SAHRC on impact of pesticides on public health & environment; OBP GMP status; Animal Welfare Laws; Separation of Department; Citrus farms in E Cape; with Ministry

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

Overview of meeting agenda

The Chairperson said the day's agenda was lengthy due to the rescheduling of the Minister's engagement from the previous week. While the Committee had received multiple presentations from the Department, the focus today was on updates, rather than lengthy reports. The aim was to ensure that discussions were efficient and time was well managed.

One of the key updates requested from the Minister concerned the investigation into pesticide-contaminated food products from spaza shops, which had resulted in several deaths. The Minister had previously committed to reporting on the findings, and the Committee now sought clarity on the outcome of the investigation, as well as any regulatory measures implemented to prevent further misuse of restricted pesticides.

Another matter requiring an update was the separation of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development. While two separate ministries now existed, the Department remained unified under one budget and director-general. The Committee needed clarity on whether the separation process had commenced, how far it had progressed, and what implications it had for the Department’s strategic planning, particularly for the 2025/26 financial year.

The Committee also required an update on the status of Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP) and its Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) facility. Previous engagements with OBP had raised concerns about vaccine availability and governance issues. The OBP board had indicated that it was awaiting ministerial approval to proceed with appointing a principal agent for the GMP facility. Given concerns about delays, the Committee expected the Minister to confirm whether the approval had been granted and to provide insight into any remaining obstacles.

Another pressing issue was the ongoing concerns raised by Agricultural Assistant Practitioners (AAPs). The Committee had received complaints from AAPs regarding high unemployment rates among agricultural graduates and their difficulties in engaging with the Department. Despite the Department previously reporting that it had addressed these concerns, AAPs claim they had not received any meaningful responses since their contracts ended in July 2023. The Committee expected an update on what steps had been taken since the last meeting, and insisted that both the Minister and Deputy Minister be copied in future responses to ensure accountability.

The Committee had also received reports that bursaries for agricultural colleges for 2024 had not yet been paid. If these payments had been made, the Department was expected to provide an update today.

Following the Minister’s responses, the Committee would proceed with three presentations. The South African Human Rights Commission would present on pesticides and food safety, following up on last week’s engagement with Professor Kristen. The Animal Law Project would also present on animal welfare and the development of the Animal Welfare Bill, following a request from the previous year. The final presentation would focus on the Department’s engagement with Mr A Trollip, Action SA Committee Member, regarding Eastern Cape citrus farmers, a matter that was raised in last week’s meeting.

Before concluding, the Committee would address in-house matters, including programme proposals and correspondence. One key item was a request from the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) to present its findings on gender-based violence (GBV) and broader conditions in the agricultural sector. Their research covered critical issues affecting workers on farms, and the Committee would consider scheduling their presentation in the coming weeks. The Chairperson emphasised the need for concise presentations, as Members have already reviewed the documents in advance. The Minister was welcomed for his engagement.

Minister's opening remarks

Mr John Steenhuisen, Minister of Agriculture, greeted the Committee, wished them a successful year in agriculture, and acknowledged the agenda. He clarified that while he had been personally involved in the OBP matter, the Department’s separation was managed by the Forum of South African Directors-General (FOSAD) and technical committees, not the Ministers. The Director-General (DG) and responsible officials would provide detailed updates on both the Department’s separation and the investigation into pesticide-contaminated food.

Regarding OBP, he outlined a timeline. On 8 October, he reviewed the shareholder agreement, found gaps in accountability, and requested revisions. The Department had submitted a redrafted version with added clauses on availability, partnerships, quarterly reporting on disciplinary matters, and audit progress. OBP later proposed changes, adding strategic objectives for product availability and infrastructure. He had approved these changes, and the agreement was sent for final legal review.

On the GMP facility, he acknowledged prior delays and confirmed the process must restart due to a legal dispute with the former contractor. The new principal agent appointment has been approved, with recommendations to involve Infrastructure South Africa (ISA). He emphasised ownership retention of all plans and intellectual property. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigation had stalled since 2022, with required documents never submitted. The current board has compiled an interim report, with the final report expected soon.

Regarding equipment updates, including progress on the freeze dryer, installation was ongoing. The new unit would be operational by September 2025, while a pilot production run would begin in March 2025. A water plant maintenance programme was also in place. The Minister had been assured these steps would improve product availability.

