Global shift in food marketing regulations: Norway leads, UK falters amid industry pressure
The World Health Organization will begin, in July 2025, to develop guidelines on the consumption of ultra-processed foods, because a growing body of evidence suggests that a diet rich in highly processed foods — commonly referred to as 'ultra-processed foods' — is associated with increased risk for a number of diet-related non-communicable diseases and other negative health outcomes.
While Norway swiftly puts into place new regulations to ban the marketing of unhealthy food to children, the UK has backpedalled on its own promise to do the same, yielding, critics say, to industry lobbying to delay the new regulations.
The two countries are among about 60 nations that have adopted policies to restrict or ban the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, but only one-third of those (20) have mandatory, government-enforced regulations, with legal penalties for infringement (South Africa is not among them) as opposed to zero penalties, in countries with so-called 'voluntary industry pledges' (South Africa is one of these) to restrict their marketing to children.
Norway's regulations, based on a 'nutrient profile model' developed in 2023, were finalised and proposed in August 2024, and implemented in April 2025 — the same time frame in which South Africa's draft regulations on front-of-pack labelling and marketing, called R3337, have been dormant, since the deadline for public comments closed in July 2023.
The Norway law, like the UK's, also covers several categories of mostly high in fat, sugar and salt foods, as well as energy drinks, and milk- and plant-based drinks. They specify an outright ban on marketing activities towards children (people under 18) for those products, spelling out that 'marketing' is defined as 'any form of communication or action' if the aim is to promote sales to consumers (children or adults buying for children). This includes all forms of competition with an age limit lower than 18, distribution of product samples to children, any form of presentation or design that may appeal to children, and the use of gifts, vouchers, discounts or games that appeal to children. These features do appear in South Africa's draft legislation.
In 2013, Norway did establish a self-regulatory scheme managed by the food industry, much like the one that exists under the auspices of the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa, but, reports the Food Times, evaluations revealed 'significant limitations in this self-regulatory approach'. Scientific evaluations in South Africa have come to the same conclusion: industry self-regulation does not work, especially in under-regulated markets like South Africa's where laws do not prevent or punish the aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods. Recent studies by researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand highlight that 'ceding regulation to industry is risky; government regulations and legislation are needed'.
Industry self-regulation
Though Norway's regulations are based on the 2013 guidelines for industry self-regulation on marketing to children, the Directorate of Public Health will now monitor companies' actions and impose sanctions (fines of up to 4% of the business' annual sales) for violation of the new laws.
The foods included by both Norway and the UK's marketing restrictions cover foods and drinks high in unhealthy fats, salt and added sugars (HFSS), mostly in the categories of highly processed or ultra-processed foods, which are known to contribute to the rapidly increasing rates of overweight, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases worldwide.
The UK's proposed regulations, announced in December 2024 and set to be implemented in October 2025 — but now deferred until 2026 — are not an outright ban, but specify that the restrictions 'will only affect advertising for less healthy food or drinks on television between 5.30am and 9pm, and paid-for advertising online at any time'. Billboards and outdoor advertising are not included in this restriction.
It is estimated that 6.4% of UK childhood obesity and 5% of overweight is attributable to TV advertising of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, according to nutritionist Ali Morpeth in a LinkedIn post referencing the study used by the UK government in its assessment of the impact of television advertising. (Similar data is not available for South Africa.)
In 2023, the World Health Organization recommended that all countries develop stronger policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing. The updated guidelines are based on evidence including how exposure to and the power of food marketing affects children's health, eating behaviours, and food-related attitudes and beliefs. (The WHO will begin, in July 2025, to develop guidelines on the consumption of ultra-processed foods, because 'a growing body of evidence suggests that a diet rich in highly processed foods — commonly referred to as 'ultra-processed foods' — is associated with increased risk for a number of diet-related non-communicable diseases and other negative health outcomes'.)
Regulations deferred and softened
The UK regulations are not only deferred, but are softened: they will still allow 'healthier versions of products' in the 13 categories of foods and drinks that 'are of most significance for childhood obesity', such as breakfast cereals, soft drinks with added sugars, sweetened yogurts, and chocolates and sweets. These products must then fit a second criterion — whether they are 'less healthy' — according to a scoring tool that considers products' nutrient levels. This enables big brands to continue to market their brands, without focusing on the unhealthier, original versions of their products.
In late May, the chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, William Roberts, told The Guardian that the delay was a 'huge setback' for public health. 'We can't afford to put off children's health or allow for the measures in the original proposals to be watered down,' he said. One week earlier, The Guardian also revealed that in 2023, the government changed its guidance to retailers on promoting healthy eating after a lobbying campaign by ultra-processed food manufacturers.
