Nutritious food a human right
IMBIZO: WHAT IT MEANS IN PRACTICE IN SOUTH AFRICA
ConCourt rules state must provide for children.
Even before the pandemic and recent global rise in food prices, millions of South Africans were hungry. In 2019, nearly 18% of households could not access enough nutritious food for a healthy and productive life.
Child stunting remains stubbornly high, affecting 27% of children under five (double the global average). And 10% of children are either wasted (thin for their height) or underweight. At the same time, overweight and obesity rates are increasing, affecting 68% of women and 31% of men.
Obesity and stunting are linked, and are often found in the same households, as both result from not being able to access the right kinds of (nutritious) food.
In SA, the right to food is enshrined in the constitution, which states “everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water”. Section 28 recognises the right to food for children.
Until recently no case related to the right had been brought to the Constitutional Court.
This changed in mid-2020 when the nongovernmental organisation Equal Education and public interest group Section27, together with two Limpopo school governing bodies, won a case, forcing the department of basic education to resume the national school nutrition programme for nine million pupils around the country.
The case is significant as the question of hunger is now on the list of socioeconomic rights recognised under the law in SA.
According to Baone Twala from Section27, speaking at an online food imbizo, the landmark court case helps flesh out what the constitutional right to food means in practice in SA.
First, the right to basic nutrition for children is unqualified. The state must provide in circumstances where parents and caregivers are unable to.
The national school nutrition programme is a component of the right to basic education – food gives the child the mental ability to focus.
The right to basic nutrition for children is self-standing and independent of the right to education. The right to food exists whether or not a child is in school, and the state has a duty to fulfil that right.
Removing a pre-existing right (like cancelling the school nutrition programme) is a retrogressive measure, and can only be implemented under very specific circumstances. When it comes to children, this should be the very last measure that is taken.