets a growing pattern of deceptive labelling practices, especially prevalent in the unregulated market for street foods and low-cost snacks.

Also of note is Regulation 6(3), which demands that any blend of animal and vegetable fats must be clearly labelled, leaving no room for ambiguity. This reflects an important philosophical shift: regulation should not just enforce safety but ensure informed dietary choice.

Compliance Is Not Optional

The burden of implementation falls squarely on manufacturers and distributors. Regulation 9(1) of the Regulations requires registration of all regulated products with NAFDAC prior to any form of commercial activity, including advertising, distribution, or sale. This registration process is not procedural window-dressing. It is a mandatory gatekeeping mechanism to ensure that no product enters the market without regulatory vetting.

Moreover, manufacturers are expected to reformulate. The technical challenge here is real: reformulating products to reduce iTFA content may require substituting partially hydrogenated oils with more expensive alternatives such as high-oleic vegetable oils, interesterified fats, or fully hydrogenated oils (which do not contain trans fats). But these are not insurmountable hurdles. Global case studies from Colombia to Thailand have shown that reformulation can be achieved without compromising taste, shelf life, or production costs.

Noncompliance carries stiff penalties. Offenders may face up to ₦800,000 in fines or one year imprisonment (or both) if they are individuals, and up to ₦5 million in fines for corporate bodies. Moreover, directors, managers, and officers of offending corporations may be held personally liable. This is not symbolic enforcement. It is a deliberate strategy to create corporate accountability.

More strikingly, Regulation 11 of the Regulations provides for asset forfeiture upon conviction—including both the proceeds of the offence and any instrumentalities used in its commission. That is a regulatory design feature intended to dismantle commercial incentives for noncompliance.

Why This Matters Now

There is an urgent political economy dimension to these regulations that cannot be ignored. Nigeria is facing a growing epidemic of noncommunicable diseases. According to Nigeria’s National Policy for the Prevention and Control of NCDs, over one-third of deaths in Nigeria are attributable to NCDs, and cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause. The vast majority of these deaths are preventable.

But unlike communicable diseases, which demand large-scale vaccination campaigns or vector control programs, NCD prevention often hinges on regulatory interventions—especially those targeting food environments. Nigeria’s iTFA regulation is not just a technical exercise in food composition; it is an evidence-based public health intervention with life-saving consequences.

This is especially relevant in a country with a vibrant informal food economy and an expanding ultra-processed food industry. Street food vendors, small bakeries, and multinational corporations all play a role in shaping the average Nigerian diet. A regulatory environment that tolerates harmful ingredients risks compounding the health inequalities that are already entrenched by income, geography, and gender.

What Manufacturers Must Do—Now

For manufacturers, this is a moment of reckoning. Compliance will not be optional; it will be monitored, enforced, and audited. Reformulation plans should already be underway. Ingredient procurement systems must adapt. Internal quality control procedures must align with the new thresholds. Product labels must be redesigned. Marketing teams must undergo regulatory training. NAFDAC must become a partner, not an afterthought.

But compliance also offers a competitive edge. Manufacturers who meet the 2g/100g requirement and embrace transparent labelling will not only appeal to increasingly health-conscious consumers—they will be eligible for export into jurisdictions that have banned iTFAs altogether. In this way, regulation is not a constraint—it is a gateway to global markets.

The Path Ahead: Enforcement, Education, and Equity

For these regulations to have teeth, NAFDAC must be given the resources and political autonomy to enforce them. That means inspections, not just guidelines. It means monitoring imports, testing products on shelves, and penalising infractions with consistency and impartiality.

But enforcement alone is not enough. A parallel investment in public education is necessary. Consumers need to understand what iTFAs are, how to read labels, and why reformulated products matter. Civil society and the health sector must work together to communicate not just the science, but the stakes.

Finally, attention must be paid to economic equity. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially in the informal sector, will need technical assistance to comply. Subsidised testing services, access to reformulation expertise, and phased implementation plans can ensure that public health progress does not come at the cost of livelihoods.