Experts agree that Norway's legislation is pioneering in global health. The World Health Organization's Director of Nutrition and Food Safety, Luz Maria De-Regil, said of Norway's new law: 'This regulation ensures that young minds are protected from harmful advertising pressures, making it easier for families to foster healthier eating habits. By setting this precedent Norway is leading the way in safeguarding future generations from preventable health risks.'
De-Regil also said that in the past two years, more than 12 countries had prioritised establishing regulations to prevent harmful marketing of foods to children, with support from the WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef).
'This growing global commitment to developing mandatory policies and regulations to address the commercial determinants of unhealthy diets (industry-led tactics) is a game changer,' she wrote in a post on LinkedIn.
Other countries that have mandatory, legally enforced regulations include Canada (a total ban on advertising to children under 13 since 1980), Chile, France, Ireland, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, Malta, Romania, Australia and Iran.
Countries with non-legally binding ('voluntary') restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy food to children include Italy, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, and the US.
Some others, including many low- and middle-income countries, are in the process of planning mandatory regulations, such as Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Peru, Uruguay, Ecuador, Brazil, Costa Rica — and South Africa.
The marketing of unhealthy foods is a category of regulation with 'probably the least traction globally', said Annalies Winny in a Johns Hopkins School of Public Health article in 2022, because marketing is such a crucial and effective tool for industry, with major food companies spending billions of dollars per year to influence children (and their parents) to buy their highly profitable, unhealthy products.
SA dragging its feet on restricting marketing to children
South Africa's attempts to establish statutory restrictions on food marketing appear to have stalled after a hopeful start in 2023, when draft regulations (included in the long-awaited front-of-pack labelling regulations) were published for public comment. The comment period closed in July 2023, yet South Africa has seen zero progress since then — and had no public communication about why the legislation has been delayed — in the same time it has taken Norway to develop, legislate, and implement its new laws.
Daily Maverick asked Professor Susan Goldstein, Director of the SAMRC/Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (Priceless SA) at Wits University to explain possible reasons for the UK's delay in implementing the ban on marketing unhealthy foods to children.
'Delay, deny, deflect and dilute'
'In many cases the industry argues that the new policies or laws will cause job losses and impact the economy,' Goldstein said, describing how the industry 'playbook' uses delay, deny, deflect and dilute tactics to undermine the regulatory process. Goldstein explained: ' Delay by all means possible means requesting additional research, flooding the commenting process so that it takes the government a long time to process all the comments, and arguing for extra time to get the industry ready.''The second tactic,' Goldstein said, 'is deny — the industry argues that there is no evidence that the proposed policy will have an impact (despite numerous peer-reviewed papers to the contrary). The third is deflect — put the blame for the outcome (that is, obesity and poor health) on the individual, focusing on lifestyle and choices, and, finally dilute — which means weakening the proposed legislation, promoting 'voluntary' codes that have been shown to be ineffective, and push for exemptions and loopholes.'
Goldstein said that this had happened in South Africa in many cases — one example was the 2016 Liquor Amendment Act, when the industry called for two economic evaluations of the act, and another relates to R3337, the front-of-package labelling draft legislation in which marketing restrictions are also proposed. Both tactics resulted in 'flooding the Department of Health with comments so that the understaffed unit, having to examine each comment, is overwhelmed and it takes very long', Goldstein said. 'The industry constantly brings up what they say are job losses due to the Health Promotion Levy (the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks), but our recent research shows that this is not true.'
Petronell Kruger, Programmes Manager at the Healthy Living Alliance, expressed a similar view: 'We hoped to see draft regulation R3337 adopted earlier in the year,' Kruger told Daily Maverick. 'While the timeline for finalising this critical piece of consumer protection regulation might be justified due to the volume of public submissions, the department is not going to be able to use that as an excuse for much longer before we need to start asking, as the public, what is the real reason for the delay?
