The loss of lives is a damning indictment of the government’s repeated failures to implement adequate food safety regulations and enforce existing standards.
When I read that “Parliament’s Education, Sciences and Creative Industries Select Committee … wants government to ban foreign nationals from operating spaza shops and maintain an updated register of people who sell snacks at schools,” my immediate reaction was simple: here we go again – another hollow, rhetorical statement that does little to address the real issues.
This response by the South African government, through the committee’s call to ban foreign nationals from operating spaza shops and the push to maintain an updated register of school snack vendors, appears to be a case of too little, too late.
Six children in Soweto have tragically lost their lives due to lethal organophosphate poisoning – an outcome that could have been prevented with effective regulation of this restricted pesticide.
For more than three decades, issues around the regulation of small businesses – formal or informal – and foreign ownership of informal businesses in South Africa have been pressing concerns in the country, yet meaningful policies and implementation strategies have been slow and, at times, inconsistent and ineffective.
Typical is Regulation 638 of 2018 governing general hygiene requirements for food premises, the transport of food and related matters, which is inadequate in addressing the current challenge.
Responsibility deflected
The tragic illnesses and deaths of children due to unsafe snacks are a heart-breaking symptom of a system that has historically prioritised discussion over decisive action. Instead of implementing meaningful regulations, we get yet another call for reactionary measures that deflect responsibility rather than solve underlying problems.
Studies have shown that policymakers in Africa have largely treated vendors with either neglect or active repression. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, urban policy measures aimed at managing food systems often exclude informal vendors, marginalising them in favour of “modernising” cities.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent announcement that a new proclamation to regulate spaza shops has been approved and will be managed by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) seems like a long-overdue reaction to a crisis that has been ignored for far too long.
While the President acknowledged that “a number of schoolchildren have died as a result of some chemical found in food or snacks bought from spaza shops”, his remarks failed to address the government’s historical inaction on this issue.
Moreover, placing the responsibility for regulation in the hands of Cogta raises questions about accountability and efficiency. Why is this responsibility not with the national Department of Health, which has the mandate and expertise in food safety?
Without a clear mandate and effective inter-departmental coordination, this latest proclamation risks becoming yet another bureaucratic promise that lacks the urgency and execution necessary to address the root causes of this crisis.
Tragically, these deaths are not isolated incidents of the past few weeks, but the continuation of a longstanding problem that has gone unaddressed by national, provincial, and local governments for years. The loss of lives due to food-borne illnesses is a damning indictment of the government’s repeated failures to implement adequate food safety regulations and enforce existing standards.
The issue of hazardous food sold by unregulated vendors has been raised multiple times over the years, but little to no action has been taken to protect vulnerable communities. For far too long, warnings and pleas from communities and health experts have gone unheard, falling on the deaf ears of officials whose responsibilities include safeguarding public health.
Scapegoating risk
Notable also is that the suggested ban on foreign nationals, coupled with local by-laws, appears to be a reactionary measure rather than a thoughtful approach to the broader challenges in food safety and small business regulation.
It risks scapegoating spaza shops, street traders and foreign nationals without addressing systemic issues such as inadequate food safety enforcement and the lack of routine inspections, which would protect children regardless of who operates the business.
We must not forget how in 2018, listeriosis was traced to Tiger Brands. Even big and known food retailers seem to be flaunting food safety rules and endangering the health and safety of consumers. The problem is not only confined to spaza shops and informal businesses.
The South African government would do well to look toward integrated, forward-looking policies that prioritise safety through universal standards, regular vendor certification and robust local enforcement.
Ramaphosa’s statement seems to reflect a reactive government, one that acts only when public pressure reaches a boiling point, rather than proactively safeguarding public health. South Africa continues to issue promises in the wake of preventable tragedies rather than developing a reliable regulatory system for the small business sector, including spaza shops, which serve millions of citizens.
If the government truly aims to protect the lives of its people, this proclamation must be backed by meaningful enforcement and a commitment to real accountability. Anything less would signal a disturbing indifference to the health and safety of South Africans, particularly those in low-income communities.