From Technical Regulation to National Commitment

The elimination of iTFAs from Nigeria’s food supply is not just a regulatory milestone. It is a statement of national priorities. It is a choice to invest in long-term public health over short-term commercial convenience. It is an opportunity to set a precedent not only for Africa but for the Global South, where food safety regulation has long lagged behind epidemiological necessity.

The law is in place. The science is clear. The need is urgent.

Now, the question before manufacturers, regulators, and consumers alike is this: will we follow through?

REFERENCES

Afshin A, Sur PJ, and Fay KA et al, “Health Effects of Dietary Risks in 195 Countries, 1990–2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017,” Lancet 393:1958–72, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 (2019)

Bösch S, Westerman L, and Renshaw N, et al, Front Nutr 8: 645750, DOI: 10.3389/Fnut.2021.645750

Resolve To Save Lives, Implementing and Enforcing Trans Fat Elimination Policies: Case Studies

World Health Organization, Countdown to 2023: WHO Report on Global Trans Fat Elimination 2021, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240031876

World Health Organization, “Trans Fat,” (24 January 2024), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/trans-fat

World Health Organization, “The Top 10 Causes of Death,” (August 2024), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death (accessed 27 June 2025)

World Health Organization, “REPLACE: Trans Fat Free by 2023,” https://www.who.int/teams/nutrition-and-food-safety/replace-transfat.2021

Understanding Nigeria’s Pre-Packaged Food Labelling Regulations 2022: A Step Toward Public Health and Consumer Protection

By Jennifer Odudo and Peace Ene Idoko

In recent years, Nigeria has found itself grappling with a dual crisis in public health. On one hand, the consumption of processed and prepackaged foods—often rich in sugars, sodium, unhealthy fats, and calories—has led to a surge in non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. On the other hand, undernutrition persists in many regions, reflecting a troubling double burden of malnutrition. This public health challenge calls for decisive regulatory interventions to improve dietary choices and food safety. Against this backdrop, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) introduced the Pre-Packaged Food (Labelling) Regulations, 2022.Understanding Nigeria’s Pre-Packaged Food Labelling Regulations 2022: A Step Toward Public Health and Consumer Protection

These regulations represent a comprehensive overhaul of earlier standards, updating the existing 2005 framework to respond to modern consumer and industry needs. Their introduction signals the Nigerian government’s commitment to empowering consumers, improving food safety, and holding food producers accountable. At the core of the new regulations lies a simple principle: every Nigerian deserves to know what’s in their food.

Historical Context and Evolution of the Regulation

The evolution of food labelling laws in Nigeria reflects broader global trends. Since the early 1990s, Nigeria has made several attempts to regulate food safety and labelling practices, culminating in a set of standards introduced by NAFDAC in 1995. These early efforts sought to impose some level of transparency on a growing food market but fell short of addressing the full complexity of modern food production and marketing. The 2005 regulations provided some clarity but lacked the specificity and enforcement mechanisms required to tackle widespread non-compliance, counterfeit goods, and deceptive labelling practices.

The 2022 Regulations were designed as a strategic upgrade to address these gaps. By adopting more rigorous standards—such as mandatory allergen disclosures, precise ingredient listings, and nutritional transparency—NAFDAC seeks to align Nigerian food regulations with international best practices. The 2022 framework doesn’t just modernise food labelling; it repositions it as a fundamental tool for public health advocacy, informed consumption, and consumer protection.

Aims and Objectives of the Regulation

The overarching goal of the Pre-Packaged Food (Labelling) Regulations, 2022 is to reinforce consumer protection by mandating accurate, clear, and scientifically credible information on food products. This regulation empowers consumers to make informed decisions, supports vulnerable populations (especially those with allergies or dietary restrictions), and holds manufacturers accountable for the quality and safety of their goods.

Specifically, the regulation requires that labels display precise information about the ingredients used, their quantities, the presence of allergens, expiry dates, and manufacturer details. It prohibits vague or deceptive brand names and misleading claims. The aim is not merely to regulate aesthetics or formalities of packaging but to protect consumer rights and support healthier dietary habits.