'And I think we have reached the stage where the public will ask. Too many children are dying from food-related incidents, the diabetes rate at one in nine people has skyrocketed, and more than half of South Africans are now dying from non-communicable diseases, which are closely tied with diets.' DM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
Cataracts explained: What they are and why you shouldn't ignore them
As we mark Cataract Awareness Month, it's a good time to bring our eye health back into focus because the truth is, cataracts are the world's leading cause of blindness. Image: Şeyhmus Kino/pexels You'd be forgiven for thinking cataracts are an 'old person's problem'. After all, we often associate them with grey hair and reading glasses. But more South Africans are being diagnosed with cataracts much earlier in life and it's affecting how they live, work and drive, especially at night. So, what's going on? And do you always need surgery to fix it? As we mark Cataract Awareness Month, it's a good time to bring our eye health back into focus because the truth is, cataracts are the world's leading cause of blindness, according to the World Health Organization, yet they're also one of the most treatable. What are cataracts, really? Simply put, cataracts happen when the lens of your eye becomes cloudy, almost like someone smeared Vaseline on your glasses. Wesley Language, an optometrist from Execuspecs, explains, 'It's like looking through a foggy window. Over time, it distorts your vision, dulls colours and makes tasks like reading or recognising faces difficult. While age is a major risk factor, cataracts don't always wait for your 60s. In fact, younger South Africans, some in their 30s and 40s, are experiencing early-onset cataracts due to factors like: Diabetes Smoking Excessive sun exposure Eye injuries Family history 'There's a misconception that eye problems only start later in life,' says Language. "But by the time you're struggling to see at night or feeling like your glasses never work quite right, the cataract may already be advanced.' While age is a major risk factor, cataracts don't always wait for your 60s. Image: Karolina Grabowska/pexels How cataracts disrupt daily life The early symptoms of cataracts can be subtle slightly blurry vision, sensitivity to light, or colours looking a bit faded. But as they progress, they can seriously impact your quality of life. You might: Struggle to drive at night due to glare from headlights Avoid reading because the text feels too fuzzy Feel disconnected in social settings because faces aren't clear Experience frustration at work, especially in front of screens. This kind of slow, creeping vision loss can be isolating, especially for younger people who aren't prepared for it. Do you always need surgery? The good news is that not every cataract needs surgery right away. If caught early, your optometrist may recommend regular monitoring, stronger prescription lenses and lifestyle changes to slow progression. But when cataracts begin to interfere with daily functioning, such as when you're constantly squinting at your computer or feeling unsafe driving at night, surgery is often the best option. And thankfully, it's one of the most common and successful surgeries in the world. The cloudy lens is simply replaced with a clear artificial one, often restoring vision almost immediately.'It's a life-changing procedure,' says Language. 'Patients often don't realise how much they've adapted to poor vision until they see clearly again.' Can you prevent cataracts? not every cataract needs surgery right away. If caught early, your optometrist may recommend regular monitoring, stronger prescription lenses and lifestyle changes to slow progression. Image: Antoni Shkraba Studio /pexels
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
When it comes to Freedom of Expression, the WHO Pandemic Agreement says nothing
The writer says that the next time a pandemic strikes—and there will be a next time—we cannot look to Geneva for guidance on how to preserve open debate and protect democratic norms. Image: File THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition - addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy - freedom of expression - the Agreement has remarkably little to say. In fact, it says almost nothing. Take, for instance, this key provision: 'Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.' This sounds constructive. But read it again. 'As appropriate'? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate - complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts - is essential to building trust in science and public institutions. Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what 'appropriate' means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the COVID-19 pandemic did not always build it - they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples. First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This wasn't scientific debate. It was an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. It was only after public uproar that the matter was dropped. Second, consider the ivermectin litigation saga. In December 2020, South Africa's medicines regulator, SAHPRA, triggered a controversy by incorrectly stating in a press release that ivermectin was 'not indicated … for use in humans', despite the fact that the drug had long been registered for certain human indications in South Africa. Some might label SAHPRA's statement as misinformation or even disinformation, but more plausibly, it was simply a careless - though consequential - error by a public authority. Yet the same press release went further, threatening with criminal enforcement against members of the public seeking to import ivermectin - an unnecessarily heavy-handed stance that swiftly provoked litigation. These are not stories from some distant autocracy. They happened here, in South Africa. And they highlight an uncomfortable truth: even well-meaning public institutions can slip into authoritarian habits under the pressure of a public health crisis. The antidote to authoritarian drift - and to official error - is freedom of expression. In Democratic Alliance v African National Congress, the Constitutional Court affirmed that freedom of expression is valuable not only for its intrinsic worth but also for its instrumental role in a democratic society. It informs citizens, fosters public debate, and enables the exposure of folly and misgovernance. It is also vital in the pursuit of truth—both