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 

The post HEALA pushes back against the recent ruling by the Advertising Regulatory Board  appeared first on Heala.

READ MORE: Media Statement: No evidence that the Health Promotion Levy has led to job losses

In the first year alone, the volume of sugary drinks purchased plummeted by half, leading to a nearly one-third drop in sugar consumption. At the same time, South Africans turned to healthier options, replacing fizzy drinks with non-taxed options like water or diet beverages. These findings have been validated by peer-reviewed journals and industry alike. 

Cost-effective

Around the world, governments and international organisations have recognised that taxing sugary drinks is a simple, cost-effective way to promote public health. From the UK to the US to Mexico, these taxes have reduced sugary drink consumption without hurting the economy. In five US cities that implemented sugary drink taxes, sales of these drinks dropped and the trend continued over time. 

This op-ed was first published in the Daily Maverick on the 1st of November 2024. To read the entire article please click here.

The post OP-ED: Sugar tax’ a huge success in curbing sugar consumption and promoting public wellness appeared first on Heala.

It is really difficult to read food labels. What is trans-fat? How is it different from saturated fat? Why is sodium in milligrams instead of grams? Is it good for me?

That is, of course, if you even see the label on the back of the package.

On April 21, 2023, the National Department of Health published R3337, putting forward a draft regulation to introduce front-of-pack labelling in South Africa.

The draft regulation aims to provide easy-to-understand information on the front of packaged food to help consumers make healthy purchasing decisions.

This type of labelling has been incorporated successfully into several other countries and has been shown to help consumers better understand what they are eating.

The draft regulations also propose introducing restrictions on how foods can be marketed when those foods are deemed unhealthy.

The restrictions specifically aim to restrict techniques used to entice children to purchase and eat unhealthy food – an important measure as children are more vulnerable to persuasive marketing practices.

The draft regulation seems to be a no-brainer: more people will understand what is in food, and children will be less likely to be manipulated into making unhealthy eating decisions.

Especially in light of the worrying revelation early last week by Statistics South Africa that non-communicable diseases – diseases often associated with poor diets – have increased by 58 percent in the last two decades.

However, there has been staunch opposition from the food industry, and several red-herring arguments have been advanced.

We provide the following clarification to help the public understand the new proposed draft regulations.

Food producers will have fair use of their trademarks

The food industry argues that the restriction in the regulations aimed to remove misleading product descriptors “arbitrarily” deprive producers of their intellectual property rights.

First, the Trade Mark Act, the law regulating the protection of trademarks in South Africa, already contains a list of criteria limiting the use of trademarks, including allowing other laws to restrict trademarks or prescribing that marks which are confusing or misleading do not attract legal protection.

Second, food producers register multiple variations of their trademarks and will not face significant trade implications should a variation fall foul of the law.

As an example, we searched the Companies and Intellectual Property online database for trademarks affiliated with a popular soda brand in South Africa and found 60 different trademark results.

The regulations are deemed successful internationally The World Health Organization has called for front-of-pack labelling as a key consumer nutrition literacy intervention to promote healthy diets.

While it is very difficult to show how a policy intervention like a front-of-pack label can improve overall dietary choices, preliminary evidence exists (from Chile and more broadly), and strong evidence shows that the information-imparting objective is effective.

Additionally, the importance of the attached marketing restrictions to protect children has been proven, as studies show a strong link between unhealthy food marketing and childhood obesity.

Consumers should know that food contains ‘artificial sweeteners’

Evidence suggests that providing a warning label on excess sugar can lead consumers to unknowingly substitute sugar-sweetened beverages with alternative sweetened beverages (beverages containing artificial sweeteners).

The safety of artificial sweeteners is still debated.

The warning label is intended to be a consumer information intervention and warning consumers, especially parents, allows consumers to make a decision on appropriate artificial sweetener intake given the risk of allergic reaction, impact on diet for patients with diabetes, potential impact on long term food preferences and emerging evidence on the risk of cancer.

The label will not make it more difficult to import or export food

All countries have variations in food safety and labelling standards and require different procedures to meet local laws. There is a definite trend towards introducing front-of-pack labelling, and food producers seek regulatory harmonisation, endorsing FOPL policies to best achieve this goal.

The food industry will unfairly lose profits

Some food producers argue that they will lose profit because consumers will not buy foods with the warning labels – that is the point!

People will always eat – having people eat healthier foods should encourage food producers to make better alternatives available to the public. Corporate profits can never be more important than public health.

* Nzama Mbalati is the programmes manager at the Healthy Living Alliance (Heala).

* Zukiswa Zimela is the communications manager at Heala.