The regulations are legally anchored in Section 30 of the NAFDAC Act, which authorises the Agency’s Governing Council, with the Minister of Health’s approval, to issue regulations in line with its mandate. By enacting this regulation, NAFDAC is not only responding to a legal obligation but also fulfilling its moral duty to safeguard public health.

The Core Provisions and Their Regulatory Significance

One of the most critical components of the regulation is its detailed requirements for product identification. Food labels must clearly state the product’s name in a way that accurately reflects its nature. If the food is synthetic or a substitute, this must be plainly declared. This requirement helps prevent misleading branding and ensures that the consumer is not tricked into believing that a product is something it is not.

Equally important is the requirement for full ingredient disclosure in descending order of weight. This transparency is vital in an era when processed foods are often laden with additives, preservatives, and flavour enhancers that may pose health risks, particularly to children, the elderly, or individuals with underlying conditions. Special attention is given to the declaration of allergens, such as nuts, dairy, gluten, and soy, which must be clearly indicated.

The regulations also mandate the inclusion of net content using metric measurements—litres for liquids, grams for solids, and drained weight where applicable. This ensures that consumers are not misled by the packaging volume and can accurately assess value for money.

A critical advancement in the 2022 Regulations is the requirement to display both the manufacturing and expiry dates in full, including the day, month, and year. This seemingly simple requirement is crucial in a country where improperly stored or expired food products can remain in circulation. Expired goods or products with tampered labels are strictly prohibited from being sold.

To foster traceability and accountability, all labels must include the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor and display unique batch numbers. This enables regulatory bodies to trace products in the event of recalls or safety incidents. Additionally, any nutritional claims—such as “low sugar” or “high in fiber”—must be scientifically substantiated, discouraging the use of marketing jargon that misleads consumers.

The regulation prohibits false or misleading descriptions and visual elements that might suggest qualities not inherent in the product. This protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics and maintains a level playing field for honest manufacturers.

Importantly, all labelling information must be provided in English, Nigeria’s official language, to ensure universal comprehension. Translations into other languages may be added, but cannot replace the English version.

Implications for Stakeholders and the Food Industry

The scope of the regulation is broad, encompassing all prepackaged food products manufactured, sold, imported, or distributed within Nigeria. This means both local producers and international suppliers must align with NAFDAC’s standards if they wish to do business in the Nigerian market.

For manufacturers, the regulation implies a significant shift toward accountability. Companies are now required to disclose extensive information, ranging from ingredients and allergens to batch numbers and nutritional facts. Products derived from genetically modified organisms must be declared as such and approved by the relevant biosafety authorities.

Manufacturers must also incorporate barcodes containing all required information for traceability. This is especially important in a digital economy where product authenticity and traceability are increasingly crucial. The layout of labels is also regulated—designs and images cannot obscure critical information, and all texts must be legible.

Vendors and distributors are also impacted. They are now responsible for ensuring that the prepackaged foods they sell comply with the labelling regulations. Any lapse, such as selling expired or unlabelled goods, could lead to regulatory penalties, product confiscation, or legal action.

For consumers, the implications are overwhelmingly positive. Access to transparent, legible, and accurate food labelling enhances decision-making, particularly among vulnerable groups such as people with food allergies, dietary restrictions, or chronic illnesses. Moreover, it promotes consumer trust in the food system by reducing uncertainty and suspicion about product quality and safety.

The Broader Benefits of the Regulation

At the heart of the regulation lies a desire to foster a safer and healthier food environment in Nigeria. First and foremost, the labelling standards promote food safety by equipping consumers with the information needed to avoid expired, allergen-laden, or counterfeit goods. This can significantly reduce food-borne illnesses and other health complications associated with low-quality or deceptive products.

The regulation also boosts transparency and deters fraudulent practices. When food labels are standardized and legally enforced, producers are less likely to engage in mislabelling or counterfeiting. This has the added benefit of cleaning up the informal food sector, which often thrives in ambiguity and regulatory blind spots.

