Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 June 2020 | Story Dr Chantell Witten | Photo Supplied
Dr Chantell Witten.

On 26 March 2020, the President declared a national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as it started to emerge in South Africa. Since then and several weeks into the lockdown, Statistics South Africa (2020) has provided evidence which many intuitively knew would be more devastating to households than the coronavirus itself – loss of income and the negative effects that follow hunger. Stats SA reported that the percentage of respondents receiving no income increased from 5,2% before the lockdown to 15,4% by the sixth week of the national lockdown. Given that the majority of South Africans depend on the informal labour market, such as informal traders and casual workers, this lack of income would hit millions of households. Furthermore, Stats SA also reported a decrease in formal wage/salary earners for the same period, from 76,6% before the national lockdown to 66,7% by the sixth week of national lockdown.

While South Africa is food secure at national level, millions of households are food insecure. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 1996 definition of food security, this simply means that there is not enough food at all times for all the people in a household to have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.  In short, people are hungry and at greater risk for ill health – physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  A hungry man is an angry man. Likewise, a hungry nation is an angry nation.

In July 2019, the measurement of extreme poverty – the food poverty line (FPL) – was raised to R561 (using April 2019 prices) per person per month, which was up from R547 last year. This is the amount of money that Stats SA calculates an individual requires “to afford the minimum required daily energy intake” of 2 100 calories per day. Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa already had a precarious food and nutrition situation, especially for young children. South Africa’s child stunting levels – an indication of chronic and long-term food insecurity – increased from 21% in 2008 to 27% in 2016.  With COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown, child malnutrition rates are expected to increase. Stunting not only affects a child’s health, making them more susceptible to disease and infection, but also impairs their mental and physical development – meaning that children who suffer from stunting are less likely to achieve their full height and cognitive potentials as adults.  

What can we do to address this food situation or prevent it from worsening?
The 2020 Global Nutrition Report recognises and asserts that inequality and globalisation are major drivers of food insecurity. As individuals and as collectives, we need to continue to advocate for and support calls to continue raising the child support grant to help households stay above the poverty line.  Millions of households in South Africa are supported by social grants; in solidarity, we need to appreciate the safety net that these social grants provide to vulnerable households. Advocate for and support initiatives to safeguard child health and nutrition, including efforts to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding in neonatal care, postnatal care, and ongoing support to breastfeeding mothers.  Breastfeeding remains the most cost-effective health intervention for infants and young children, supporting optimal growth and development and providing long-term health benefits into adulthood. Advocate for and support initiatives to coordinate sustainable food support to vulnerable households, including, among others, food distribution, food vouchers, onsite feeding, home gardening, and tax-free food baskets.  These efforts would be our collective solidarity to support and protect vulnerable households as we enter the global economic recession as a result of COVID-19.

How can we protect our households’ food and nutrition security? 
COVID-19 brings with it much uncertainty and many unintended negative effects.  While we seek out strategies to support mental well-being and emotional resilience, we also need to remain physically healthy.  Good nutrition is fundamental to good health and well-being. South Africa has a set of ten healthy eating guidelines that promote the principles of eating more unprocessed foods, eating more vegetables and fruit, reducing the use of fats and oils and reducing the intake of sugar and salt.  Good nutrition starts with good food and sometimes good food can cost more, so it is important to use your food budget wisely.  The food budget includes food eaten at home, as well as funds spent on food eaten outside of the home, eating take-outs, foods bought online, and food eaten away from home.  Planning your meals in advance and sticking to a food plan will limit opportunities to spend money on items that are not on the plan; planning ahead also means you can take advantage of good prices, especially as food prices are on the increase and will continue to increase. Bulking up when prices are low and on special, making use of combo buying, e.g. buy three and pay for two, and buying directly from food producers such as co-ops, all help to save money in the long run.  Meat, fish, and especially seafood are the most expensive food items; rather use eggs, chicken, and less expense meat cuts for your meals.  Legumes such as dried beans, peas, and soya are less expensive with great nutritional value.  Explore these less-known group of foods with many great health benefits, such as no fat, more fibre, and lots of vitamins and minerals.

In an effort to eat more fresh vegetables and fruit, starting a home garden is a great family challenge and a definite way of keeping food costs low. And as we navigate the new normal post-COVID times ahead, let us keep mealtimes and meal preparation a fun family activity. Discovering new foods and new tastes can be as exciting as travelling to a new place.  Stay safe, stay healthy! 

Opinion article by Dr Chantell Witten, Division of Health Professions Education, University of the Free State.


News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept