Alcohol causes many social problems, requiring the revival of the Liquor Amendment Bill.
The liquor industry’s resistance to reforms and public health measures aimed at curbing South Africa’s high alcohol consumption reveals a deep divide between corporate interests and the public good.
A new study published in Globalisation and Health sheds fresh light on how the industry flexed its financial and political muscle at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) to protect its profits with little regard for the devastating effect of alcohol on society.
First released for public comment in 2016, the Liquor Amendment Bill proposed several changes: raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising, sponsorships and promotions, as well as limiting sales within 500 metres of schools and places of worship.
Researchers analysing Nedlac’s meeting records on the Bill found that the industry exercised “regulatory capture” by flooding committees with representatives, punting self-regulation over public policy interventions and using financial leverage to keep the Bill from reaching parliament. Community representation at these meetings was woefully low or absent compared with that of business, government and labour.
As part of these stalling tactics, industry giants such as Heineken and AB InBev commissioned two socio-economic impact studies of the Bill. One of these assessments discredited the conclusions of the government-initiated study that showed clear public health benefits from tighter regulation.
While Nedlac concluded discussions on the Bill some years ago, it still hasn’t reached parliament, and there is no indication by the department of trade, industry and competition of when this will happen.
These revelations about the alcohol industry’s strong objections to some of the proposed changes in the bill are sobering. South Africa has among the highest rates of alcohol consumption in the world. A 2019 Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) study, based on a sample of 3500 adolescents, found that nearly 70% of young people between the ages of 11 and 18 had already consumed alcohol. Most had tasted their first drink at the ages of 13 and 14.
The Soul City Institute’s 2017 study found that school-aged youths were bombarded with alcohol advertising from billboards and TV. Outlet density is also a major concern. In the same study, Atteridgeville, home to 60,000 according to the 2011 census, had no less than 147 taverns.
Evidence suggests a direct link: the more alcohol outlets in an area, the greater the risk of early initiation to alcohol. This is especially true for poor communities with limited social infrastructure to keep young people engaged and connected.
Sobering as they are, the industry’s actions are hardly surprising.
These tactics are part of the industry’s playbook globally. According to a report called From Sports to Screens – Exposing Big Alcohol’s Predatory Practices in 2024, the industry employs strategies such as targeted adverts for people seeking online help with alcohol dependence; marketing 0% alcohol drinks to gain a foothold in spaces where alcohol consumption is not the norm; sponsoring major sporting events; and courting politicians to enact laws in the industry’s interests.
Despite the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) efforts to promote evidence-based policies to reduce alcohol harms, the industry often disregards its recommendations. A striking example is the growing trend of alcohol sold in larger containers, like the one-litre beer, despite the WHO’s explicit warnings against this.
These predatory practices are not new. In our country, alcohol has long been entangled with racist oppression and economic dispossession. Black women who flocked to the cities searching for independent incomes after mining and manufacturing uprooted men from all over Southern Africa established independent livelihoods selling skokiaan or utywala. These activities flourished under the watchful eye of a state that criminalised black people for consuming the “white man’s liquor”.
But this independence was short-lived. The state soon clamped down, creating a municipal monopoly on the sale of sorghum beer. Municipal beer halls — perched conveniently along major train stations — became symbols of control and exploitation. It was no accident that the municipal beer halls became targets of the wrath of the 1976 youth.
The wine industry, too, carries this bitter legacy. The notorious dop system — a labour regime that compensated workers with cheap wine — directly contributed to alcoholism in farming communities across the Western and Northern Capes.
This imbrication of alcohol and racial domination is also a global story. A recent book by political scientist Mark Lawrence Schrad, Smashing the Liquor Machine: A Global History of Prohibition, contests the idea that the prohibition movements of 19th and 20th century America were exclusive domains of white supremacists.
At the forefront of these movements, he argues, were those who bore the brunt of ordinary people’s subservience to a lethal substance — women, native Americans and black people. Far from being moral crusades against sin, these movements emerged as a response to predatory capitalism.
Yet these revelations of regulatory capture barely caused a public storm. Why?
One possibility is that there is political fatigue around the issue. The Young Communist League, which earned the ire of liquor traders in the 2000s by calling for the closure of shebeens near schools, has long abandoned the issue. The ANC Youth League no longer campaigns against glamourising alcohol through deceptive adverts. And although the Economic Freedom Fighters’ early legislative efforts included a private member’s Bill to ban alcohol advertising, some of its provincial structures are now cosying up to the liquor industry.
The second possibility is that there is no cohesion in government about what needs to be done to address alcohol harms, with fierce contestation over concerns about jobs and trade versus public health and broader social impacts.
The third could be the industry’s success in framing excessive alcohol consumption as a personal issue, solved by “responsible drinking”, rather than a clash between public good and global corporate power.
Even so, encouraging efforts are taking shape to challenge the status quo. Among those pushing back against the power of the predatory industry is the jazz collective iPhupho L’Ka Biko, whose Amanzi Sessions create space to challenge ritualised alcohol consumption. Sonke Gender Justice’s work highlights the link between alcohol and domestic violence, while DG Murray Trust’s “rethink your drink” campaign continues to call for a shift in national policy.
To succeed in reining in the alcohol industry, membership-based organisations with a nationwide presence, such as trade unions and political parties, must step up to loosen the industry’s grip on policy. A good step forward would be to pressure the government to revive the Liquor Amendment Bill.
Phindile Kunene is an activist, political educator and head of democracy and political culture at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. She writes in her personal capacity.
Discussion about this post