Until then, Ramaphosa’s words will remain yet another disappointing reminder of a government that talks about protecting lives, but repeatedly fails to take the necessary actions to do so.
Government failure
Truth be told, the tragic deaths of children in South Africa after consuming poisonous snacks are a devastating consequence of a government that has failed in its fundamental duty: to protect public health. In this case, the government, and particularly the food health inspectorate, must be held accountable for a gross dereliction of duty.
The South African Constitution is clear about the state’s responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of its citizens. Yet, despite these guarantees, the government has fallen short in its duty to oversee the food supply chain, particularly in vulnerable communities where food safety is often compromised.
It must be made clear that the problem of unsafe food sales and deceptive practices in South Africa extends far beyond spaza shops, affecting major retailers as well.
Under Section 55 of the Consumer Protection Act, every consumer has the right to goods that are safe, of good quality and in line with applicable standards or public regulations. However, in 2014, an investigation by the National Consumer Commission exposed widespread unlawful practices, including the alteration, replacement and removal of food labels at prominent stores such as Shoprite, Spar, OK Foods and U-Save, among others.
Our government should be held liable when it fails to regulate businesses that harm the public, such as where the state failed to enforce regulations on food vendors, leading to food poisoning and deaths of children. The government’s failure to conduct regular inspections and ensure compliance with food safety standards directly contributed to the deaths, and damages must be awarded to the victims.
Municipalities must also be held liable for negligence when there are foodborne illness outbreaks linked to unlicensed street vendors and spaza shops. They have a duty to enforce existing health standards and should not be allowed to escape responsibility for the harm caused by its failure to inspect and regulate these businesses.
Enforcement is the state’s responsibility
My argument here is that while the government may blame the vendors, it is the state’s responsibility to enforce the laws governing food safety.
Health inspectors should be conducting regular inspections, ensuring that every vendor complies with basic safety requirements, and swiftly shutting down operations that fail to meet these standards.
I must emphasise that Regulation 638 of 2018 is not the right regulation for the spaza shop sector, and is not a panacea for deaths of children as a result of food bought from spaza shops.
While the regulation provides a comprehensive framework for hygiene in formal food premises, certain limitations arise in its applicability to informal food business outlets.
For instance, Regulation 638 is designed for formal food establishments that have structured premises and infrastructure to support compliance with hygiene standards. Informal food businesses, however, often operate from temporary or mobile settings (such as street stalls or informal markets) and may lack access to basic facilities like running water, proper waste disposal or adequate refrigeration, making strict compliance challenging.
Furthermore, Regulation 638 prescribes specific standards for facilities and equipment that may be impractical or unaffordable for many informal vendors. For example, the regulation requires certain washing and sanitation equipment that might be beyond the means of small-scale vendors, thus creating a barrier to entry, or leaving them unregulated.
Considering that a significant portion of the population relies on informal food vendors, developing supplementary regulations or simplified guidelines tailored to informal settings would be beneficial. With increasing urbanisation and demand for convenient, affordable food options, the informal food sector is growing. Regulation 638 has not been specifically adapted to accommodate these trends, which affects its effectiveness in addressing public health concerns within this rapidly evolving sector.
I recommend the following as a start towards putting in place effective measures to combat the problem we are facing:
- A dual approach could be considered: retaining Regulation 638 for formal businesses while developing an adapted regulatory framework or set of guidelines for informal food outlets, focusing on achievable hygiene practices, flexibility in standards and resource-friendly solutions; and
- Specific legislation is needed to address the issue of foreign ownership in informal and small business in South Africa. In particular, there must be sectors that are absolutely prohibited from ownership by foreign nationals, and South Africans fronting for foreign nationals in prohibited categories must face stiff penalties including fines and imprisonment. South Africa needs clear and enforceable policies that regulate informal businesses and define parameters for foreign ownership. For example, the government can restrict foreign ownership in certain sectors, ensuring local businesses are protected and public health standards are maintained through regular inspections. DM