Another key benefit is the potential for improved public health outcomes. Clear nutritional information enables individuals to make dietary choices aligned with their health goals. People with hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, for example, can now make more informed decisions about sodium, sugar, and fat content in their food.

Moreover, the regulation strengthens institutional accountability. With batch numbers and traceability systems in place, regulatory bodies like NAFDAC can efficiently respond to food safety incidents, trace the origin of contaminated or dangerous products, and remove them from circulation.

Challenges in Implementation and Enforcement

Despite its transformative potential, the 2022 Regulation faces considerable challenges. Chief among them is the capacity of NAFDAC to comprehensively enforce the law. As noted by numerous commentators, many regulatory bodies in Nigeria are understaffed, under-resourced, and overburdened. With only limited personnel assigned to food safety oversight, monitoring compliance across 774 local governments remains a daunting task.

Poor inter-agency coordination across federal and state MDAs also hampers effectiveness. Food safety enforcement often overlaps with other responsibilities held by the same officials, leading to bureaucratic delays and inconsistent implementation.

Public awareness of the new regulations is another major hurdle. Many Nigerians—particularly those in rural areas or operating informal food businesses—are unaware of their responsibilities under the law. Thousands of vendors continue to sell unlabelled or poorly labelled products, either due to ignorance or deliberate evasion.

The inadequacy of infrastructure is a further challenge. Nigeria’s existing laboratory and testing facilities are outdated, especially in rural areas. Without modern lab infrastructure and reliable logistics systems, verifying compliance with labelling standards remains difficult. NAFDAC’s current capacity, though improving, is still insufficient to provide nationwide coverage.

Additionally, the dominance of unregulated or illegal food vendors—especially in rural markets—undermines the reach of regulation. These vendors often sell unpackaged or mislabelled foods without regulatory approval, posing significant public health risks.

The Road Ahead: Toward a Safer, More Informed Food Ecosystem

The Pre-Packaged Food (Labelling) Regulations, 2022 represent a bold and necessary step toward strengthening Nigeria’s food safety system. They are grounded in principles of transparency, accountability, and consumer empowerment, aligning closely with international food safety standards.

Yet, the true impact of the regulation will depend on the country’s ability to overcome its current implementation challenges. This will require strategic investments in institutional capacity, improved inter-agency coordination, enhanced laboratory infrastructure, and aggressive public awareness campaigns. Civil society and consumer advocacy groups also have a role to play in holding producers accountable and educating the public about their rights.

Ultimately, the regulation is more than a legal document; it is a public health tool. In a country facing a growing burden of diet-related diseases, it has the potential to reshape how Nigerians interact with food—what they buy, how they consume it, and how they hold producers accountable.

By championing clearer labels and healthier choices, Nigeria is not only protecting its population today but also laying the groundwork for a more resilient and equitable food system in the future. The 2022 Regulation may well become a cornerstone of Nigeria’s food safety architecture, setting a precedent for other African nations seeking to balance industrial growth with consumer protection and public health.

A Watershed Moment for Global Health: Why the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a Game-Changer for Equity and Preparedness
By Aniekan Akpan and Peace Ene Idoko

Introduction: The Global Reckoning After COVID-19

When COVID-19 swept across the globe, it shattered not only millions of lives but also the illusion that the world was prepared for a pandemic. From the earliest days of the outbreak, we witnessed an all-too-familiar pattern of panic, protectionism, and profound inequities. Rich countries hoarded vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments while low- and middle-income countries waited in vain. Health systems collapsed under pressure, misinformation spread faster than the virus, and trust in international institutions wavered.

Yet, amid the wreckage, there emerged a collective realization: never again can we afford to approach a global health emergency with such fragmentation and inequity. This conviction galvanized the world’s nations into action, culminating in what could be the most significant development in global health governance since the creation of the World Health Organization (WHO) itself—the Pandemic Treaty.

