- Heala.org’s ad stated that sugar drinks harm health, without specifying amounts or frequency.
- The ARB ruled these statements were misleading health claims under advertising rules.
- The appeal was dismissed, setting a clear standard against misleading health claims in public ads.
South Africa’s top ad regulator has ended a high-profile dispute over misleading health claims. On 29 September 2025, the Advertising Regulatory Board’s (ARB) Final Appeals Committee ruled against Heala.org’s sugar ad for crossing the line from awareness to alarmism.
The ad, translated from Afrikaans for review, claimed, “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.”
Heala.org’s advocacy arguments and public health mission
In appealing the initial ruling, Heala.org had said the advertisement simply urges South Africans to be mindful of what they eat, especially foods high in sugar, salt, saturated fats, and sweeteners, which can increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and other non-communicable diseases.
“This case is important because it will determine whether organisations such as Heala.org can continue to run evidence-based public health campaigns without being unfairly restricted by advertising rules. It affects how civil society can raise awareness about diet-related diseases, such as obesity and diabetes, and advocate for policies like a stronger Health Promotion Levy,” its CEO, Nzama Mbalati, said at the time.
“The appeal also raises key questions about freedom of expression, association, and the right to food and health, while setting an important precedent for non-commercial, advocacy-focused campaigns in South Africa.”
The organisation said the public should be made aware of how industry players often try to block life-saving policies through tactics such as the one outlined above. “We also believe that people have the right to understand the grounds of this case, as our mission is to inform and educate South African consumers.”
Consumer complaint and regulatory response
In October 2024, Heala.org ran a campaign calling for a stronger Health Promotion Levy (the tax on sugary drinks). A consumer lodged a complaint claiming that his daughter was distressed after hearing the advertisement. He argued that the advert wrongly implied that drinking sugary drinks will definitely cause serious illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes, and that the advertisement therefore amounted to misleading health claims.
The ARB’s Directorate and Appeals Committee found the ad in breach of Clause 4.2.1 of the Code of Advertising Practice, which bans misleading health claims. Heala.org argued on appeal that its ad was meant as advocacy, not a literal statement of fact, and tried to add missing qualifications, like “excessive” or “regular” consumption, after the fact. But the Committee was clear that those crucial details weren’t in the ad, so the message was misleading.
Science needs context, and so do ads
Heala.org pointed to scientific studies, but the Committee saw a contradiction that you can’t claim your ad is just advocacy and also say it’s a scientifically proven fact. Even if the science shows a link between sugar and disease, the ad’s sweeping, unqualified language amounted to misleading health claims.
Heala.org also questioned whether the ARB had authority over it, but the Committee confirmed its jurisdiction. The Committee explained that the ARB has authority over members of the advertising industry because its members agree to comply with the Board’s decisions, including directives not to display certain ads. Since Heala.org had agreed to be bound by these rules, it could not dispute the ARB’s authority after the fact.
Consumer protection takes the win
Judge B M Ngoepe, writing for the Committee, concluded the ad was a statement of fact, not opinion, and didn’t give the public the full picture. Even the World Health Organization says moderate sugar intake is acceptable, but the ad ignored this key nuance.
The appeal was dismissed. The original complainant, Nico Erasmus, did not appear at the hearing, but the outcome sets a new benchmark for what counts as misleading health claims in South African advertising.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
