Speaking Truth
to Power

• In October 2024, as part of our mission to promote health justice, HEALA launched a campaign calling for the government to strengthen the Health Promotion Levy (also known as “sugary drinks tax”).
• Our radio advert, 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.” This statement is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence from the World Health Organization (WHO) and other leading health bodies.
• A complaint was lodged by a single individual after his child heard the advert and was distressed.
• The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) — a body directly funded by the food and beverage industry — ruled that our advert was “misleading.” They claimed it suggested that a single sip causes disease, ignoring its context as advocacy and the robust evidence behind it. Our appeal against this decision was dismissed in June 2025.

We believe the ARB’s decision is incorrect for several critical reasons:

1. It Ignores the Science: We provided the ARB with independent expert reports confirming the link between sugary drink consumption and increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. The ruling dismisses this global scientific consensus.
2. It Misinterprets Our Message: Any reasonable person understands this as a warning about a significant health risk, not a claim that a single sip guarantees illness. The ARB applied a literal, narrow interpretation that ignores common sense and context.
3. It Targets Advocacy, Not Advertising: Our goal was to inform the public and encourage policy change, not to sell a product. The ARB is applying rules designed for commercial advertising to stifle public interest advocacy.
4. It Raises Questions of Bias: No stranger to controversy, he ARB gets funding from the very industries whose products cause health harms. This creates a clear conflict of interest when adjudicating public health messages.

This case is about far more than one advert. It is about the fundamental principles of a healthy democracy.

• Your Right to Know: South Africans have a right to evidence-based information about the products that impact their health. If corporations can silence health warnings through industry bodies, we are all kept in the dark.
• A Threat to Civil Society: A ruling like this sets a dangerous precedent. It gives powerful industries a tool to silence any NGO that speaks out against harmful products, from alcohol and tobacco to ultra-processed foods.
• Protecting Our Children: The health of our children is non-negotiable. South Africa has high rates of childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes. We must be able to sound the alarm and advocate for policies, like a stronger HPL, that protect them.
• Our Constitutional Rights: This case touches on our constitutional rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and the right to health and food. The ARB’s ruling represents an unreasonable restriction on these rights.

In our final appeal, we are asking the committee to:

• Acknowledge the scientific evidence supporting our claims.
• Recognise the difference between a commercial advertisement and a public health advocacy campaign.
• Reverse the ruling and confirm that our advert is lawful, truthful, and in the public interest.
• Protect the right of all civil society organisations to engage in robust public discourse on issues that affect the well-being of our nation.