According to the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), BON Bread is safe to eat because the preservative employed in its manufacturing is within permitted bounds.
After conducting a scientific examination into a widely shared social media video that sparked questions about the product’s shelf life, the FDA provided the clarification.
The dispute started on April 13, 2026, when Love Dooshima, a blogger, uploaded a video in which she expressed concern over a loaf of bread that she claimed had not gone bad for almost two months.
The maker of BON Bread asserted that the product belonged to them and refuted the accusation, despite the fact that she did not specify any brand.
The corporation filed a N50 million lawsuit against Dooshima after the video went viral.
After accepting an invitation to the Zone 7 Police Headquarters in Abuja, she was later arrested by the Nigeria Police Force on April 20 due to accusations of fraud, mischief, and cyberstalking.
After claimed intervention by Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Disu, Dooshima was freed at 12:30 a.m. the next day.
A probe into the issue was also announced by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.
In light of this, Prof. Christianah Adeyeye, Director General of NAFDAC, revealed the organization’s conclusions in a statement on Sunday.
“Though the complainant did not mention the brand or producer of the said bread, Food & Food Integrated Company Limited claimed that the said bread is produced by the company, and that the allegation was not true,” Adeyeye said.
“The hue and cry over the internet and the perceived need for NAFDAC to avail the public with evidence-based scientific proof” was the reason the agency started its probe, she clarified.
According to Adeyeye, the company’s Abuja bakery was the subject of an investigation inspection by NAFDAC’s Greater FCT Directorate on April 20. Bread samples were collected for laboratory analysis from both the manufacturing facility and the open market.
“Investigation by the agency revealed that the company in question commenced bread production in the year 2006 and has successfully gone through several product license renewals without any penalties or recalls,” she said.
“Laboratory findings revealed that calcium propionate was used as preservative, and that the amount of the preservative used was within the limits specified in Codex Alimentarius (Food Code),” Adeyeye stated.
She further explained that calcium propionate content from the three sets of samples taken from both the production facility and the open market “were satisfactory,” and that “the bread samples analysed did not contain objectionable substances, including bromate and non-nutritive sweeteners.”
“As a result of the foregoing, the public is hereby informed that the company is not in violation of any of the agency’s regulations,” she added.