Abstract
BackgroundAs a low-middle income country, South Africa has seen an upsurge in the double burden of malnutrition (DBM). Owing to the rising costs of obesity on healthcare in South Africa, the National Treasury implemented a fiscal policy for the taxation of SSBs, known as the Health Promotion Levy, in line with the WHO recommendation. Potential negative impacts of the policy on the sugar cane industry and economic and rural development have been voiced by different sectors. By including a subsection in the SSBs fiscal policy and aligning the goals with existing policies, government could have made provisions for sugar cane farms to substitute crops with alternatives, including nutritional alternatives where possible, while supporting existing small-scale farms to produce nutrient-dense, local and culturally acceptable crops. Thus, the purpose of the study is to understand the perceptions of the various stakeholders on combining nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions with the taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to improve overall health and nutrition in South Africa.MethodsSemi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with each participant. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed intelligent verbatim, and cross-checked against the audio-recordings by the principal researcher. ATLAS.ti 8 software was used to navigate the data and assist with thematic analysis.ResultsPerceptions of combining SSB taxation with agricultural policies to improve food and nutrition security were positive. The participants found it to be an innovative idea in theory but questioned the feasibility of combining policies. Participants highlighted education as an essential element for successfully changing behaviour to ensure a positive impact of the combined policy approach. Participants believed that before government could scale up nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions, basic services and government functions would first need to run optimally.ConclusionOverall, perceptions with regard to combining the taxation on SSBs with nutrition-sensitive agricultural policies to improve overall health and nutrition in South Africa were positive. Although participants questioned the feasibility of combining these policies, it was viewed as a way to combat alleged collateral damage linked to the tax, with a specific focus on developing small-scale farmers. More research into these combined policy approaches in a South African context is required.
Highlights
As a low-middle income country, South Africa has seen an upsurge in the double burden of malnutrition (DBM)
Participants questioned the feasibility of combining these policies, it was viewed as a way to combat alleged collateral damage linked to the tax, with a specific focus on developing small-scale farmers
Combining the policies was seen as a positive way of overcoming the alleged collateral damage linked to the tax, with a specific focus on developing small-scale farmers, creating jobs and ensuring adequate household food security in rural populations
Summary
As a low-middle income country, South Africa has seen an upsurge in the double burden of malnutrition (DBM). Due to the rising consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and the possible contribution to the obesity epidemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that countries include a fiscal policy to reduce the consumption of SSBs [2]. Owing to the rising costs of obesity on healthcare in South Africa, the National Treasury implemented a fiscal policy for the taxation of SSBs, known as the Health Promotion Levy, in line with the WHO recommendation [3]. The tax, which excludes 100% fruit juice, was intended to be set at a tax rate of 2,21 cents per gram of sugar over the 4 g per 100 ml threshold, per beverage [4, 5]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.