Johannesburg - The sugar tax debate filtered down to informal businesses yesterday, with spaza shop owners expressing their un-happiness about the proposed new laws.
Spaza shops president Rose Nkosi shared her dissatisfaction about taxing sugary beverages because “for some people, the source of income is cold drink, cold drink, cold drink!”
She said big meetings were held that involved only high-profile people who discussed new laws that affected poor people.
“Have you spoken to our people about this? Have you educated them? Our people are not learned; they will never be able to understand this.”
Nkosi said a sugar tax would benefit the government, but be detrimental to families.
“This has nothing to do with health. It has nothing to do with the people. All the government thinks about is itself.”
The sugar tax could cost South Africa as many as 70 000 jobs, the industry has argued.
It is aimed at combating obesity and other non-communicable diseases caused by a diet high in sugar, according to the government.
Treasury taxes director Mpho Legote said there was an inevitable need to tax sugary beverages as they were a health threat to South Africans.
“As Treasury, we looked at the issues of sugary drinks, obesity and health issues and thus found a method to deal with the consumption of sugary liquids and obesity.”
The tax will entail increasing the price of soft drinks to discourage people from consuming them.
Read also: Sugar tax 'bad news for jobs'
Free Market Foundation executive director Leon Louw said it was in fact a tax against the poor, who would feel the biggest negative impact.
“Everyone in this hotel will not be affected if soft drinks start to cost R5 extra. There is no rich person who will even notice; what this does is it victimises the poor.”
Louw said the proposed law suggested that poor people were unable to make informed decisions, and as a result, the government would control their lifestyle by using an inescapable method for them.
“This whole thing is discrimination against the poor, which in South Africa has obvious racial implications. The middle class will still afford sugary beverages.”
Department of Health chief director for non-communicable diseases Professor Melvyn Free-man disagreed, saying the department had an obligation to promote health.
“We need to deal with these health issues now. We cannot wait for people to get ill first when we can prevent it now.”
He said the department could not let the sugary beverages market carry on while it had an adverse effect on people’s lives.
“People will get healthier from the taxation and they can spend the money they were spending on sugary beverages elsewhere. That will create jobs,” Freeman added.
Little Green Beverages director Glenn Sheppard believed the government was using the tax as a way to get more funding for the Treasury rather than to protect South Africans against obesity and other health risks.
“What they are saying is that people can eat all the cake they want, all the ice cream they want and all the chocolates they want. How will that lower the obesity rate?”
Sheppard said the government had not done a social impact study to determine how people would be affected.
“The tax is immoral. It is economic suicide and there are definitely better ways of achieving health benefits.”
@Nthabs_Moriri
THE STAR