Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 January 2025 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Anja Aucamp
Food Garden
Students transport fresh vegetables from the university's sustainable vegetable tunnels for distribution to their peers. These vegetables play a role in promoting healthy eating habits and ensuring students have access to healthy meals, making a difference in their overall well-being and academic success.

“I’m writing this email to express my gratitude for what you and your office do. I don’t think you can fully understand how grateful I am for the food parcels. I’m able to go to bed with food in my stomach, all because of you and your team, and for that, I am so thankful. Before I found out about your office, I was stressed about where my next meal would come from. Now, I perform incredibly well in my studies. I honestly pray and hope that the office continues to receive the support it needs to continue being of assistance to those in need.” 

This letter is one of many received by the UFS Food Environment Office, highlighting the important role the university plays in supporting students struggling with food insecurity. 

Healthy food choices 

Five years ago, the university established the institutional Food Environment Committee (FETC) to provide guidance and recommendations to the university administration on matters relating to the food environment of the university. The aim of the FETC is to promote healthy and sustainable food choices across all three UFS campuses. 

The committee is also responsible for assessing the food needs of vulnerable groups to ensure inclusive and accessible programmes, overseeing strategy implementation, and advocating participation across the campus. Additionally, they ensure that university policies do not detract from the policies and activities of the Food Environment Strategy in order to promote a culture of health and wellness across the UFS. The committee also engages in continuous planning and budgeting to keep the strategy relevant and effective. 

Some of their key strategic objectives include strengthening sustainability through more collaborative food projects and partnerships. They also aim to improve food security by increasing affordable, nutritious meal options. These also talk to the number of students supported through food bursaries, and the quantity of food items distributed through food banks. Other goals focus on ensuring dignity and inclusivity, and activating residences, student associations, and faculty organisations in the food environment programme.  

Dr WP Wahl, Director of Student Life in the Division of Student Affairs, explains that the committee includes stakeholders from academic, support services, and student groups. Its purpose is to oversee different priority projects within the institution that speak to addressing hunger and malnutrition among students. Key members include Student Affairs, the Student Representative Council, food service providers, Kovsie Act, and faculty representatives, such as the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics in the Faculty of Health Sciences and the Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development in the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences. These departments play a vital role in empowering and educating students, sharing information through videos, podcasts, and recipes on Facebook, the Food Environment webpage, and the Student Newsletter, as well as the Eat&Succeed page on Blackboard. 

The Department of Nutrition and Dietetics is also closely involved in research, ensuring that decisions are based on scientific data. For instance, they compiled the 2021 and 2022 UFS Food Environment Task Committee Report, revealing that only 27% of UFS students are food secure, with 74% experiencing various degrees of food insecurity. In 2022, 39% of students reported going without food for a day because they could not afford it,  and for 13%, this was almost a daily occurrence. 

This research also examined, among others, eating patterns, food purchasing behaviours, and preparation habits that guide decisions to improve the university’s food environment and inform messaging to students. 

Also playing a key role in executing the goals of the committee is the Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development and Kovsie Act with the vegetable tunnels that were created on the Bloemfontein Campus and now on the South Campus for a sustainable flow of fresh produce that is channelled towards the food bank. 

A supportive environment 

The goal of promoting collaboration and mutually beneficial partnerships is to make a difference in the food environment at the university. Annelize Visagie, who is heading the Food Environment Office, highlights the university’s partnerships with major sponsors such as Gift for the Givers and Tiger Brands, who assist with food parcels. The No Student Hungry Programme (NSH) also has donors supporting its bursary initiative. 

Since 2011, the university has made great strides in combating food insecurity through the NSH, which has supported the graduation of 875 students. Visagie finds it particularly rewarding to witness these graduates celebrate their achievements alongside their families, who express gratitude for the assistance provided. Such moments affirm the positive impact of their efforts in creating a supportive environment for students in need. 

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