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

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