personal and collective. If society suppresses views it deems unacceptable, those views may never be tested, challenged, or proven wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and allows us to scrutinise political claims and reflect on social values. This is why the South African Constitution enshrines freedom of expression - not as a luxury for peacetime, but as a safeguard for moments of crisis. Our Constitution was written with the memory of repression in mind. And it is precisely when fear and uncertainty tempt governments to silence dissent that its protections matter most. One might have expected an international agreement on pandemic response to affirm these same values. Yet the WHO Pandemic Agreement retreats into vagueness. It speaks of 'trust' and 'solidarity,' and warns against 'misinformation and disinformation,' but avoids the real issue: how should a democratic society respond when public health policies are contested? How do we protect space for critical voices? Instead of offering a principled stand, the Agreement offers a shrug. Countries are told to act 'as appropriate.' That could mean encouraging open dialogue—or it could mean criminalising dissent. The WHO doesn't say. And that silence speaks volumes. Professor Donrich Thaldar Image: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Global shift in food marketing regulations: Norway leads, UK falters amid industry pressure
The World Health Organization will begin, in July 2025, to develop guidelines on the consumption of ultra-processed foods, because a growing body of evidence suggests that a diet rich in highly processed foods — commonly referred to as 'ultra-processed foods' — is associated with increased risk for a number of diet-related non-communicable diseases and other negative health outcomes. While Norway swiftly puts into place new regulations to ban the marketing of unhealthy food to children, the UK has backpedalled on its own promise to do the same, yielding, critics say, to industry lobbying to delay the new regulations. The two countries are among about 60 nations that have adopted policies to restrict or ban the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, but only one-third of those (20) have mandatory, government-enforced regulations, with legal penalties for infringement (South Africa is not among them) as opposed to zero penalties, in countries with so-called 'voluntary industry pledges' (South Africa is one of these) to restrict their marketing to children. Norway's regulations, based on a 'nutrient profile model' developed in 2023, were finalised and proposed in August 2024, and implemented in April 2025 — the same time frame in which South Africa's draft regulations on front-of-pack labelling and marketing, called R3337, have been dormant, since the deadline for public comments closed in July 2023. The Norway law, like the UK's, also covers several categories of mostly high in fat, sugar and salt foods, as well as energy drinks, and milk- and plant-based drinks. They specify an outright ban on marketing activities towards children (people under 18) for those products, spelling out that 'marketing' is defined as 'any form of communication or action' if the aim is to promote sales to consumers (children or adults buying for children). This includes all forms of competition with an age limit lower than 18, distribution of product samples to children, any form of presentation or design that may appeal to children, and the use of gifts, vouchers, discounts or games that appeal to children. These features do appear in South Africa's draft legislation. In 2013, Norway did establish a self-regulatory scheme managed by the food industry, much like the one that exists under the auspices of the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa, but, reports the Food Times, evaluations revealed 'significant limitations in this self-regulatory approach'. Scientific evaluations in South Africa have come to the same conclusion: industry self-regulation does not work, especially in under-regulated markets like South Africa's where laws do not prevent or punish the aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods. Recent studies by researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand highlight that 'ceding regulation to industry is risky; government regulations and legislation are needed'. Industry self-regulation Though Norway's regulations are based on the 2013 guidelines for industry self-regulation on marketing to children, the Directorate of Public Health will now monitor companies' actions and impose sanctions (fines of up to 4% of the business' annual sales) for violation of the new laws. The foods included by both Norway and the UK's marketing restrictions cover foods and drinks high in unhealthy fats, salt and added sugars (HFSS), mostly in the categories of highly processed or ultra-processed foods, which are known to contribute to the rapidly increasing rates of overweight, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases worldwide. The UK's proposed regulations, announced in December 2024 and set to be implemented in October 2025 — but now deferred until 2026 — are not an outright ban, but specify that the restrictions 'will only affect advertising for less healthy food or drinks on television between 5.30am and 9pm, and paid-for advertising online at any time'. Billboards and outdoor advertising are not included in this restriction. It is estimated that 6.4% of UK childhood obesity and 5% of overweight is attributable to TV advertising of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, according to nutritionist Ali Morpeth in a LinkedIn post referencing the study used by the UK government in its assessment of the impact of television advertising. (Similar data is not available for South Africa.) In 2023, the World Health Organization recommended that all countries develop stronger policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing. The updated guidelines are based on evidence including how exposure to and the power of food marketing affects children's health, eating behaviours, and food-related attitudes and beliefs. (The WHO will begin, in July 2025, to develop guidelines on the consumption of ultra-processed foods, because 'a growing body of evidence suggests that a diet rich in highly processed foods — commonly referred to as 'ultra-processed foods' — is associated with increased risk for a number of diet-related non-communicable diseases and other negative health outcomes'.) Regulations deferred and softened The UK regulations are not only deferred, but are softened: they will still allow 'healthier versions of products' in the 13 categories of foods and drinks that 'are of most significance for childhood obesity', such as breakfast cereals, soft drinks with added sugars, sweetened yogurts, and chocolates and sweets. These products must then fit a second criterion — whether they are 'less healthy' — according to a scoring tool that considers products' nutrient levels. This enables big brands to continue to market their brands, without focusing on the unhealthier, original versions of their products. In late May, the chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, William Roberts, told The Guardian that the delay was a 'huge setback' for public health. 'We can't afford to put off children's health or allow for the measures in the original proposals to be watered down,' he said. One week earlier, The Guardian also revealed that in 2023, the government changed its guidance to retailers on promoting healthy eating after a lobbying campaign by ultra-processed food manufacturers. Experts agree that Norway's legislation is pioneering in global health. The World Health Organization's Director of Nutrition and Food Safety, Luz Maria De-Regil, said of Norway's new law: 'This regulation ensures that young minds are protected from harmful advertising pressures, making it easier for families to foster healthier eating habits. By setting this precedent Norway is leading the way in safeguarding future generations from preventable health risks.' De-Regil also said that in the past two years, more than 12 countries had prioritised establishing regulations to prevent harmful marketing of foods to children, with support from the WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef). 'This growing global commitment to developing mandatory policies and regulations to address the commercial determinants of unhealthy diets (industry-led tactics) is a game changer,' she wrote in a post on LinkedIn. Other countries that have mandatory, legally enforced regulations include Canada (a total ban on advertising to children under 13 since 1980), Chile, France, Ireland, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, Malta, Romania, Australia and Iran. Countries with non-legally binding ('voluntary') restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy food to children include Italy, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, and the US. Some others, including many low- and middle-income countries, are in the process of planning mandatory regulations, such as Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Peru, Uruguay, Ecuador, Brazil, Costa Rica — and South Africa. The marketing of unhealthy foods is a category of regulation with 'probably the least traction globally', said Annalies Winny in a Johns Hopkins School of Public Health article in 2022, because marketing is such a crucial and effective tool for industry, with major food companies spending billions of dollars per year to influence children (and their parents) to buy their highly profitable, unhealthy products. SA dragging its feet on restricting marketing to children South Africa's attempts to establish statutory restrictions on food marketing appear to have stalled after a hopeful start in 2023, when draft regulations (included in the long-awaited front-of-pack labelling regulations) were published for public comment. The comment period closed in July 2023, yet South Africa has seen zero progress since then — and had no public communication about why the legislation has been delayed — in the same time it has taken Norway to develop, legislate, and implement its new laws. Daily Maverick asked Professor Susan Goldstein, Director of the SAMRC/Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (Priceless SA) at Wits University to explain possible reasons for the UK's delay in implementing the ban on marketing unhealthy foods to children. 'Delay, deny, deflect and dilute' 'In many cases the industry argues that the new policies or laws will cause job losses and impact the economy,' Goldstein said, describing how the industry 'playbook' uses delay, deny, deflect and dilute tactics to undermine the regulatory process. Goldstein explained: ' Delay by all means possible means requesting additional research, flooding the commenting process so that it takes the government a long time to process all the comments, and arguing for extra time to get the industry ready.''The second tactic,' Goldstein said, 'is deny — the industry argues that there is no evidence that the proposed policy will have an impact (despite numerous peer-reviewed papers to the contrary). The third is deflect — put the blame for the outcome (that is, obesity and poor health) on the individual, focusing on lifestyle and choices, and, finally dilute — which means weakening the proposed legislation, promoting 'voluntary' codes that have been shown to be ineffective, and push for exemptions and loopholes.' Goldstein said that this had happened in South Africa in many cases — one example was the 2016 Liquor Amendment Act, when the industry called for two economic evaluations of the act, and another relates to R3337, the front-of-package labelling draft legislation in which marketing restrictions are also proposed. Both tactics resulted in 'flooding the Department of Health with comments so that the understaffed unit, having to examine each comment, is overwhelmed and it takes very long', Goldstein said. 'The industry constantly brings up what they say are job losses due to the Health Promotion Levy (the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks), but our recent research shows that this is not true.' Petronell Kruger, Programmes Manager at the Healthy Living Alliance, expressed a similar view: 'We hoped to see draft regulation R3337 adopted earlier in the year,' Kruger told Daily Maverick. 'While the timeline for finalising this critical piece of consumer protection regulation might be justified due to the volume of public submissions, the department is not going to be able to use that as an excuse for much longer before we need to start asking, as the public, what is the real reason for the delay? 'And I think we have reached the stage where the public will ask. Too many children are dying from food-related incidents, the diabetes rate at one in nine people has skyrocketed, and more than half of South Africans are now dying from non-communicable diseases, which are closely tied with diets.' DM
