The introduction of FOPL and the restriction of the advertising of unhealthy foodstuffs to children will mark a significant achievement in promoting a healthier nation, and we are confident that these regulations will contribute to reducing the incidence of non-communicable diseases and their modifiable risk factors such as obesity which are linked to poor nutrition. Furthermore, we believe the implementation of these regulations would protect the health of millions of young South Africans by curbing the manipulative marketing tactics by the food industry which are targeted to lure in vulnerable groups like children into consuming unhealthy foodstuffs.  We share the government’s vision of a South Africa where all citizens, regardless of their race, gender, or socio-economic background, have equal access to safe, nutritious food and are well-informed about what they are consuming. By implementing clear and accessible FOPLs, the government is taking a critical step toward ensuring that all South Africans can differentiate between healthy and unhealthy food products. This effort will not only protect vulnerable consumers but also foster a culture of transparency and accountability by the food industry. UNICEF South Africa, alongside other stakeholders, has consistently supported initiatives that safeguard the health of the youth, children, and vulnerable communities. The youth of South Africa echo this support and are hopeful that the finalisation and implementation of the R3337 regulations will soon become a reality.  Thank you for your leadership and for considering our message of support. We look forward to the successful implementation of the R3337 regulations. Yours faithfully, The Youth of South Africa

South Africa rates 5th in the world in the amount of alcohol consumption among drinkers [1]. In addition, alcohol use plays a role in about half of all non-natural deaths [2]. Despite this, the alcohol industry continues to be bold and aggressive in its quest to increase the availability of alcoholic products and make more profits. The Beer Association of South Africa (BASA) in October started calling for beer to be sold at food shops [3]. This is in direct contravention of the National Liquor Act (2003), which prohibits the sale of alcohol other than natural wine at grocery stores and supermarkets. The association must be swiftly stopped in its tracks to protect South Africans from more alcohol harm. According to global trends, the government is supposed to be decreasing access to alcohol by limiting availability in the interest of public health. South Africa already has a disproportionate number of outlets for the population. Those who are supporting the move to allow beers into our food shops are supporting increased harm. If beer is made available in food shops, it will increase easy access and potentially come with discounts and special offers. Some will argue that individuals have the right to choose and take responsibility for their own health, but we know it is not that simple. Individual choice is influenced by the environment in which consumers find themselves. Beers on the shelves of our food shops will increase availability and send a message that beer is just another normal product, like milk, bread, and chocolates. But alcohol is not an ordinary commodity. Currently, South Africans who drink have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. Statistics show that about one-third of people in South Africa aged 15 and above drink [4]. However, of those who drink, two-thirds drink to the point of intoxication (i.e., binge drinking), causing harm to themselves and others. This practice also diverts government resources away from development priorities like managing alcohol-related harm through policing, trauma admissions, social and disability grants and more. Our Health Minister has already issued a public plea for South Africans to reduce their ‘drinking sprees’ because of the excessive burden alcohol-related cases place on the healthcare system [5]. Already, the Health Ministry will have less budget available to it from next year because of budget cuts – it cannot afford to waste even more of its limited budget on a further increase in alcohol harm-related cases. COVID showed us that less alcohol availability means less trauma and fewer hospital admissions. It means a safer society for our people. This call by the liquor industry is irresponsible, showing a disregard for the health and welfare of the public and for the government purse. We call on everyone in Mzansi to support our call for #NoBeersInSAFoodshops. By signing this petition, you are joining us in saying we do not need beer in our food shops, there are enough places to buy beer. #NoBeerSalesInSAFoodshops #HandsOffLiquorAct #AlcoholSaferSA References: [1] https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241565639 [2] Parry South Africa: alcohol today. Addiction. 2005;100(4):426–9. [3] https://www.iol.co.za/weekend-argus/news/beer-association-wants-beer-to-be-sold-in-supermarkets-347d921a-068b-4697-85b8-00b521a3b1fc#:~:text=Cape%20Town%20%2D%20With%20more%20than,at%20grocery%20stores%20and%20supermarkets. [4] https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-018-0182-1 [5] https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/drinking-sprees-bird-flu-and-cost-cutting-health-minister-joe-phaahla-worried-over-public-healthcare-20231012.

On the 1st of April, the day the HPL increase was to start, Treasury issued a statement postponing the increase [1]. Treasury did not justify this last-second decision, which has raised concerns about what evidence was used to make this decision. Did Treasury choose to put profits before health by agreeing to the demands of the sugar industry? The sugar industry has a conflict of interest when it comes to the sugary drinks tax. That's why it is important Treasury reassure the public that the sugar industry did not influence their decision. The sugar industry has used its power and resources to attack the sugary drinks tax [2]. HEALA has called on Treasury to provide the research and information that was used to make the decision to delay the HPL increase by a year. HEALA has also called on Treasury to confirm whether they engaged with the sugar industry and its associates. If so, in the interest of transparency, Treasury must share meeting minutes and records of engagements and communication with industry. But Treasury has refused to respond to HEALA. The organisation had to resort to submitting a Public Access to Information Act (PAIA) application, but the deadline to respond has come and gone. But if enough of us come together, we can turn up the public pressure on Treasury to be transparent and accountable when it comes to decision-making processes which greatly impact the health of millions of people in South Africa. [1] Media Statement: Release of Revised Draft Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill. National Treasury. 1 April 2022. [2] Well-conceived sugar tax needs further strengthening to save lives of millions. By Mikateko Mafuyeka and Petronell Kruger for Daily Maverick. 22 September 2022.

