Profits before people: How the liquor industry undermines reforms
Alcohol causes many social problems, requiring the revival of the Liquor Amendment Bill.
The liquor industry's resistance to reforms and public health measures aimed at curbing South Africa's high alcohol consumption reveals a deep divide between corporate interests and the public good.
A new study published in
Globalisation and Health
sheds fresh light on how the industry flexed its financial and political muscle at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) to protect its profits with little regard for the devastating effect of alcohol on society.
First released for public comment in 2016, the Liquor Amendment Bill proposed several changes: raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising, sponsorships and promotions, as well as limiting sales within 500 metres of schools and places of worship.
Researchers analysing Nedlac's meeting records on the Bill found that the industry exercised 'regulatory capture' by flooding committees with representatives, punting self-regulation over public policy interventions and using financial leverage to keep the Bill from reaching parliament. Community representation at these meetings was woefully low or absent compared with that of business, government and labour.
As part of these stalling tactics, industry giants such as Heineken and AB InBev commissioned two socio-economic impact studies of the Bill. One of these assessments discredited the conclusions of the government-initiated study that showed clear public health benefits from tighter regulation.
While Nedlac concluded discussions on the Bill some years ago, it still hasn't reached parliament, and there is no indication by the department of trade, industry and competition of when this will happen.
These revelations about the alcohol industry's strong objections to some of the proposed changes in the bill are sobering. South Africa has among the highest rates of alcohol consumption in the world. A 2019 Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) study, based on a sample of 3500 adolescents, found that nearly 70% of young people between the ages of 11 and 18 had already consumed alcohol. Most had tasted their first drink at the ages of 13 and 14.
The Soul City Institute's 2017 study found that school-aged youths were bombarded with alcohol advertising from billboards and TV. Outlet density is also a major concern. In the same study, Atteridgeville, home to 60,000 according to the 2011 census, had no less than 147 taverns.
Evidence suggests a direct link: the more alcohol outlets in an area, the greater the risk of early initiation to alcohol. This is especially true for poor communities with limited social infrastructure to keep young people engaged and connected.
Sobering as they are, the industry's actions are hardly surprising.
These tactics are part of the industry's playbook globally. According to a report called From Sports to Screens – Exposing Big Alcohol's Predatory Practices in 2024, the industry employs strategies such as targeted adverts for people seeking online help with alcohol dependence; marketing 0% alcohol drinks to gain a foothold in spaces where alcohol consumption is not the norm; sponsoring major sporting events; and courting politicians to enact laws in the industry's interests.
Despite the World Health Organisation's (WHO) efforts to promote evidence-based policies to reduce alcohol harms, the industry often disregards its recommendations. A striking example is the growing trend of alcohol sold in larger containers, like the one-litre beer, despite the WHO's explicit warnings against this.
These predatory practices are not new. In our country, alcohol has long been entangled with racist oppression and economic dispossession. Black women who flocked to the cities searching for independent incomes after mining and manufacturing uprooted men from all over Southern Africa established independent livelihoods selling
skokiaan
or
utywala
. These activities flourished under the watchful eye of a state that criminalised black people for consuming the 'white man's liquor'.
But this independence was short-lived. The state soon clamped down, creating a municipal monopoly on the sale of sorghum beer. Municipal beer halls — perched conveniently along major train stations — became symbols of control and exploitation. It was no accident that the municipal beer halls became targets of the wrath of the 1976 youth.
The wine industry, too, carries this bitter legacy. The notorious dop system — a labour regime that compensated workers with cheap wine — directly contributed to alcoholism in farming communities across the Western and Northern Capes.
This imbrication of alcohol and racial domination is also a global story. A recent book by political scientist Mark Lawrence Schrad,
Smashing the Liquor Machine: A Global History of Prohibitio
n, contests the idea that the prohibition movements of 19th and 20th century America were exclusive domains of white supremacists.
At the forefront of these movements, he argues, were those who bore the brunt of ordinary people's subservience to a lethal substance — women, native Americans and black people. Far from being moral crusades against sin, these movements emerged as a response to predatory capitalism.
Yet these revelations of regulatory capture barely caused a public storm. Why?
One possibility is that there is political fatigue around the issue. The Young Communist League, which earned the ire of liquor traders in the 2000s by calling for the closure of shebeens near schools, has long abandoned the issue. The ANC Youth League no longer campaigns against glamourising alcohol through deceptive adverts. And although the Economic Freedom Fighters' early legislative efforts included a private member's Bill to ban alcohol advertising, some of its provincial structures are now cosying up to the liquor industry.
The second possibility is that there is no cohesion in government about what needs to be done to address alcohol harms, with fierce contestation over concerns about jobs and trade versus public health and broader social impacts.
The third could be the industry's success in framing excessive alcohol consumption as a personal issue, solved by 'responsible drinking', rather than a clash between public good and global corporate power.
Even so, encouraging efforts are taking shape to challenge the status quo. Among those pushing back against the power of the predatory industry is the jazz collective iPhupho L'Ka Biko, whose Amanzi Sessions create space to challenge ritualised alcohol consumption. Sonke Gender Justice's work highlights the link between alcohol and domestic violence, while DG Murray Trust's 'rethink your drink' campaign continues to call for a shift in national policy.
