Media Statement

01 October 2024

For Immediate Release 

On 30 September, the SA Canegrowers Association publicly questioned whether a tax on sodas is intended to be a health tax. Higgins Mdluli, the Chair of SA Canegrowers’ Association, asks: “At what point do we look at the data with common sense and admit the tax is not working?” He asks this after referring to two local studies, (both which are used to support the success of the tax, by the way) because: one study found that the single intervention of the sugar tax did not fix the whole problem of bad diets in South Africa, so people are still gaining weight. The second found that people buy less sodas, and then buy other products with that money instead. A finding one would think speaks to the fact that consumers substitute purchasing: so a job in one industry where fewer products are being bought, will be replaced by a job in another industry, where more products are being purchased.

There is a lot to be said about the evidence about sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Given that the Health Promotion Levy has only been in effect for six years, and that changes in population diet and health outcomes are usually measured in decades, there is comprehensive evidence to show it is already working. We know that the Levy has led to a reduction in soda purchases (especially in lower socio-economic income groups) and a reduction in sugar added to sodas by companies.  Evidence shows that people are buying less sugary drinks, and when they do those drinks are less sugary.  

We have this evidence, despite successful lobbying from the industry that has led to a Levy almost half of the recommended rate by WHO, and without it being increased for inflation. We know that after decades, sugar-sweetened beverage taxation rates are more supported than ever, and that an increasing body of evidence shows it works.

The sugar industry relies on studies – funded by them – to show that there are job losses in their sector “due to the HPL”. It would be refreshing to see these studies being reported accurately to reflect the whole set of circumstances that lead to forecasted or modelled job losses. Significant sugar dumping in South Africa, droughts, the impact of the Durban riots and the corporate fraud of Tongaat Hulett (leading to 5000 retrenchments) are all cited as underlying reasons by their own studies. The actual job portion of job losses attributed to the HPL are disputed. 

For far too long industry has been allowed to aggressively fight health promotion interventions across the globe by making deceptive economic threats, supporting junk science that minimizes the health impacts of their products and other strategies to block and undermine SB tax- advocacy efforts by influencing governments, the public and the media. South Africa is hanging on the edge of a non-communicable disease cliff.  We know that the overconsumption of sweetened beverages is bad for our health. It is common sense for government to take steps to reduce consumption. We can no longer allow industry to bully, coerce and misinform decision makers for the benefit of their bottom line.

“ENDS”

For media interviews contact 

Zukiswa Zimela Communications Manager

0745210652 | zukiswa[@]heala.com