After over three years of intense negotiations, diplomatic wrangling, and advocacy from every corner of the globe, the WHO announced on April 16, 2025, that the Member States had agreed on the final draft of a legally binding treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. This treaty, born of hard lessons and hope for a more just future, is set to be submitted for adoption at the upcoming World Health Assembly.

As public health enthusiasts, we believe this treaty is not just another bureaucratic exercise—it is a turning point. It is the world’s attempt to codify solidarity, enshrine equity, and create a durable framework that will serve as our collective shield against future pandemics.

The Genesis of the WHO Pandemic Treaty

The journey to this historic agreement began in March 2021, when a group of global leaders—including then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson—called for a new international instrument to prevent a repeat of the devastation wrought by COVID-19. The proposal gained swift traction, and by December 2021, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was established by the World Health Assembly with a mandate to draft a treaty under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—the same provision used to create landmark health instruments like the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The goal was clear: develop a legally binding agreement that would strengthen global collaboration, enhance national preparedness, and ensure that when the next pandemic strikes, we are ready—not just in words, but in deeds.

However, the path to consensus was anything but smooth. Negotiations were marred by deep divisions between developed and developing countries, disputes over intellectual property rights, and differing visions of sovereignty and solidarity. Despite missing the initial May 2024 deadline, the INB persisted. And now, with the conclusion of the negotiations, we stand at the cusp of a new era in global health governance.

A Treaty Rooted in Equity and Justice

At its core, the Pandemic Treaty is a recognition of a fundamental truth: health is a human right, not a privilege. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed systemic failures that disproportionately harmed the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations. This treaty seeks to redress those imbalances by embedding equity at every level of pandemic response.

The Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS)

One of the treaty’s most innovative and potentially transformative provisions is the creation of a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS). This mechanism ensures that when countries share information and samples of dangerous pathogens, they are guaranteed fair access to the benefits that arise—vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics—during a pandemic.

This is a direct response to the “vaccine apartheid” witnessed during COVID-19. Under PABS, manufacturers have agreed to donate 10% of their pandemic-related products to the WHO and offer another 10% at affordable prices. Though some critics argue this does not go far enough, it represents a monumental shift in how the world approaches global public goods.

As Aalisha Sahukhan, Fiji’s lead negotiator, eloquently stated, “There was a point in the negotiations when there was a real feeling that some developed countries just would not accept any set-asides, which would have been devastating to the treaty itself because the inequities regarding vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics were just so prominent during COVID-19.” The fact that an agreement was reached is testament to the moral force of the demand for health justice.

Technology Transfer: Sharing the Recipe, Not Just the Cake

Another key pillar of the treaty is its provisions on technology transfer. Developing countries, long dependent on the pharmaceutical capabilities of the Global North, have pushed for mechanisms that would allow them to manufacture pandemic health products themselves.

During negotiations, Article 11—dealing with technology transfer—became one of the most contentious issues. Wealthier nations with powerful pharmaceutical lobbies resisted any language suggesting mandatory technology transfer, arguing that it must be voluntary to respect intellectual property rights. Developing countries, on the other hand, demanded a fairer system that would allow them to build self-reliance and reduce dependency.

The compromise? Technology transfer will occur on “mutually agreed terms,” a phrase that ensures flexibility but leaves much to be desired in terms of enforceability. Nonetheless, the treaty opens the door for more equitable collaborations and capacity-building, marking an important step toward health sovereignty for the Global South.

As Alexandra Phelan, a global health lawyer, noted, “That word, ‘voluntary,’ was a red line for a number of countries—and in both directions.” But even this imperfect agreement sets a precedent for future advocacy.

Sovereignty and Multilateralism: A Delicate Balance

Critics of the treaty have raised concerns about national sovereignty, fearing that the WHO could gain undue influence over domestic health policies. These fears, often stoked by misinformation, have been decisively addressed in the treaty’s text.

The treaty explicitly affirms that countries retain full sovereignty over their public health measures. Nothing in the agreement empowers the WHO to impose lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or override national legislation. Instead, the treaty is about cooperation, not coercion. It encourages countries to align their efforts while respecting national autonomy—a delicate but essential balance for any effective global governance framework.