Once the legal review of the shareholder compact was complete, it would be signed, establishing oversight mechanisms for the year. The Minister then deferred to the DG for an update on the Department’s separation, confirming that the process was progressing well and on track for completion at the official level.

Progress on Department's separation

Mr Mooketsa Ramasodi, DG, briefed the Committee on the progress regarding the separation of the Department of Agriculture, and Land Reform and Rural Development. A report has been shared, summarising the key developments. Following the President’s announcement, the Department initiated a process to establish a temporary structure, engaging executive leadership, Ministers, and administrative officials. While the separation was seen as an opportunity, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had advised that only existing personnel should be considered in the initial phase.

Challenges had arisen, particularly within agriculture, where the absence of a dedicated Deputy Director-General (DDG) for Corporate Services and a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at the required level was flagged. To address this, the DPSA had committed to providing a funded structure within six months after 1 April, though this interim period would require temporary measures for functionality.

The personnel split had seen Land Reform & Rural Development retaining 60% of the employees, with Agriculture having just over 2 100 staff and 370 vacancies to be filled. Budget allocations were still being finalised, but initial estimates suggested a 55:45 funding split. Agriculture’s share of approximately R8 billion would have to be carefully balanced to address key needs such as inspection services, compliance, and disease outbreak management.

The strategic plan for both Departments had commenced, with Agriculture’s strategy reviewed and guided by the Minister and Deputy Minister. Draft strategic plans were submitted to the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), receiving positive feedback, though minor refinements were needed before finalisation. The Minister would provide a foreword, and commitments would be aligned with the final budget from National Treasury.

Minister Steenhuisen acknowledged the challenge of securing sufficient resources while operating within a tight fiscal environment. He emphasised the importance of balancing priorities, and noted that efforts were ongoing to secure additional funding, including at an upcoming Cabinet meeting. The discussion then shifted to pesticide-related concerns, with a technical head from the Department providing an update.

Actions taken since pesticide contamination outbreak

Mr Jonathan Mudzunga: Chief Director: Inspection and Quarantine Services and Registrar of the Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947 (Act No. 36 of 1947) in the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), provided an update on actions taken since the pesticide contamination outbreak.

He detailed the Department's role in pesticide management, emphasising the legislation around highly hazardous pesticides, including Terbofos. He discussed regulatory measures introduced in 2023 and actions taken following the President’s directive to prevent further exposures.

The Department had identified a small group of hazardous pesticides still in use. Those linked to cancer, genetic mutations, and reproductive harm were banned, while others were restricted to professional applicators. A new regulatory framework required manufacturers to maintain sales records, label products properly, and ensure user training.

Terbofos, an organophosphate used mainly for maise and potatoes, was also found in illegal rat control. Studies had linked it to poisoning incidents. In response, the Department removed illegal pesticides from the streets, conducted tests, and raised public awareness.

Investigations had revealed manufacturer and distributor non-compliance in training, record-keeping, labelling, and sales. Some were ordered to suspend sales until compliant. Efforts to track illicit supply chains had been inconclusive.

Since Terbofos was banned in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, weak access control by manufacturers and distributors has been identified as a major risk. The investigation continued to determine regulatory failures. Looking ahead, the Department had considered reviewing Terbofos regulations, as was done with Aldicarb, due to recurring incidents, with a commitment to phasing out highly hazardous pesticides by 2035, strengthening regulations and enforcement remained a priority.

Minister Steenhuisen said there was a global shift away from harmful pesticides and fertilisers, with a stronger focus on improving soil quality. He had recently returned from the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA) in Berlin and the signing of the Kampala Declaration, which outlined Africa’s agricultural plan for the next decade under the African Union's (AU’s) guidance. The discussions centred on helping farmers transition to more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices.

He said that while regenerative farming and safer fertilisers protected soil health, they were expensive. Smaller-scale and subsistence farmers relied on current products because they boosted yields, so switching to new methods would take time. The challenge was finding ways to support them through the temporary drop in yield that came with transitioning.

