Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 December 2024 Photo Supplied
Dr Hoitsimolimo Mutlokwa
Dr Hoitsimolimo Mutlokwa is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Labour Law in the Department of Mercantile Law, UFS.

Opinion article by Dr Hoitsimolimo Mutlokwa, Postdoctoral Researcher: Centre for Labour Law in the Department of Mercantile Law, University of the Free State.


There has been a spike in the number of children either getting sick or dying from eating snacks bought in spaza shops. It is known that consumption of fake food poses a danger to one’s health. Such foods contain toxic chemicals and ingredients that may not be safe for human consumption. Below, I analyse the regulations and legislation in place to regulate and penalise businesses that sell food products not fit for human consumption.

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. 

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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