Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 November 2024 | Story Prof Mpumelelo Ncube | Photo Supplied
Prof Mpumelelo Ncube
Prof Mpumelelo Ncube is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Mpumelelo Ncube, Head of the Department of Social Work, University of the Free State


As we approach the end of another year, many people take this time to reflect on the successes they have achieved, as well as to appreciate their resilience in overcoming life's challenges. For some, this season of reflection serves as an opportunity to reward themselves for their accomplishments. However, for many others, the festivities become a coping mechanism, masking deeper pain and unresolved trauma.

This year has been marked by several successes, including the simple fact that we are still alive, despite the staggering number of lives lost in the country, but more so, in conflict zones. Countries like Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mozambique, Palestine, and Ukraine have endured severe violence, with countless innocent lives taken. In these instances, the human cost continues to mount, making survival a powerful testament to resilience and divine grace in the face of such overwhelming adversity. Life itself is an accomplishment, but for countless individuals, it also carries untold stories of sorrow, stories not just from this year but from previous years as well. Families continue to grieve the loss of loved ones to the COVID-19 pandemic, and many have lost their livelihoods due to the economic downturn that followed. The situation is further exacerbated by South Africa’s unemployment rate, which exceeds 40% (expanded definition), making it increasingly difficult for many individuals to secure new sources of income.

The violence

In addition, South Africa continues to grapple with violence. Families mourn the loss of loved ones to murder — a pain that never truly heals, though families learn to live with it. The country’s murder rate remains alarmingly high, with slight fluctuations in the past five years looking only at the months of April to June across the years. In 2020, COVID-19 restrictions temporarily reduced murders to 3 466, but once the lockdown lifted, the rate surged to 5 760 in 2021, continuing to rise to 6 424 in 2022. Though slightly declining in 2023 and 2024, the numbers are still far too high. This reflects an ongoing crisis that demands stronger interventions, law enforcement, and efforts to address the socio-economic disparities that fuel crime.

Further compounding the year’s challenges, 2024 saw tragic events such as children dying from poisoned food, mass killings in the Eastern Cape, a rise in extortion, and an alarming increase in teenage pregnancies, especially in underprivileged communities. As we close the year, these issues do not vanish. In fact, they may intensify, often hidden beneath the veneer of holiday festivities.

The impact of alcohol

For many, these festivities are synonymous with alcohol consumption. Despite the economic struggles faced by many, a budget for alcohol remains a priority. This may seem counterintuitive, but it highlights the reality of people using alcohol to escape their suffering. Alcohol, like many other substances, becomes a coping mechanism for the trauma that so many endure.

In its 54th conference, the ANC rightly observed a universal phenomenon of alcohol abuse where socially and economically unequal societies tend to have higher levels of substance abuse, particularly alcohol and drugs. The §National Drug Master Plan 2019/24 identifies alcohol as the primary substance abused across racial and class lines in South Africa, largely due to its easy accessibility, affordability, and cultural associations. South Africa ranks among the high alcohol-consuming countries, with an average of 9.3 litres per capita annually, far surpassing the global average of 6.4 litres.

The consumption of alcohol is particularly concerning among young people, who often gain access to alcohol earlier than legally permitted, especially during the festive season. When young people normalise alcohol consumption, it often leads to lifelong addiction, impaired development, and an inability to fully participate in society. Tragically, in some cases, it results in fatal outcomes.

For the broader population, alcohol is often a catalyst for violence, both in public spaces and within homes. It exacerbates gender-based violence (GBV), fuels broken families, perpetuates cycles of poverty and substance abuse, and undermines social cohesion. These issues have plagued South Africa for years, with little success in addressing them.

The festive season is also associated with a rise in road accidents and fatalities, often linked to alcohol consumption. While this is only the tip of the iceberg, it reflects the broader societal damage caused by alcohol. Yet, alcohol continues to be marketed as a symbol of success, sophistication, and enjoyment. While alcohol-facilitated festivities and social gatherings in general may offer fleeting escapism, they ultimately fail to address the profound psychological and emotional wounds that individuals carry. Beneath the veneer of revelry and glamour, these events often leave participants with unhealed scars, merely postponing the inevitable pursuit of the next escapism opportunity. In truth, the industry exploits vulnerable individuals for profit, often masking the harm it inflicts on communities.

Despite the alcohol industry's substantial contribution to South Africa's GDP, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis reveals that the industry's socioeconomic costs, encompassing both direct and indirect expenditures, as well as intangible externalities, significantly exceed its economic benefits. In the past, studies have shown that alcohol-related harm costs between 10% and 12% of the country’s GDP, while the benefits, including taxes and employment, account for a less than 10%. This disparity calls for a re-evaluation of the country’s relationship with alcohol. It’s a substance that not only fuels violence and the resulting trauma but also undermines the nation’s aspirations for a more prosperous and equitable future for all. We must question whether alcohol is truly indispensable. Does its social, cultural, or economic significance justify the considerable harm it causes to human life?

16 Days campaign

This truly is the time for the country to reconsider its approach to alcohol regulation. There have been ongoing debates about tightening restrictions on alcohol advertising, with proponents arguing that these measures could mitigate the damage caused by the industry. Some have also called for raising the legal drinking age, suggesting that delaying access to alcohol could benefit both individuals and the economy. Additionally, increasing excise duties could make alcohol less accessible, reducing its harmful impact on society. These steps require leaders who prioritise the lives of the people they serve over the profit margins of corporations. Ultimately, this serves as a clarion call to collective action, urging all stakeholders in society including families, faith-based organisations, community groups, educational institutions, and beyond, to assume a shared responsibility for reversing this destructive trend. By doing so, we can break the cycle of harm, mitigate the pervasive psychological and emotional trauma that permeates our society. Afterall, Life should be treated as sacred and worthy of protection and improvement at every opportunity.

In light of all these issues, we are also reminded of the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children Campaign, a global campaign aimed at raising awareness about violence against women and girls. Let this not be a mere rhetorical exercise, but a call to action, one that demands meaningful decisions and interventions to protect vulnerable individuals and build a society free of violence and harm.

Mpumelelo Ncube is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of the Free State. He writes in his personal capacity.

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