He said both the GFFA and AU were working on solutions, including incentives and value chain support, to help farmers make the shift. He added that, like renewable energy, eco-friendly agricultural products may become more affordable as demand grows, making sustainable farming more accessible in the future.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

The Chairperson asked why South Africa continued using Terbofos despite its known dangers and multiple deaths, especially among young people. She pointed out that SADC countries, the European Union (EU), and other regions have banned it, yet South Africa still imports and uses it.

She also challenged the Department’s enforcement, asking how manufacturers were monitored and why non-compliant companies were only now being stopped. If studies over a decade ago had confirmed its hazards, she asked why it had not been banned.

Minister Steenhuisen acknowledged the question's importance, and explained that while Terbofos was highly effective, its transition must be managed carefully. He pointed out that major agricultural producers like the U.S. still used it due to its effectiveness, and an immediate ban could lead to crop failures, food shortages, and export issues.

He said that a review process had begun, with a goal to phase out hazardous pesticides by 2035. However, transitioning required education, alternative solutions, and industry cooperation, similar to the phased removal of Aldicarb in 2016.

Minister Steenhuisen also noted growing international pressure, particularly from the EU, which was enforcing stricter sourcing standards. He assured the Committee that South Africa would move towards eliminating harmful pesticides, but only through a structured, sector-wide approach with strict regulations for any remaining use.

Mr A Trollip (Action SA) asked the Minister about the feedback on the OBP process, particularly regarding the need to restart due to a dispute and the withdrawal of scoping documents by contractors. He questioned why the issue had not been addressed earlier, as it did not seem to involve new science, and asked about the cost implications of having to go back to scratch.

He also asked about the timeline for phasing out highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs). He noted a contradiction between the presentation, which stated that HHPs would be banned by June 2025, and the conclusion, which indicated a phased removal until 2035. He asked why there was such a significant difference in the timelines, and sought clarification.

He asked how contravention notices were issued to manufacturers when the authorities could not trace the source of the products. He highlighted the black market use of Terbofos and other unregistered applications, such as killing vermin and pests, which had led to incidents, including a recent death in Nelson Mandela Bay where a child had consumed a product from domestic refuse. He pointed out that these products were often not scented, making them more dangerous.

Mr Trollip expressed concern about the lack of immediate action against unlicensed use, and asked why there was a delay of ten years before banning or restricting these substances.

Mr K Madlala (MK) expressed concern about the situation, and asked the Minister to find alternatives for the harmful pesticides as soon as possible, stressing the urgency of the matter and the harm it was causing to the people of South Africa. He emphasised that waiting too long was not an option.

Mr A Mngxitama (MK) raised two points. First, he asked if the Minister had raised the issue of reparations for the victims of pesticide-related deaths during the inter-ministerial meeting, and what the response had been. He emphasised the state’s responsibility to protect citizens and expressed worry about the delayed timeline for banning the harmful products, questioning whether the Committee was truly prioritising lives over profits. He called for the immediate banning of harmful pesticides and for alternative solutions to be found.

Mr W Aucamp (DA) had questions about the OBP. He asked for clarification on when the freeze trial would be fully functional and in production. He also asked for a timeframe on the appointment of a principal agent, as well as when the required budget for the project would be available. He wanted to know how much leftover funding from the project remained, and how close the OBP was to reaching the R2 billion budget they had indicated.

Mr R Cebekhulu (IFP) also raised concerns about the use of pesticides in informal markets, particularly by street vendors, which had led to incidents of poisoning. He suggested that the Minister liaise with other departments to address the issue of illegal street use. Additionally, he noted the lack of protective gear for farm workers using pesticides. He urged the Department to work with relevant authorities to ensure that farm workers were protected and that inspectors visit farms to advise on proper safety measures.

Department's response

Minister Steenhuisen responded to the concerns raised. Regarding the issue of going back to scratch, he acknowledged the frustration and explained that the original process was before their time. While agreeing that it was careless not to secure intellectual property, he said the matter was currently under legal dispute between the Department and contractors. However, they have since implemented a new process where intellectual property from the staged approach remained with OBP. The Minister stressed the need for accountability and monitoring to avoid repeating past mistakes. He also highlighted that the banning of Aldicarb in 2016 followed a similar process to the proposed ban of Terbofos, which would undergo a review and involve the agricultural sector in finding alternatives. The Minister emphasised the importance of not rushing the process to avoid crop failures and illegal use of pesticides.

