PRESS RELEASE

IMMEDIATE: 08 SEPTEMBER 2025 

HEALA (Healthy Living Alliance), a non-profit organisation that advocates for healthy living and food justice for all, is appealing an Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) ruling that found its public-interest advert on the harmful effects of sugary drinks misleading and inaccurate. 

The ARB claimed that the messaging of the HEALA advertisement in question was positioned as fact instead of opinion, further citing that it was specifically worded to shock consumers into believing that any consumption of sugary drinks would lead to disease. 

We at HEALA believe that, if anything, our advertisement simply urges South Africans to be mindful of what they eat – especially foods high in sugar, salt, saturated fats and sweeteners, which can increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and other non-communicable diseases.

“This case is important because it will determine whether organisations such as HEALA can continue to run evidence-based public health campaigns without being unfairly restricted by advertising rules. It affects how civil society can raise awareness about diet-related diseases, such as obesity and diabetes, and advocate for policies like a stronger Health Promotion Levy. The appeal also raises key questions about freedom of expression, association, and the right to food and health, while setting an important precedent for non-commercial, advocacy-focused campaigns in South Africa. A ruling in HEALA’s favour would protect the space for public-interest advocacy and ensure that scientific evidence can be used to inform and protect communities,” notes HEALA CEO, Nzama Mbalati. 

HEALA, and its partners, believe the public should be made aware of how industry players often try to block life-saving policies through tactics such as the one outlined above. We also believe that people have the right to understand the grounds of this case, as our mission is to inform and educate South African consumers. Below, we share more details on the case and the next steps to help our partners and the public stay informed.

What was the cause of the case?

In October 2024, HEALA ran a campaign calling for a stronger Health Promotion Levy (the tax on sugary drinks). One of the advertisements, broadcast in Afrikaans, stated:

“Fizzy drinks and fruit juice make our children sick. With every sip, sugar is dumped into their bodies, leading to obesity, heart disease and diabetes as they age. We must protect our children from all drinks with sugar in them. Insist on a stricter health promotion levy now. Sign the petition on heala.org.”

A consumer lodged a complaint claiming that his daughter was distressed after hearing the HEALA advertisement. He argued that the advert wrongly implied that drinking sugary drinks will definitely cause serious illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes, and that the advertisement therefore amounted to misleading health claims. 

Who is the ARB?

According to the ARB’s website it is “South Africa’s official self-regulation body that adjudicates complaints about advertising content.”  

The ARB is directly funded by several industry bodies, including companies that produce sodas and sugary drinks – which is the very controversial product in the public health advertisement.

What did the ARB originally say?

The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board originally upheld the consumer’s complaint against HEALA’s advert. It found that the statement suggesting sugary drinks and fruit juice “make our children sick” was misleading because it implied that any consumption of such drinks would directly cause diseases like obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. The Directorate concluded that the advert presented these health risks as inevitable outcomes rather than potential long-term effects, and therefore breached the Code of Advertising Practice. This ruling meant the advert could no longer be carried by ARB member platforms, prompting HEALA’s appeal.

What did the Appeal Committee conclude?

The Advertising Appeals Committee (AAC) dismissed HEALA’s appeal on 23 June 2025 and upheld the Directorate’s ruling against the advert. The AAC agreed the advert was misleading because it gave the impression that any sugary drink would automatically make children sick and cause diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. The Committee also rejected HEALA’s argument that the advert was public-interest advocacy and should be exempt from the Code, and that it should instead be treated as a set of factual health claims. HEALA argues this misrepresents both the purpose and wording of the advert, which was clearly intended as public health advocacy to protect children and build support for strengthening the Health Promotion Levy. By focusing on one consumer’s reaction rather than the broader advocacy message, the AAC’s ruling has limited HEALA’s ability to share its evidence-based campaign with the public.

What are the key issues to be decided before the final appeal committee?

• Accuracy and evidence supporting the advert. The appeal body is to consider that HEALA’s advert is grounded in scientific evidence and expert reports, which clearly support the claims made about the harms of sugary drinks. HEALA provided two independent expert reports providing that the claim was accurate and highlighting the significant health risk of soda and fruit juice consumption on health.

• Proper interpretation of the advert. The appeal body is to assess whether the ARB misread the advert as claiming that any sugar consumption will inevitably cause disease, when in fact it communicates that sugary drinks can contribute to long-term health risks.

• Public-interest advocacy versus commercial advertising. The appeal body should recognise that the advert is part of HEALA’s public health advocacy, aiming to protect children and encourage public support for a heftier Health Promotion Levy. 

• Jurisdiction of the ARB. The appeal body should consider whether health-related claims fall within the regulatory authority of the Department of Health rather than the ARB, and whether the ARB exceeded its mandate.

• Non-commercial nature and consumer impact. The appeal body should weigh whether the advert misleads or harms consumers, noting that it simply encourages public engagement through petitioning and access to information.

• Constitutional rights and advocacy standards. The appeal body should consider whether the AAC’s ruling imposes unreasonable restrictions on public health advocacy and infringes constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, association, and the right to adequate nutrition and health.

Why is this case important?

• Protecting public health messaging. The outcome will affect how organisations such as HEALA can communicate evidence-based health risks, especially around sugar and diet-related diseases.
• Safeguarding advocacy space. A ruling in HEALA’s favour would reinforce the ability of civil society to campaign on public-interest matters without being unfairly constrained by advertising regulations beyond that of commercial advertising.
• Encouraging evidence-based action. The case underscores the importance of using scientific evidence in public campaigns to inform the public and influence policy, such as strengthening the Health Promotion Levy.
• Defending constitutional rights. The appeal raises critical questions about freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to food and health, particularly in public health advocacy contexts.
• Setting a precedent for non-commercial campaigns. The decision could clarify how non-commercial, advocacy-focused adverts are treated under the Advertising Code, shaping the landscape for future public health campaigns.

What are possible outcomes?

The appeal could have a few different outcomes. The Final Appeal Committee might rule in HEALA’s favour, confirming that the advert was lawful public-interest advocacy and allowing the campaign to continue. It could also dismiss the appeal, upholding the AAC’s finding that the advert was misleading, which would limit HEALA’s ability to run similar campaigns through ARB member channels. The Committee could also issue a partial ruling, clarifying how health claims or non-commercial advocacy should be treated under the advertising code. Whatever the outcome, both HEALA and the consumer would have the option to take the matter to the High Court for further review, keeping the door open for additional legal scrutiny. 

HEALA, looks forward to engaging with other stakeholders including the National Department of Health, National Treasury, and the sugar industry. It is vital that we properly educate and engage all stakeholders on this and other serious issues that could have a dire effect on the health of our nation. The industry needs to start putting the lives of South Africans ahead of profits.   

Ends

About HEALA
HEALA is a coalition of civil society organisations advocating for equitable access to affordable, nutritious food in South Africa by building a more just food system.

For media enquiries and interviews, please contact:

Mr. Neo Merafi: 071 359 9738 or Neo@maverickbrand.co.za