One Health and Resilient Health Systems

The treaty is forward-looking in its embrace of the One Health approach, recognizing the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. This holistic perspective is crucial in preventing zoonotic diseases and ensuring that pandemic prevention starts before the first human infection.

Moreover, the treaty urges countries to build resilient health systems, invest in primary care, train a skilled health workforce, and maintain robust supply chains. The COVID-19 pandemic showed us that weak health systems anywhere pose a risk everywhere. The treaty seeks to close these gaps through international cooperation and technical assistance, especially for developing countries.

Institutional Mechanisms: Governance and Accountability

To ensure that the treaty’s lofty goals are met, it proposes the establishment of a Conference of the Parties (CoP). This body will oversee the implementation of the treaty, review progress, and provide strategic direction. Accompanying this are mechanisms for accountability, including regular assessments, reporting requirements, and platforms for civil society engagement.

The treaty also calls for the creation of a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL), aimed at coordinating the distribution of medical countermeasures and preventing the kind of supply bottlenecks that plagued the COVID-19 response.

The Impact: A Blueprint for a Safer World

If adopted and implemented effectively, the Pandemic Treaty could be transformative. It promises to:

• Reduce global health inequities, ensuring timely access to life-saving interventions for all.
• Strengthen national and global preparedness, building more robust and agile health systems.
• Promote transparency and trust, with mechanisms for data sharing, collaborative research, and public accountability.
• Foster solidarity, moving away from the toxic nationalism that hindered the COVID-19 response.

Importantly, this treaty could serve as a unifying force in times of crisis, countering the political fragmentation and disjointed responses that cost countless lives during the last pandemic.

What’s Next: The Road to Ratification

The treaty will enter into force one month after 60 countries ratify it. The upcoming World Health Assembly, starting May 19, 2025, will be the decisive moment. The world will watch as nations decide whether to endorse this historic instrument.

As WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “The importance of this agreement goes beyond our current challenges,It is vital for future generations – for our children and grandchildren. By building a strong framework for pandemic preparedness and response, we ensure they inherit a safer and healthier world.”

“The nations of the world made history in Geneva today,” said Dr Tedros  “In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did they put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats.

“This achievement is not just a diplomatic success,” he said. “It reflects your resilience, unity and unwavering commitment to the health and wellbeing of people everywhere.”

As the world reflects on the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, the successful negotiation of this treaty represents a collective effort to better prepare for and respond to future global health emergencies.

Bibliography

Biever C, ‘First Global Pandemic Treaty Agreed — without the US’ [2025] Nature <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00839-0>

Kupferschmidt K, ‘Global Pandemic Treaty Finalized, without U.S., in “a Victory for Multilateralism”’ [2025] AAAS Articles DO Group <https://www.science.org/content/article/global-pandemic-treaty-finalized-without-us-victory-multilateralism> accessed 25 April 2025

Mishra V, ‘Countries Finalize Historic Pandemic Agreement after Three Years of Negotiations’ (UN News16 April 2025) <https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162301> accessed 25 April 2025

Monde L, ‘Landmark Pandemic Treaty Concluded after Years of Talks’ (Le Monde.fr16 April 2025) <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/health/article/2025/04/16/countries-approve-landmark-pandemic-treaty-after-years-of-talks_6740273_14.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed 25 April 2025

Reed J, ‘World Health Organization Agrees Legally Binding Pandemic Treaty’ BBC (16 April 2025) <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vn1r3ge2jo>

‘The Pandemic Agreement – What It Is, and What It Is Not | CEPI’ (Cepi.net2025) <https://cepi.net/pandemic-agreement-what-it-and-what-it-not> accessed 25 April 2025

World, ‘WHO Member States Conclude Negotiations and Make Significant Progress on Draft Pandemic Agreement’ (Who.int16 April 2025) <https://www.who.int/news/item/16-04-2025-who-member-states-conclude-negotiations-and-make-significant-progress-on-draft-pandemic-agreement?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed 25 April 2025

