Industry strategies in the parliamentary process of adopting a sugar-sweetened beverage tax in South Africa: a systematic mapping

Abstract

Background In 2016, the South African government became the first in the African region to announce the introduction of an SSB tax based on sugar content as a public health measure to reduce obesity. This tax was introduced against the backdrop of South Africa having a large sugar production and SSB manufacturing industry, as well as very high unemployment rates. The introduction of fiscal measures, such as a SSB tax, has been met with well-coordinated and funded opposition in other countries. Methods The aim of this study is to describe and analyse the arguments and strategies utilised by industry during policymaking processes to oppose regulatory actions in LMIC. This study analyses arguments and strategies used by the beverage and related industries during the public consultation phase of the process to adopt the South African SSB tax. Results Industry opposition to the SSB tax was comprehensive and employed several tactics. First, industry underscored its economic importance and the potential job losses and other economic harms that may arise from the tax. This argument was well-received by policymakers, and similar to industry tactics employed in other middle income countries like Mexico. Second, industry discussed self-regulation and voluntary measures as a form of policy substitution, which mirrors industry responses in the US, the Caribbean and Latin America. Third, industry misused or disputed evidence to undermine the perceived efficacy of the tax. Finally, considerations for small business and their ability to compete with multi-national corporations were a unique feature of industry response. Conclusions Industry opposition followed both general trends, and also introduced nuanced and context-specific arguments. The industry response experienced in South Africa can be instructive for other countries contemplating the introduction of similar measures.

A Fit-for-Purpose Nutrient Profiling Model to Underpin Food and Nutrition Policies in South Africa

“…A transparent, evidence-based approach without industry interference should be followed in their development [ 17 , 18 ]. In SA, powerful commercial actors have been shown to influence health policy formulation processes to favor their interests over those of the public’s health and pockets [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. As such, an independently developed NPM may support the government to develop a strong policy.…”

Commercial use of evidence in public health policy: a critical assessment of food industry submissions to global-level consultations on non-communicable disease prevention

“… 62 The most frequently cited item in our study, a discussion paper funded and written by the McKinsey Global Institute 101 which ranks taxation and media restrictions as low-impact interventions to address obesity, but concludes that only comprehensive measures will work to tackle obesity, has also been cited in other policy debates to oppose public health regulation. 64 132 …”

South Africa's Health Promotion Levy: Excise tax findings and equity potential

“…The beverage and sugar industries both claimed that the HPL would result in massive job losses in their industries and argued for self‐regulation or voluntary measures. Industry groups commissioned reports by consulting groups (e.g., Oxford Economics ) to challenge the efficacy of the tax 16–19 . Conversely, academics, government, and advocates argued for the tax in terms of reduced healthcare costs and potential income generation to fund health services.…”

“…The delayed HPL was signed into law in December 2017 and formally implemented on April 1, 2018. This process resulted in concessions made to the sugar and beverage industries with the effective tax rate being reduced from 20% to approximately 10% 16 . The HPL still depends on the sugar content of the beverage, at 0.021 ZAR per gram of sugar in excess of a threshold of 4 g of sugar per 100 ml 20 .…”

“…Industry groups commissioned reports by consulting groups (e.g., Oxford Economics ) to challenge the efficacy of the tax. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 Conversely, academics, government, and advocates argued for the tax in terms of reduced healthcare costs and potential income generation to fund health services. News media analyses over January 2017–June 2019 reflect such patterns and consistency in frequency with more supportive articles except during the month when the HPL was implemented.…”