In October 2024, the Healthy Living Alliance (Heala) launched a campaign urging government to strengthen the Health Promotion Levy, South Africa’s tax on sugary drinks.
The radio advert, broadcast in Afrikaans, used strong public messaging: “Fizzy drinks and fruit juice make our children sick. With every sip, sugar is dumped into their bodies, leading to obesity, heart disease and diabetes as they age.”
While not a literal scientific statement, a reasonable person would not interpret the advert as claiming that a single sip of a sugary beverage directly causes diabetes or other non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
The phrasing was designed for emphasis and reflects decades of evidence from the World Health Organization and other scientific bodies showing that regular consumption of sugary drinks significantly increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease over time.
Read more: Ruling against ad about danger of fizzy drinks ‘strikes at the heart of public health advocacy’
Within weeks, however, a single complaint was submitted by a listener who reported that his child had been unsettled by the advert. The complaint was referred to the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), South Africa’s self-regulatory advertising body, funded by industry members, including the very food and beverage industry whose products are under scrutiny.
In early 2025, the ARB ruled that the advert was “misleading” and blocked it from being aired in its original format, reasoning that the phrase “with every sip” could be understood as a claim that one sip alone causes disease. Heala challenged this interpretation on appeal, providing independent expert reports confirming the science and explaining the context of advocacy messaging. However, in June 2025, the ARB’s internal appeal committee dismissed the case, leaving the ban in place.
Why this matters
The ARB’s ruling should concern all South Africans, not only because of its effect on one advert, but because of what it means for democratic accountability. By reducing an advocacy message to a narrow, literal reading, the ARB disregarded context, common sense and the overwhelming scientific consensus on the dangers of sugary drinks.
This narrow approach has far-reaching consequences. It risks silencing civil society and limiting the ability of public health organisations to warn the public about products that cause harm. This case is ultimately about whether organisations can speak the truth about unhealthy food and other potentially harmful products without being censored.
Rights at stake
South Africa’s Constitution enshrines several relevant rights:
- Freedom of expression (section 16), which protects the right to impart information and ideas of public importance.
- Access to information (section 32), necessary for individuals to make informed decisions about their health.
- The right to health (section 27), alongside children’s rights to basic nutrition and protection from harm (section 28).
Internationally, South Africa has obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ensure access to accurate health information and to shield children from harmful commercial practices.
The right to health, the right to food and the right to information are not abstract ideals. They are critical public issues that affect the daily lives of millions of South Africans. Restricting truthful advocacy undermines these rights.
Self-regulation and advertising versus public health messaging
The deeper issue is not just the ARB’s ruling, but the system behind it. The ARB is funded by industry members, including the food and beverage industries, whose products are under scrutiny. It is fundamentally wrong that we allow a decision-maker with direct profit interest to censor public health advocacy.
Heala’s campaign was not commercial advertising. It was a matter of public-interest advocacy: protecting children’s health. Unlike marketing, which exists to sell products for profit, advocacy campaigns aim to serve the public good. Public health campaigns must therefore be judged differently from product marketing. Applying the same standards to advocacy as to commercial advertising results in limiting scrutiny of harmful industries.
Courts elsewhere have recognised this. In Colombia, for example, the Constitutional Court in the Red Papaz case affirmed that civil society campaigns warning about sugary drinks were a matter of public interest expression, not advertising, and therefore could not be censored by industry codes. South Africa should draw the same line, ensuring that advocacy aimed at protecting children’s and public health is not silenced by rules designed for commercial marketing.
Broader stakes
South Africa faces one of the highest rates of childhood obesity in Africa, with type 2 diabetes increasingly diagnosed in young people. Sugary drink consumption is a major driver of these diseases. Heala’s campaign is about protecting children’s health and calling for government to strengthen the Health Promotion Levy to reduce consumption and save lives.
Silencing this kind of campaign sets a dangerous precedent. If an industry-funded body can ban a factual, evidence-based message about sugar, what is to stop similar rulings against campaigns warning about other harmful products or practices that affect public health? The ruling narrows democratic space and undermines civil society’s ability to fulfil its watchdog role.
What needs to change?
- Recognise the difference between advocacy and advertising: public health campaigns should not be assessed under commercial advertising rules.
- Ensure independence in regulation: advertising complaints must be adjudicated by bodies that are free from industry funding and influence.
- Protect children’s rights: strengthening the Health Promotion Levy and enabling accurate health communication are urgent steps to address South Africa’s NCD crisis.
- Affirm constitutional and international obligations: policymakers and courts must uphold the rights to expression, health, food and information, and prevent private interests from overriding them.
A democratic imperative
At its core, this case is about whether South Africans have the right to know the truth about products that harm them and whether civil society has the right to say it.
On 9 September 2025, Heala’s case was heard by the Final Appeals Committee, the last stage of the ARB’s internal process. Whatever the outcome, further steps remain possible, including judicial review in the high court. The path this case takes will help determine whether South Africa is willing to defend constitutional rights, protect children’s health and preserve democratic space in the face of powerful commercial interests. DM