Introduction: The Crossroads of Global Health

As we advance into the second quarter of the 21st century, the world finds itself grappling with overlapping health, social, and environmental crises that challenge the very fabric of global solidarity and governance. The scars left by the COVID-19 pandemic are still raw, and the lessons learned have been hard-earned. The inadequacy of global preparedness, the inequities in access to life-saving health technologies, and the disjointedness of international response mechanisms have compelled a reimagining of how we approach global health. In this moment of reckoning, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has stepped forward with a bold and ambitious strategy—the Fourteenth General Programme of Work (GPW 14)—to guide the world from 2025 to 2028.

This strategy, adopted by Member States at the 77th World Health Assembly, is more than just a policy document. It is a global health contract grounded in the principles of equity, resilience, and collective responsibility. It is a call to action for governments, international organisations, civil society, and private sector actors to align behind a shared vision: Health for All. As public health professionals and commentators, we see GPW 14 as a critical instrument for steering global health governance in an era defined by complexity and uncertainty.

The Strategic Imperative: Why GPW 14 is Urgent and Transformational

The release of GPW 14 could not have come at a more pivotal time. Health systems around the world are navigating the aftershocks of a global pandemic, the rise of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), emerging infectious diseases, and the accelerating impacts of climate change. Additionally, economic disparities, forced migration, armed conflict, and social injustices continue to exacerbate health inequities. Against this backdrop, WHO has articulated a comprehensive response strategy that integrates health into the broader development and security agenda.

The strategy’s overarching aim is to save 40 million lives by promoting healthier populations, providing equitable and quality health services, and protecting people from health emergencies. It is built around six strategic objectives, each rooted in a deep understanding of the global health ecosystem and designed to foster systemic change rather than fragmented interventions.

Strategic Objectives: The Pillars of Global Health Transformation

1. Addressing Climate Change as a Health Crisis

Climate change is no longer a peripheral issue—it is central to the health and survival of populations worldwide. Rising temperatures, air pollution, and extreme weather events are directly linked to increased respiratory diseases, malnutrition, vector-borne diseases, and mental health conditions. GPW 14 calls for urgent action to build climate-resilient health systems, integrate health into climate adaptation policies, and support low-carbon healthcare infrastructure.

The strategy prioritises One Health, recognising the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. WHO will work with countries to assess climate-related health risks, develop national health adaptation plans, and reduce the carbon footprint of health systems through sustainable practices. This approach is not only about protecting health but also about positioning health as a lever for climate action.

2. Tackling the Root Causes of Ill Health

Health outcomes are shaped by social determinants such as poverty, education, housing, and access to clean water and nutritious food. GPW 14 advocates for a whole-of-government approach, embedding health in policies across sectors. It emphasises preventive action, focusing on reducing exposure to risk factors like tobacco use, alcohol abuse, unhealthy diets, and physical inactivity.

By addressing these determinants, the strategy aims to reduce the global burden of NCDs, promote mental well-being, and ensure health equity. The strategy also targets gender disparities, recognizing that women and girls often face systemic barriers to accessing health services and achieving optimal health outcomes.

3. Advancing Primary Health Care (PHC) for Universal Health Coverage (UHC)

Primary Health Care is the backbone of any effective health system. It is where 90% of health needs can be addressed, often at a fraction of the cost of hospital-based care. GPW 14 places PHC at the center of the global health agenda, calling for reinvestment in frontline services, community-based care, and integrated service delivery.

WHO will support countries in developing context-specific PHC models, expanding essential public health functions, and improving health governance. The strategy also highlights the need to empower communities, ensuring that care is not only accessible but also culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive.

4. Expanding Service Coverage and Financial Protection

In a world where billions lack access to basic health services and many are pushed into poverty due to healthcare costs, GPW 14 demands a rethinking of health financing. It calls for public investment in health, elimination of out-of-pocket payments for essential services, and equity-focused financing mechanisms.

