Over the past few days, I have been reading comments from Nigerian women describing itching, irritation and other reactions they associate with sanitary pads. Some say the problems stopped when they changed products.
Those experiences deserve to be taken seriously and investigated. They do not, on their own, tell us what is causing the reactions.
But as I read the conversations that followed, particularly the calls for women to abandon pads for period panties, menstrual cups, disposable underwear and even baby diapers, I found myself thinking about a much bigger problem.
What happens when consumers stop trusting the products in a market?
Because switching products does not necessarily solve a quality problem. The alternative can also be counterfeit, poorly manufactured or substandard. The issue is not simply which product we choose.
It is whether we can trust the market from which we are choosing.
The problem is bigger than one product
Nigeria’s problem with fake and substandard products is not new. What makes the current conversation interesting is how many different categories now seem to provoke the same question from consumers: Is this genuine?
In August alone, NAFDAC received 225 complaints about suspected counterfeit products and says it typically receives more than 200 complaints a month. These are complaints, not confirmed cases, an important distinction, but they tell us something about the level of concern in the market.
And counterfeiting is only part of the problem.
Something I found particularly interesting while looking into this was SON’s explanation for why substandard products remain in Nigerian markets. Beyond smuggling, the agency says some importers deliberately ask foreign manufacturers to manufacture products below the required specification for profit.
Think about the difference.
The product does not necessarily have to be a fake version of a famous brand. The compromise can begin with the specifications themselves.
To the person buying it, however, it may simply look like another product on the shelf.
Then there is purchasing power
This is where I think the conversation becomes more complicated.
When purchasing power falls, price carries more weight in everyday decisions. If two products appear to do essentially the same thing but one costs considerably less, the cheaper one becomes harder to ignore when household budgets are stretched. That does not mean people with less money deliberately choose fake products. Many consumers may have no idea that the cheaper product is counterfeit or substandard.
But economic pressure changes markets. Research on food fraud in Nigeria found a relationship between financial constraints and consumers’ tolerance of fraudulent products. In one study of more than 2,000 Nigerian consumers, 21.1% agreed to some degree that during difficult economic times it could be acceptable for sellers to sell counterfeit or adulterated food if it caused no harm. Household income was also significantly associated with attitudes towards food fraud.
A separate 2026 study similarly found that economic hardship can contribute to the normalization and tacit acceptance of fraudulent food products.
Of course, while food is only one market, the economic mechanism is worth thinking about.
Falling purchasing power does not only change what people can afford. It can also change the kind of market that develops around them.
Where there is enormous demand for cheaper products, there is money to be made by businesses willing to satisfy that demand by compromising quality. And that creates another problem.
Quality has a cost
I understand this part particularly well from running a business. Proper materials cost money. Genuine sourcing costs money. Compliance costs money. Duties, appropriate storage, distribution and quality control all cost money.
A business that absorbs those costs is not really competing on equal terms with one that quietly removes some of them while presenting something that looks equivalent to the consumer. This is why fake and substandard products are not only a consumer-safety problem.
They distort competition.
The business doing things properly becomes the more expensive option. SON itself recognizes this. One of the stated purposes of its conformity system is to provide a level playing field for genuine businesses and prevent economic losses caused by substandard imports.
But I think there is an even bigger economic cost.
Trust is economic infrastructure
Every time we buy something, we make assumptions we rarely think about.
- We assume the brand on the package made the product.
- We assume the ingredients listed are the ingredients inside.
- We assume that when we pay for a particular quality, that is what we are receiving.
- We assume that basic standards have been met.
That is trust. And trust removes friction from an economy.
Now, imagine the opposite.
You have to investigate every bottle of medicine before taking it. Examine every cosmetic carefully. Question every unusually cheap food item. Verify every electrical product. Wonder whether the sanitary product you have used for years is still being made to the same standard. Suddenly, a simple transaction requires more information, more time and sometimes more money.
Businesses feel it too. Genuine companies have to spend more proving authenticity and protecting their brands. Retailers have to work harder to establish credibility. Regulators spend resources pursuing offenders. Consumers increasingly retreat to sellers they already trust.
That is why trust is economic infrastructure.
We usually think about infrastructure as roads, ports, electricity and telecommunications. But markets also depend on confidence that the rules mean something, standards mean something and what we are paying for is reasonably close to what we are receiving.
Of course, individuals have a role. Where we buy matters. Who we buy from matters. Prices that make no commercial sense should make us ask questions, particularly for products we eat, drink, swallow or use on our bodies.
But there is a limit to how much responsibility can reasonably be transferred to the consumer.
We should not have to become investigators every time we go shopping.
A functioning market should make it relatively easy to trust that what you paid for is what you received. And perhaps that is the bigger issue behind the sanitary-pad conversation.
The question should not end with whether women should switch from pads to period panties, menstrual cups or something else. It is whether we are building a market in which consumers can trust any of those choices.
Because once people routinely begin questioning whether the food is genuine, the medicine is genuine, the cosmetic is genuine or the sanitary product is genuine, it’s no longer a collection of isolated fake-product problems.
It’s a trust problem.
And trust is economic infrastructure. When it breaks down, the market becomes more expensive for everyone trying to do the right thing.
Notes with STB | A content series exploring mindset, money and business.
The Brief Network: Inspiring Stories and Empowering Lessons.