https://youtu.be/nuVHJT_rhgI Imagine your teacher smoking in the classroom. For some of us, this was the reality until new rules were put in place by government in 1993 [6]. But why had government not acted sooner? In their paper published in 2003, Mia Malan and Rosemary Leaver outline the relationship between the biggest tobacco business and government [7] [8]. Government eventually put public health before profits, thanks to the work of health advocates. But big businesses are still using their power to protect their profits at our expense. Researchers have pointed out that big businesses have worked to delay and delegitimize important health policies by using their associations and different strategies [9]. Researchers and civil society groups are not allowed to attend a standing meeting between the National Department of Health and big food businesses [9]. State capture has shown us we have a lot of work to do. But we are making some progress in improving transparency and accountability. Politicians have to declare financial interests [10], and political parties now must disclose who funds them [11]. We need to keep building on this momentum. We can't afford to have a repeat of 2014 where big businesses that make food like polony did not agree with government's proposed hygiene rules and instead wanted to self-regulate [12] [13]. Government should have stood up to those big businesses in 2014 and put the new rules in place anyway. Government has to stand up to big business bullies. Their job is to serve the people, not private interests. References can be found here: https://amandla.mobi/big-business-bullies-references

Shops across South Africa are filled with pre-packaged foods that are processed with high levels of added sugars, salt, and saturated fats. A diet high in sugar, sodium or saturated fat can increase the risk of developing life threatening diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. Easy to read food front-of-package warning labels can help consumers quickly, easily, and correctly identify foods high in nutrients of concern, such as excess salt, fat and sugar. The good news is the Department of Health is considering warning labels, and could start the process of implementing them by opening public comment. But already big food companies are trying to lobby against these warning labels [1]. But if enough of us come together, we can help ensure the department puts our health first, not corporate profits. We believe that we, not the food and drinks industry, have the right to decide what we are willing to put in our bodies. The people of South African deserve to know what is in our food. References: [1] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-05-30-heres-why-you-should-care-about-the-food-industry-lobbying-the-health-department-behind-closed-doors/

Greedy companies want to stop the sugary drinks tax to protect their profits. Many of these same companies have a history of dishonesty which it comes to the economic impact of a tax on sugary drinks. The sugar industry has exaggerated their statistics when it comes to the claims they make about the Sugary Drinks Tax causing job losses when research from Trade and Industry Policy Strategies finds otherwise [1]. It’s clear that increasing the Sugary Drinks Tax to 20% could help improve our people's health. We have an opportunity to help achieve this goal. If enough of us come together, we can remind the Minister that he has the public support necessary to increase the Sugary Drinks Tax. [1] SA’s proposed sugar tax: claims about calories & job losses checked: https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/reports/sas-proposed-sugar-tax-claims-about-calories-job-losses-checked

Since the 26th of November 2020, tens of thousands of farmers have camped near the border of New Delhi, the Indian capital. On that day, an alliance of national trade union federations called a nationwide strike which converged with a march on Delhi by the All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee (AIKSCC), a united front of over 250 farmer organisations. Large parts of the country came to a halt as direct action was undertaken. Protesting farmers were met with unacceptable police brutality - blockades, teargas, baton charges and water cannons - in a bid to prevent them from reaching the centre of Delhi. In South Africa we are all too familiar with the use of brutal police tactics to suppress popular protest and we condemn the use of these tactics against our comrades in India. The striking farmers have declared that they will not return home and the strike will not cease until the agriculture laws are repealed entirely. They will not be moved and we salute their resolve. India’s agriculture industry employs more than half of its population of nearly 1.4 billion people. The country is in the middle of an unprecedented economic decline, experiencing the worst recession in nearly 30 years. Socio-economic inequality is staggering. As South Africans we are also aware of how closely-linked unemployment and socio-economic inequality is to hunger. India’s new agriculture laws were passed despite a lack of consultation with agriculture experts and the leaders of farmer organisations. These laws threaten the acquisition of produce by state-run organisations at a fixed Minimum Support Price. What this means is that small producers have little bargaining power in the free market system and fear that large corporations will take advantage of this, forcing farmers to sell their produce at a lower price than the price which had previously been guaranteed to them by the government. The laws come at a time where there is increasing conflict and disagreement between farmers and the state, on account of the government turning a blind eye to farmers’ demands for better crop prices, additional loan waivers and irrigation systems to guarantee water in times of drought. They are also framed by the horrific numbers of Indian farmers who have been driven to suicide by debt. All of this is happening within the context of carbon capitalism which is putting the future of humanity in jeopardy and exposing the most vulnerable among us to the effects of the climate crisis. In South Africa, in India and across the world, corporations are not the solution – they are part of the problem. The methods of small scale farmers across the world will not only feed the people, but will also build resilience in the face of the climate crisis. The protection of the knowledge and practices of indigenous communities at the forefront of this movement is also paramount. In the face of oppression and systems of exploitation that stretch across borders, it is necessary for us to globalize resistance and join hands to push back against oppressive policies which threaten the lives of the most vulnerable. Amandla! Inquilab Zindabad!