WHO will work with countries to develop sustainable health financing strategies, track health expenditures, and support the implementation of social protection systems. The goal is to ensure that no one is left behind and that health systems are financially resilient and inclusive.

5. Strengthening Health Emergency Preparedness

The next pandemic is not a question of if, but when. GPW 14 builds on the hard lessons of COVID-19, urging countries to invest in early warning systems, emergency workforce capacity, and resilient supply chains. It emphasizes the need for integrated surveillance, rapid diagnostics, and cross-sectoral coordination.

WHO will support the development of national health security action plans, aligned with the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) and other emerging international legal frameworks. The strategy also advocates for equitable access to medical countermeasures, particularly for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

6. Responding Rapidly and Effectively to Health Emergencies

Effective emergency response requires speed, coordination, and equity. GPW 14 outlines mechanisms for real-time threat detection, rapid mobilization of resources, and inclusive humanitarian response. It focuses on maintaining essential health services during crises and ensuring that vulnerable populations—including refugees, people with disabilities, and the elderly—receive timely and appropriate care.

WHO’s Core Work: Leadership in Action

The strategy reinforces WHO’s role as a technical leader, normative authority, and trusted global partner. Four corporate outcomes define how WHO will deliver on its mandates:

1. Effective Leadership and Convening: WHO will strengthen its role in setting the global health agenda, bringing together diverse stakeholders to foster multilateral collaboration.
2. High-Quality Technical Solutions: WHO will enhance its normative work, developing evidence-based guidelines, promoting research and innovation, and facilitating technology transfer.
3. Tailored Country Support: WHO will expand its presence in over 150 countries, providing technical assistance, capacity building, and policy support tailored to national contexts.
4. Organisational Excellence: WHO will implement results-based management, improve accountability mechanisms, and optimise its financial and human resources.

Optimizing WHO’s Performance: From Vision to Reality

To achieve its goals, WHO must transform how it operates. GPW 14 commits to:

• Strengthening Country Offices: Increasing technical capacity and decentralising decision-making to ensure localised impact.
• Digital Transformation: Leveraging technology for data-driven decision-making, real-time surveillance, and health information systems.
• Sustainable Financing: Raising US$ 11.13 billion over four years, with a focus on flexible funding and transparent resource allocation.
• Inclusive Workforce: Building a diverse, empowered, and gender-balanced team dedicated to delivering on WHO’s mission.

Implementation: A Collective Effort

GPW 14 is a shared endeavour. Its success hinges on:

• Government Leadership: Aligning national policies with the strategy, investing in health systems, and fostering political will.
• Partnerships: Engaging UN agencies, donors, civil society, and private sector actors in coordinated action.
• Community Empowerment: Involving people in decisions that affect their health, ensuring accountability and social participation.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Tracking progress through robust indicators, ensuring that commitments translate into tangible results.

Implications for Stakeholders: The Power of Collective Responsibility

For Member States, GPW 14 offers a roadmap to align national health priorities with global goals. It provides guidance on where to invest, how to structure health systems, and how to engage stakeholders effectively.

For donors and development partners, the strategy presents a framework for strategic investment, emphasizing the importance of flexible funding and long-term commitments.

For civil society and non-state actors, it provides opportunities for meaningful engagement, advocacy, and service delivery, particularly in marginalized communities.

For the private sector, GPW 14 highlights the importance of responsible innovation, affordable access, and ethical business practices.

Conclusion: The Time to Act is Now

The WHO Global Health Strategy 2025–2028 is a bold, comprehensive, and necessary response to the multifaceted health challenges of our time. It is a blueprint for a world where health systems are resilient, equitable, and prepared. It is a call to action for all of us—to lead, to partner, and to deliver.

As we face an uncertain future, one thing is clear: health is not optional. It is the foundation of peace, prosperity, and human dignity. GPW 14 offers us the tools, the framework, and the vision. What remains is the will to act.

Let us rise to this moment. Let us build a world where no one is left behind. Let us make health for all a reality.