Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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