To succeed in reining in the alcohol industry, membership-based organisations with a nationwide presence, such as trade unions and political parties, must step up to loosen the industry's grip on policy. A good step forward would be to pressure the government to revive the Liquor Amendment Bill.
Phindile Kunene is an activist, political educator and head of democracy and political culture at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. She writes in her personal capacity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
9 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Labour department denies racial quotas in Employment Equity Amendment Act
Minister of Labour and Employment Nomakhosazana Meth. (File photo) The department of employment and labour has rejected claims by the Democratic Alliance (DA) that the In April, the DA But labour department spokesperson Pertunia Lessing, told the Mail & Guardian that the Act 'does not have quotas'. The DA, whose challenge will be heard in the coming weeks, says the new amendments will 'make employers self-implement sectoral racial quotas', which give employers the right to identify and record an employee's race if the employee chooses not to disclose it voluntarily. In a written reply to a DA question in parliament, Employment and Labour Minister Nomakhosazana Meth said the amendment was meant to ensure 'reliable, existing historical data'. This would mean that an employee would either need to disclose their family history, which is considered personal information, or have their race assumed. DA spokesperson on labour Michael Bagraim said Meth's 'generic' definitions of persons of colour cannot stand in a democratic South Africa. 'This is a preposterous suggestion and appears to expect employers to conduct race inspections to tick a box, in order to avoid being fined,' he said. According to the Employment Equity Act, 'black people' is a generic term that includes African, coloured and Indian people. This definition in the Act has not been amended since 1998. According to the 2025 amendments, employers with 50 or more workers are required to ask each worker to fill out a form to declare their occupational level in terms of race, gender and disability status information. If an employee refuses to fill out the form or gives incorrect details, the employer is allowed to use reliable past or current information to determine the person's race, gender or disability status. This process must be done at the workplace and is the employer's legal duty. The DA accused the minister of not conducting a formal investigation based on evidence to establish the 'South Africa continues to be one of the most unequal nations on Earth, with more than eight million South Africans unemployed and a small elite enriched, making the evidence against employment equity regulations undeniable,' Bagraim said. The Act as amended further sets hiring quotas for 18 economic sectors, from mining and transport to construction and agriculture, in a bid to increase employment opportunities for 'designated groups' including black people, women and people living with disabilities. The DA noted that South Africa no longer uses the Population Registration Act, an 'It cannot stand that employers become racial classification agents,' Bagraim said.
The Herald
10 hours ago
- The Herald
Ramaphosa to make judiciary fully independent of justice department
Ramaphosa said the dependence of the judiciary on the government has been odd. 'A joint committee is now in action to finalise this whole process of the independence of the judiciary. It has been an anomaly of our constitutional architecture that we've had parliament as an independent institution in our constitution fully and properly recognised, and the executive — but the judiciary has on an unfair basis had to depend on government on a variety of matters from getting approval on the appointment of people and not even being in complete control of their own budget,' said Ramaphosa. 'This comes to an end now. The judiciary will be independent. We will ensure the judiciary is rightly constituted as an equal branch of the state, same level as the executive and the legislature.' At the meeting with the senior leaders of the judiciary led by the chief justice earlier this month, Ramaphosa and minister of justice Mmamoloko Kubayi committed to ensuring the independence of the state. 'Within the principle of the separation of powers, each arm of the state has a responsibility to co-operate with, and provide support to, the other arms of the state in giving full effect to our constitution. It requires, in particular, that we create conditions in which each arm of the state can fulfil their respective mandates without hindrance,' said Ramaphosa at the time. 'It is an opportunity to develop common approaches on issues that are critical to the effective functioning of the judiciary. At the core of our deliberations is our shared commitment to safeguarding and entrenching the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that it has the space and means to administer justice.' Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said as much as the judiciary has always been independent, some aspects including its finances have been under the department. 'It's always been independent but on some administrative aspects they were dependent on the department. So those administrative areas will now be fully managed by the judiciary as they should be,' he said. TimesLIVE
The Herald
10 hours ago
- The Herald
Godongwana proposes full public funding for political parties
Finance minister Enoch Godongwana is proposing political parties be fully funded by public money, arguing reliance on private donors undermines accountability. Speaking at the Electoral Commission of SA's (IEC) inaugural symposium on political funding on Thursday, he said: 'In my view, political parties must be fully publicly funded. Political funding for political parties from the public purse carries with it obligations — there's going to be accountability and transparency. The auditor-general must be able to audit for that accountability.' Godongwana said there is need for a funding regime that ensures stability, transparency and participation. However, he cautioned that economic challenges and reduced revenue collection could limit the creation of a common public funding pool. 'Between the 2011/12 financial year to date, we've only given R3bn to political parties,' a figure he cited to highlight underfunding of parties. He also questioned the IEC's role in overseeing political funding, asking, 'Are we not putting the IEC in a position of a conflict?' Listen to the minister:
