A sudden and severe public warning from Cameroon’s Ministry of Public Health about a popular Nestlé product, Nestlé Nido® With Cocoa Powder, followed weeks later by a complete retraction, has left consumers confused. Many have raised serious questions about the government’s poor crisis management and lack of due diligence before sounding alarms over such critical things, without any preliminary scientific investigations.
The ministry initially ordered the “immediate precautionary withdrawal” of Nestlé Nido Encore chocolate-flavoured powdered milk on 30 September, 2025, citing a “non-compliance report”. In a startling reversal, Minister Dr. Manaouda Malachine announced on 5 November that “in-depth analyses” had found “no abnormalities,” declaring the product safe and lifting the ban. The communique clarifying that the product is safe, however, has not been communicated by the ministry in the same way it sent out the alarm that later proved to have been false.
This sequence of events has prompted criticism from consumers and observers alike, who question why a nationwide alert was issued before scientific verification, a move that damaged a corporate brand and sowed widespread public alarm over a widely consumed product.
The ministry’s handling of the incident unfolded in two clear, contradictory phases. The first phase began on 30 September with a precautionary ban. The Ministry of Public Health ordered the immediate withdrawal of the product from the national market based solely on a report about a single “suspicious” packet from an unnamed third party. Consumers were instructed not to consume the product and to report any adverse effects, with the ministry stating this was a “precaution” taken while “investigations have been launched”.
The second phase culminated on 5 November with a definitive all-clear. The Ministry lifted the withdrawal measure, stating the public was “free to consume” the product. This decision was based on the results from “in-depth analyses of samples” collected by the ministry’s own technical services, which found that the product’s characteristics “comply with current quality and safety standards, both microbiologically and physicochemically”. The five-week ban was thus ended with no faults found.
Questioning the “Precautionary” Method
Critics argue that the process bypassed fundamental steps of scientific verification and inter-institutional dialogue. A central point of contention is the apparent lack of preliminary checks; the ministry issued the public warning based solely on a report from an unverified “third party” without first conducting basic tests or engaging the manufacturer. This action proved damaging to the Nestlé brand and public trust, with Nestlé Cameroun expressing “surprise” at the decision, noting it had not been contacted beforehand and describing the situation as “damaging” to its reputation. Furthermore, the incident created a contradiction in government messaging, occurring in a political climate where other ministers have aggressively accused media and civil society of spreading “false rumours,” leading to accusations of a double standard.
The ministry’s approach has tangible consequences in Cameroon’s complex information ecosystem. Firstly, it risks amplifying public fear. The initial alarming warning, devoid of specific details about the alleged risk, spread rapidly. In a country where a significant majority often relies on social media for news, such official statements can fuel an “infodemic” of fear and speculation. Secondly, it risks undermining future alerts.
Public health experts warn that “crying wolf” without evidence can erode public trust, making people less likely to heed future, genuinely critical health warnings. The ministry’s actions stood in stark contrast to global standards. The World Health Organization (WHO), when issuing its own product alerts for hazards like falsified medicines, provides detailed, evidence-based information including batch numbers and specific risks. The Cameroonian ministry’s initial vague alert did not meet this model of transparent communication.
Nestlé’s Response and the Way Forward
Following the clearance, Nestlé Cameroun issued a statement welcoming the ministry’s clarification. The company’s Managing Director, Aboubacar Coulibaly, stated, “We welcome this clarification confirming the safety of Nestlé NIDO® with cocoa powder and invite our consumers to continue enjoying this nutritious and delicious beverage with complete confidence.” He reiterated that “consumer safety remains our top priority” and that all products are made under strict standards. The company also highlighted its “close collaboration” with authorities, including welcoming inspectors to its Douala factory for sampling.
A Broader Systemic Issue
This incident transcends a single product scare. It highlights a critical gap in Cameroon’s public health communication strategy. As Cameroonian researcher Graphlain Wobyeb notes in a blog on fighting health misinformation, “Evidence must not stay in journals. It must reach mothers, fathers, youth, and leaders… in ways that they understand.” When official channels themselves disseminate unverified information, they inadvertently contribute to the very misinformation crisis they aim to combat. Wobyeb argues that “knowledge that is not shared is like medicine never taken; it exists, but it cannot heal.” In this case, the “knowledge” of a potential threat was shared prematurely, without the antidote of verified evidence, causing unnecessary panic.
The ministry, in its final statement, thanked citizens for their “alertness and cooperation”. The deeper question now is how the ministry will reform its own alertness and cooperation protocols with manufacturers to ensure that future public warnings are both swift and scientifically sound, protecting both public health and public trust.