This oped was first published on IOL on the 9th of November 2023

The post OPINION: Let’s be upfront on front-of-pack labelling appeared first on Heala.

23 November 2021

RE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE THIRD BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF THE AFRICAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY ALLIANCE (ARUA), GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH CHALLENGES: FACING THEM IN AFRICA (17 – 19 NOVEMBER 2021)

We are a group of concerned public health practitioners and academics working in the fields of child health, nutrition, non-communicable diseases (NCD’s) and health promotion.

We are pleased that the Third Biennial Conference of the African Research University Alliance (ARUA) on Global Public Health Challenges: Facing them in Africa to be held from the 17th to the 19th of November will include topics relating to food governance, systems, and access to nutritious food as well as discussions on the role of NCDs in global health.

We understand access to nutritious food to be a key driver of global public health.i We also note the role of diet-related non-communicable diseases in exacerbating the Covid-19 pandemic worldwide, and in Africa. ii Finally, the role of the private sector in influencing food environments in Africa cannot be overstated, iii with corporate political activity and progressive health policies relating to the diets frequently at odds.iv

We note that Professor Lindiwe Sibanda (UP) as one of the main conference speakers will be providing opening remarks. We also note from the biography connected to this conference that Professor Sibanda is a serving member of the Nestlé International Board of Directors. We are concerned that URUA does not recognize this as a conflict of interest.

Nestlé is an international company with a product portfolio that includes infant feeding products, soft drinks, coffee and tea products. Nestlé is a behemoth in the food and beverage industry, reporting CHF 7.3 billion profit for the first half of 2021 (ZAR 122.9 billion/ NGN 3293.4 billion/ 4530 CFA billion). Nestlé controls the world’s most valuable food and drinks portfolio.v Per its own admission, more than 60% of Nestlé’s food and beverage portfolio are deemed unhealthy products.vi Nestlé has also been accused of engaging in harmful corporate practices including the use of child slave labour, vii illegally promoting- breastmilk substitutes, viii unfair labour practices, ix and massive water usage sourced from water-scarce areas.x We only list allegations levelled against Nestlé in 2021. We do not purport to take a position on these allegations, but we are concerned by the gravity and scope of these allegations.

Specifically, in South Africa, we have documented repeated violations by Nestle of the R991xi xii regulations related to infant formula marketing and recently academics and civil society voiced opposition to a recent Nestle sponsored event for mothers which was subsequently cancelled.xiii

We note the Carnegie Corporation which is funding this conference is committed to avoiding conflicts of interest as per its 2009 Code of Ethics.xiv We believe the member universities of ARUA share in this commitment. Public Health England defines conflict of interest as an inability to contribute impartially to a programme of work, research, governance or oversight functions.xv The WHO described a conflict of interest as a set of circumstances where there is a potential for a secondary interest to unduly influence or be reasonably perceived to unduly influence the independence or objectivity of the primary interest. xvi The World Public Health Nutrition Association classifies possible conflicts of interest as any engagement with commercial producers of unhealthy foods, and specific industry involved in infant feeding products, ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages (all part of Nestlé’s product portfolio).

As academics and professionals, we may think we are immune to conflicts of interest, yet a Cochrane review found that industry funding leads researchers to favour corporations either consciously or unconsciously. xvii While a conflict of interest does not necessarily equate to collusion or corruption it is often “difficult to distinguish subtle, unconscious bias from deliberately concealed impropriety”. xviii It is also important to recognise that perceived conflicts of interest may be as damaging as actual conflicts as they may “tarnish the reputation of scientists, organisations or corporations”. As such governments, universities and international organisations such as the WHO, have put measures in place to prevent and mitigate conflicts of interest.

The first step in managing conflicts of interest is disclosure and transparency at the individual and institutional level in order to screen and identify individuals/institutions with conflicting interests. xix While this is indeed a necessary first step, it is not sufficient to eliminate the COI, and where serious conflicts of interest arise between an individual’s private interests and public duties, it may become necessary to prohibit that individual from taking on positions of influence, and/or participating in key decision-making processes. Alternatively, the individual or institution should be asked to divest and rid itself of any interest that may undermine its integrity and independent judgement.

We are therefore concerned that Professor Sibanda’s leadership role in the conference, including hosting a workshop in her role as Director of the ARUA Centre of Excellence in sustainable food systems, while simultaneously holding a remunerated xx board of directors position with Nestlé constitutes a conflict of interest which may further compromise food and nutrition security on the African continent

Please clarify how this conflict has been investigated and how the conflict of interest will be managed.

Yours Sincerely,

List of Signatories:

The post Open letter: Conflict of Interest at the Third Biennial Conference of the African Research University Alliance appeared first on Heala.