The National Health Agency of South Africa has solicited feedback on proposed regulations for the placement of health warnings on food packaging. The rules outline the proper labeling for food that has already been packaged. Generally speaking, the nutritional status of food and drinks is described on the “front-of-pack” labels.
The goal is to provide people with more options for healthier eating. According to the proposed regulation, a warning label would be required on foods that have added saturated fat, sugar, or sodium over established thresholds.
The Suggested Warning Label for Foods That Are Rich in Sugar, Fat, or Salt
The accessibility and eating habits of unhealthy foods have both increased worldwide. The result has been negative health effects, such as an increase in obesity rates.
A poor diet is a major contributor to the development of noncommunicable diseases like cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. Those who are overweight or obese have a higher risk for these illnesses.
The data from South Africa are particularly disconcerting. Roughly 50% of adults are overweight or obese. Approximately 59.3 percent of all deaths in the country are attributable to noncommunicable diseases.
Global data supports the efficacy of front-of-package warning labels. Obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and several malignancies are all treatable if these dietary warnings are widely used. Singapore (1998), Thailand (2007), Chile (authorised in 2012, carried out in 2016), Ecuador (2013), Indonesia (2014), Mexico (2016), and Colombia (2022) are just a few of the countries to have introduced them.
South African consumers have been found to have a favorable view towards cautionary messages on ultra-processed goods and drinks, corroborating findings from foreign research. Participants in the survey reported that they were comfortable with the idea of warning labels appearing on food since they were simple and would help them rapidly identify harmful products.
The Specifics of the Regulations
The regulations impose new marketing limits in addition to mandated warning labels.
The foods that require a warning label on the front of the package fall under Regulation 52. Several methods of promoting these items are restricted under the rule. It forbids marketing to minors through the use of cartoon or celebrity figures, contests, freebies, or collectibles. It is also forbidden to utilize healthy family values as a justification for encouraging people to eat junk food. A disclaimer must also appear in the ads.
In line with the guidelines of the World Health Organisation (WHO), this would involve restricting the promotion of unhealthy foods and beverages and requiring prominent warning labels on all packaging. The World Health Organisation has specifically linked the advertising or marketing of unhealthy foods to the denial of children’s rights, which is part of an unhealthy food environment. As someone who studies public health law and policy, I think the laws are admirable in certain respects.
The first is that all warning labels must be placed prominently on the front of the packaging. This paves the way for controls on unhealthy goods that contribute to the rise of NCDs.
It is the requirement to display a warning symbol for sugar substitutes alongside those for sugar, salt, and saturated fat. Considering the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases and obesity in South Africa, they are crucial food components to regulate.
It is helpful that there are restrictions and prohibitions on making health and nutrition claims under certain circumstances. Particularly, section 50 specifies that any health claims made for a product that must carry a warning label are prohibited.
Small-scale producers have also benefited from the addition of exemptions. The informal food industry and small and micro food companies in South Africa will benefit from this because a possible hurdle has been removed.
Some Possible Places Where the Rules Could Be Tightened Up
The laws ought to define advertising or ads to give weight to the intent of the advertising limitations. We at the South African Medical Research Council/Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science advocate for a review of Chilean legislation. Advertising is defined broadly to encompass any efforts to encourage the purchase and use of a good or service, including but not limited to communication, suggestion, disinformation, information, and action.
It’s fantastic that there’s now a provision limiting the use of kid-friendly incentives like contests, tokens, presents, and collectibles. Children, for this clause, should be defined as anyone under the age of 18. In doing so, we shall be by the South African Constitution and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
Products that feature a prominent warning label on the front of the package should not feature any images of children, as per the requirements. There should be no ads in places where kids congregate, including schools and hospitals. The World Health Organisation recommends both of these measures as safeguards against the negative effects of marketing to children.
For this rule to have any effect, the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies and the Department of Education must make it part of their mission to safeguard children from exposure to unhealthy food and drink. This will make it possible to impose stricter regulations.
