In April 2023, the National Department of Health published Draft Regulation R3337, proposing changes to the way foodstuffs are labelled and advertised in South Africa, including the introduction of prominent front-of-pack warning labels on certain products high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat.

More than three years later, South Africans are still waiting for these regulations to reach the finish line.

Three years is a considerable period in public policy, particularly when the policy in question concerns a preventable contributor to the country’s growing burden of non-communicable disease. During this time, the evidence supporting clearer food labelling has continued to grow internationally, while South Africa’s proposed regulations have remained caught in a lengthy process of consultation and negotiation.

The country now needs to move from deliberation to implementation.

We have been debating this for long enough

The case for front-of-pack warning labels did not begin with the publication of R3337. South African researchers have spent years examining how consumers understand nutrition information, which warning-label designs are most effective and how such measures could work within the South African food environment.

The proposed system has therefore emerged from a substantial body of local research, public consultation and policy development rather than being an intervention introduced without consideration of its potential consequences.

There is also considerable international experience to draw upon. Countries including Chile, Mexico and Argentina have introduced front-of-pack warning labels, while the World Health Organization has recognised interpretive front-of-pack labelling as an important policy measure for helping consumers identify products with excessive amounts of nutrients of concern.

Evidence from countries that have implemented these systems indicates that warning labels can improve consumers’ understanding of the nutritional quality of products and can create incentives for manufacturers to reformulate products to avoid receiving warnings.

South Africa should continue to consider legitimate questions about how the regulations will operate in practice. However, after years of research, consultation and policy development, the central issue should now be how the regulations can be implemented effectively rather than whether the country should continue debating the principle of clearer food labelling.

NEDLAC must help decisions move forward

This is where the current process involving the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) becomes particularly important. NEDLAC has an important constitutional and institutional role in South Africa’s system of social dialogue, bringing together government, organised business, organised labour and community constituencies to consider policies with significant socio-economic implications.

Meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders is an important part of good policymaking, particularly where regulation may have economic and commercial consequences.

However, consultation is ultimately intended to improve decision-making. It should not become a mechanism through which decisions are indefinitely postponed.

NEDLAC’s own protocol for the tabling of matters recognises the importance of concluding its processes within a reasonable period. The protocol indicates that, unless a matter is exceptionally complex, the NEDLAC process should ordinarily be completed within six months.

This does not mean that complex policy questions can or should be rushed. It does, however, establish an important principle, in that social dialogue should have a reasonable endpoint.

R3337 has already been under consideration for substantially longer than that period since its publication in 2023. If the regulations are now before NEDLAC, this process should be used to address outstanding issues and enable government to make a final decision. It should not become another stage at which an already lengthy policy process is allowed to drift without resolution.

Delay has consequences for public health

The consequences of delay should also be considered in the context of South Africa’s health burden. The country faces high levels of obesity, hypertension, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases, with unhealthy diets contributing to this burden.

Government therefore has a legitimate public health interest in creating a food environment in which consumers can more easily understand the products available to them and in which manufacturers have incentives to improve the nutritional quality of those products.

Front-of-pack warning labels are not a solution to every problem within the food system, and they should not be presented as one. They are, however, one evidence-based measure within a broader package of interventions aimed at improving diets and reducing exposure to unhealthy food environments.

The argument that consumers can simply consult the existing nutrition information on the back of a package also overlooks the purpose of interpretive labelling. Consumers make purchasing decisions quickly, often while navigating a large number of products and competing marketing messages.

Nutrition information that requires considerable time or nutritional knowledge to interpret does not provide the same form of information as a clear warning displayed prominently on the front of a package. Public policy has a role in ensuring that important information is accessible at the point where decisions are made.

Government must now make a decision

The responsibility for bringing R3337 through its final stages ultimately rests with government. Legitimate concerns raised by business and other stakeholders should be considered, but consultation must ultimately lead to a decision.

After three years of research, public engagement and policy deliberation, South Africans should not be left waiting indefinitely while the regulations move through one procedural stage after another.

A public countdown is now calling on the Minister of Health to approve R3337 by 10 December 2026. This deadline provides a clear opportunity for government to demonstrate that evidence-based public health policy can move from consultation to implementation.

NEDLAC has an important role in facilitating social dialogue, but it should not become a place where health resolutions go to die. South Africans have waited three years for stronger protection from an unhealthy food environment. The evidence has been considered. The stakeholders have been heard. Now government must act.