The recent deaths of dozens of children who consumed unsafe food sold in unregulated spaza shops shocked the nation and caused outrage, emphasising the need for change in the informal food retail sector. Some media reported that since the beginning of September this year, a total of 890 incidents of food-borne illnesses have been reported across all provinces. These events demand immediate action, with President Cyril Ramaphosa mandating all spaza shops to register within 21 working days.

Though most have welcomed and praised the president’s decisive action, some are blaming the government and more so, foreign-run spaza shops. The country has the all the laws in place to not only police and act against perpetrators, but to also prevent tragic incidents like these. These laws include the South African Regulation R638 of 2018 for Food Premises, South African Regulation R146 of 2010 for Food Labelling, the South African Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), and municipal by-laws. These laws just need to be enforced. With all spaza shops enforced to be registered, it will make it much easier to shut down shops that are not registered and prosecute those who might be selling foods that have either expired or are fake. However, the problem is much deeper than this, considering the growing animosity towards foreign-owned spaza shops taking away business opportunities from local citizens.

South African Regulation R638 of 2018 for Food Premises

This regulation outlines the required hygiene standards and food safety practices that businesses, including spaza shops, must set up. Environmental Health Practitioners (EHP) can enforce these regulations by conducting inspections and providing guidance to shop owners. In a situation where fake or expired foodstuffs are found on shelves, they must be removed and confiscated by the EHP to be destroyed. In terms of provision 15, a person who violates these regulations will be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty in terms of section 18(1) of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act 54 of 1972). First-time offenders are fined an amount of R400, or six months’ imprisonment or both a fine and imprisonment. Second-time offenders are fined R800, or 12-month prison sentence or both a fine and imprisonment. Third-time offenders are fined R2 000 and imprisonment for a period not exceeding 24 months or a fine and imprisonment.

South African Regulation R146 of 2010 for Food Labelling

These regulations govern the proper labelling of food products to ensure consumers have proper information on the product they intend to buy. Information on the label relates to contents and expiry dates. However, this regulation is problematic in the sense that expiry dates are not prescribed by law. Manufacturers determine what is appropriate in terms of an expiry date. This is bound to encourage manipulation of expiry dates, putting consumers’ health at risk. The regulations do not mention anything about penalties for offenders. It is presumed that businesses that breach this act are charged in terms of section 18(1) of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act 54 of 1972).

The South African Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA)

The CPA provides protection measures for consumers that include the right to safe and quality goods. Consumers have a right to return harmful products and issue complaints about such products. Complaints can be sent to the Provisional Consumer Authorities (PCA) or the National Consumer Commission (NCC). Selling of fake or expired food falls under the category of “unconscionable conduct”, “misleading” or “deceptive” practices. The NCT presides over such cases. A person convicted of such an offence may be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or both a fine and imprisonment. The NCT may impose administrative fines not exceeding 10% of the violator's annual turnover in a financial year.

Most spaza shops obtain their goods from wholesalers who are off the hook from prosecution. The media appear to show only one side of the problem, the spaza shop, but not the wholesaler.

The NCC is not using its powers effectively in terms of section 73 to refer matters to the NPA of wholesalers who sell expired foods.

The NCT may also issue a compliance notice should a wholesaler be found to have been selling expired or fake foods. If the conduct continues or the wholesaler does not cooperate, the matter can be referred to the NPA in terms of Section 100.

Municipal by-laws

Municipalities such as Mangaung have by-laws relating to spaza shops but there appear not to be enough health inspectors to conduct the necessary inspections to ensure fake or expired food are not sold in such shops. Necessary financial resources must be available to ensure that municipalities can carry out their mandate effectively in supporting provincial consumer authorities, the NCC, NCT and NPA towards curbing the problem of expired and fake foods.

Conclusion

A Draconian approach is needed to mitigate the surge in the sale of expired and fake foods. The Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act 54 of 1972) is rather outdated regarding the present spike in the number of fake and expired foods for sale. The CPA gives powers to the NCC and NCT to report business practices to the NPA that are either harmful or prejudicial to consumers. These powers must be used effectively. Secondly, the fines imposed are too lenient. R400 or even R2 000 are too low to deter individuals from repeating the offence.

A register of offenders is needed for manufacturers, wholesalers and shops that sell expired or fake foods. To make this effective, all individuals convicted by the NPA must be listed in this offenders’ register. Such a register must be published in the government gazette for easy access by the public. This will be a deterrent to the sale of expired or fake foods or foods allegedly containing poison.

This will avoid the situation where consumers take it upon themselves to go on social media and raise awareness of products people should not buy. For instance, recently, a video went viral of a person warning people not to buy certain 1.25l Coca-Cola bottles because the serial numbers displayed on the bottle were not consistent with other serial numbers.