The ongoing debate around South Africa's Health Promotion Levy (HPL), commonly known as the sugar tax, has intensified as SA Canegrowers challenge the effectiveness of the tax while questioning the motives of advocacy groups pushing for its increase.
At the heart of the disagreement are the conflicting perspectives on whether the tax serves its intended purpose of improving public health or jeopardising the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.
In a statement, Heala (Healthy Living Alliance) cited Higgins Mdluli, Chair of the SA Canegrowers Association, raising doubts about the efficacy of the sugar tax.
“At what point do we look at the data with common sense and admit the tax is not working?” he asked, referencing studies that, despite being used to support the tax’s success, also indicate unresolved issues with dietary habits and job losses in the sugar industry.
One study, he pointed out, found that people still gained weight as the tax did not resolve broader dietary problems in South Africa. Another study suggested that while soda purchases declined, consumers redirected their spending to other products, raising concerns over the real impact on jobs.
SA Canegrowers emphasised that the push for an increase in the sugar tax, particularly by groups like Heala, could devastate rural livelihoods.
On the other hand, Heala maintains that the sugar tax is proving successful in reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and pushing companies to reduce sugar content in their products.
“We know that the Levy has led to a reduction in soda purchases, especially in lower socio-economic income groups,” a Heala noted. They also pointed out that the tax remains significantly lower than the rate recommended by the World Health Organization, with no adjustment for inflation.
Heala criticised the sugar industry’s response to the tax, accusing it of misleading the public by attributing job losses solely to the HPL. “The actual portion of job losses attributed to the HPL are disputed,” the organisation argued, highlighting other factors impacting the industry, including sugar dumping, droughts, and the Tongaat Hulett corporate fraud scandal.
“For far too long, industry has been allowed to aggressively fight health promotion interventions across the globe by making deceptive economic threats,” Heala added, asserting that these strategies were aimed at protecting profits rather than public health.
However, SA Canegrowers remained firm in its belief that the sugar tax does not address South Africa’s broader health and nutrition issues. They criticised Heala for focusing narrowly on sugar and neglecting other important factors affecting public health, such as high stress environments, lack of exercise, and inadequate access to diverse diets.
“Focusing solely on sugar as the cause of many of South Africa’s health problems is an overly simplistic approach,” SA Canegrowers stated, urging for a more comprehensive dialogue that takes into account the complexities of life in South Africa.
SA Canegrowers insisted that the solution to South Africa’s health problems must be rooted in a home-grown approach, urging for an honest debate that does not sacrifice the livelihoods of small-scale farmers in the process.
The Mercury