The proposed doubling of the sugar tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is stirring unrest among South African agricultural stakeholders, as fears grow for the livelihoods of thousands of small-scale sugarcane growers across rural areas.
This potential increase, while aimed at addressing public health concerns, has positioned the Healthy Living Alliance (HEALA) at the centre of a heated debate regarding its implications for the sugar industry and food security in the nation.
SA Canegrowers, which represents 24 000 small-scale growers and 1 200 commercial farmers, has called on HEALA to cease what they describe as misleading the public regarding the repercussions of the sugar tax.
“Instead of engaging in an honest, fact-based debate, HEALA is leveraging food justice rhetoric to rally support for further raises in the sugar tax,” said Thomas Funke, CEO of SA Canegrowers.
“While the reality of food insecurity in South Africa cannot be overstated, increasing the sugar tax is not a solution to hunger or ensuring affordable food for the nation’s most vulnerable.”
According to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Agriculture and conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council, more than two-thirds of the South African population grapples with food insecurity.
As a result, Funke argues that HEALA’s campaign does not adequately reflect this pressing issue and serves to misinform rather than to promote genuine dialogue.
Funke said HEALA’s operations raised further questions as it was funded by the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, which forms part of a larger initiative spearheaded by wealthy American philanthropists, including Michael Bloomberg.
“Should foreign figures be determining the trajectory of South African food policy? We believe that any solutions to our national food and nutrition challenges must be locally oriented, addressing the real hunger and malnutrition many citizens face every day,” he said.
Additionally, SA Canegrowers has decried HEALA’s tendency to allegedly misconstrue the challenges facing the sugar industry, particularly in its analysis of the corruption case surrounding Tongaat Hulett.
While acknowledging the financial mismanagement that resulted in the collapse of the sugar producer, Funke emphasised that attributing the broader struggles of the sugar sector to this isolated incident was fundamentally flawed.
“The problems facing sugar growers extend way beyond Tongaat’s fraud – they encompass a range of economic challenges exacerbated by misguided tax policies,” he said.
Central to the controversy is the assertion from HEALA and its allies that the introduction of the sugar tax has not led to job losses in the sector.
The backdrop of this debate signals a crucial moment for South Africa as it navigates the complexities of health, agricultural sustainability, and socio-economic equity.
Critics have pointed to a National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) study indicating that 16 000 jobs had vanished since the tax’s implementation, an assertion contested by HEALA, which claims the study lacks peer review.
In response to SA Canegrowers’ concerns, HEALA yesterday articulated its commitment to transparency and collaboration with local partners in health promotion.
“HEALA is fully transparent regarding its staff, organisational journey, and funding sources—all publicly available. Moreover, we collaborate extensively with South African universities and local NGOs in our health promotion efforts, which cover multiple aspects of the food system. These partners, like HEALA, are transparent about their funding, and it is essential to note that none of our funders profit from our food justice advocacy,” HEALA said.
“The policy rationale for the Health Promotion Levy is backed by a wide range of experts, including the World Health Organization, the South African Department of Health, the Treasury, economists, and public health specialists locally and internationally. Sugar taxation has been shown to reduce the amount of sugar added to beverages, discourage the consumption of sugary drinks, and generate government revenue—all while promoting public health. This model has been successfully used for tobacco and alcohol taxes, and it is no different for sugar.”
BUSINESS REPORT