Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 October 2025 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Anja Aucamp
Food Environment
Students at the UFS are making daily food choices under tight budgets. The 2025 Food Environment Survey by the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics sheds light on these challenges.

What’s for dinner? For most students, that question is about more than taste. It’s about budgets, storage space, time, and whether the food will even last until tomorrow. At the University of the Free State (UFS), researchers have been listening closely to students’ experiences, and the results tell a powerful story.

Earlier surveys in 2020 and 2022 showed that many UFS students struggle with food insecurity and that hunger is linked to academic performance. Now, the new 2025 UFS Food Environment Survey digs deeper, providing fresh data on how students plan, shop, store and stretch their food.

The release comes at the perfect moment: the world is about to mark World Food Day on 16 October 2025 under the theme, Hand in Hand for Better Foods and a Better Future. At the UFS, that spirit of “hand in hand” is already at work through the Eat & Succeed programme and the efforts of the Food Environment Task Committee (FETC), the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Food Environment Office, the Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development, and the Division of Student Affairs’ vegetable tunnels where academic and support staff are working together to build a healthier, more supportive food environment.

 

Navigating food choices on a tight budget 

Led by Prof Louise van den Berg, Associate Professor from the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, the 2025 survey received replies from 1 586 undergraduates, a group that reflects the student body. The findings confirm what many already know: students are resourceful, but they’re also facing real challenges.

On average, students eat from three food groups a day, instead of the recommended five. Many skip on protective foods like fruit, vegetables and dairy; not because they don’t want them, but because they’re harder to afford or to keep fresh. Almost a third of students don’t have a fridge, and those who do often share small spaces. That means foods like milk, cheese, yoghurt, fruit and vegetables can go off in just a day or two. For students living on tight NSFAS budgets, buying fresh food often feels like a gamble. She says the risk of food spoiling often outweighs the benefit of buying it at all.

Shopping habits reflect these pressures too. Many students shop only once or twice a month, favouring shelf-stable foods like maize meal, noodles, and canned goods. “While such foods can fill stomachs and stretch budgets, they do not provide the same balance of nutrients as diets that regularly include fresh produce, lean proteins, and dairy,” comments Prof Van Den Berg.

She continues, pointing out another finding: when buying food on campus, students place price and convenience above everything else. “This highlights not a lack of interest in eating healthily, but rather the practical decisions students must make every day with limited money, limited time, and limited storage.”

Still, it’s not all bad news. The survey shows that most students are already making smart choices by limiting sugary drinks and salty snacks. The main gap is simply access to affordable, perishable foods that boost health and concentration.

That’s where the UFS initiatives come in. The Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, the FETC, and the Food Environment Office are working to raise awareness through programmes such as Eat & Succeed by sharing practical shopping tips, affordable healthy options, and exploring ways to improve access to safe food storage on campus. Prof Van Den Berg also believes that small, practical changes, such as making fruit and vegetables more available at fair prices, or helping students to learn how to stretch groceries further, can have a big impact on student wellbeing.

 

Supporting students to eat well and succeed

The results of the latest survey show that our students aren’t careless with their diets. They’re doing the best they can with what they have. “Our job is to make it easier for them to ensure that they can purchase affordable, portion-sized fruit, vegetables and dairy products without worrying about storage or spoilage. Such initiatives would help bridge the gap between financial constraints and the need for protective foods in students’ diets,” says Prof Van den Berg.

At the end of the day, the 2025 Food Environment Survey is about more than statistics only. It’s about listening to students, understanding their daily struggles, and finding real solutions, because when students have the right fuel, they have a much better chance of succeeding; both in the classroom and in life.

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