He said the issue of who should pay for reparations was still under discussion. It could be the municipality, the Department of Agriculture, or the national government. They would receive feedback on this matter in an upcoming follow-up meeting, but as with licensed firearms, the state could not be held liable if the substance was misused or improperly handled. However, he agreed that support for affected families should be considered and was part of the ongoing discussions.

Regarding the OBP, the Minister confirmed that the freeze trial was expected to be online and operational by September 2025. He also acknowledged that accurate costing could not be determined until a principal agent was appointed to provide scoping for the project. Once the principal agent was in place, the process would move forward to determine the budget and secure funding. He agreed on the urgency of the matter, and gave an assurance that the Department was determined to get the OBP up and running due to its importance in the field of agriculture and health.

He noted the need to move carefully and avoid sudden shocks in the agricultural sector, and highlighted that international pressure was pushing for regenerative agricultural practices that protect soil health. Transitioning to these practices must be carefully planned to avoid yield drops and ensure long-term benefits for farmers.

The Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ms Rosemary Capa, agreed with the Committee Members who thought the proposed approach might delay action against harmful chemicals. However, she said the bigger issue was the lack of regulation and control over health hazards. She mentioned that some harmful chemicals had been smuggled into the country and had ended up in the hands of untrained people, which was dangerous. She also highlighted the risks posed by substances sold on the black market for household pests.

She said that there needed to be stronger enforcement and health inspections to ensure food safety and proper handling of chemicals. She called for faster conversations and clear timelines to implement regulations. While she agreed that action should be quick, she emphasised the importance of involving farmers and their representatives to find alternatives.

The Deputy Minister also mentioned the challenges farmers faced due to climate change, such as storms, floods and wildfires. She said these events harmed farming communities, and that skilled agricultural professionals were needed to help farmers. However, she expressed concern about placing newly trained people in positions where they did not have enough support or experience.

She said agriculture needed to be professionalised, with experienced professionals in key roles. While she supported efforts to address the issue, she was doubtful about the idea of placing non-professionals in roles where they could not properly support farmers. She called for further discussion on this matter to protect farmers and the community.

 

Follow up questions

The Chairperson asked what had caused agriculture to be allocated a smaller portion of the budget compared to other sectors. She wanted to understand why the Department of Agriculture was in this challenging position, and whether the budget reflected the Department's responsibilities in land management versus other areas. She also expressed concern about whether the Minister of Finance would be able to address the financial needs of the Department.

Mr Trollip raised a question regarding the responsibility for the intellectual property loss and financial mismanagement of the Department before the current Minister and Deputy Minister took office. He questioned whether there had been consequences for the officials who had allowed the loss of intellectual property and wasted taxpayers' money. He also wanted to know how the Department planned to address these lapses in accountability.

Inkosi Cebekhulu asked about the responsibility for educating farmers on proper pesticide use, specifically regarding where responsibility should lie for assisting farmers when they purchase chemicals. He asked whether the Department or another body should take charge of educating farmers on safe chemical practices.

The Chairperson referred to the presentation that had mentioned starting community awareness programmes. She asked what kind of awareness initiatives had been started and whether they were yielding positive results.

She raised concerns about the Department of Education's role in regulating food sold outside schools, especially in relation to unhealthy food items such as chips sold by vendors near schools. She asked whether the Minister had discussed this issue with the Minister of Education, and why the Department of Education continued to allow unregulated food sales, which could be harmful to students. She suggested this might need attention from the education portfolio Committee.

 

Follow up responses

Deputy Minister Capa explained that food safety and pesticide use were handled by the social services cluster, with different ministries working together. The Department of Health played a key role in health promotion, and these issues were discussed in inter-ministerial meetings to ensure shared responsibility.

Mr Mudzunga spoke about highly hazardous pesticides, noting that some were still allowed in South Africa and other countries. There were two types of HHPs -- those that would be banned by 2025 due to serious health risks, like cancer and birth defects, and others that could not be banned immediately due to international trade rules, such as methyl bromide, which some countries needed for fumigation.

Regarding Terbofos, the Department was reviewing the risks. If the risks of a pesticide became too great, the Department would take action. A phased-out approach would be used to allow for the proper removal of products already in circulation.

He said the Department regulates manufacturers to ensure compliance. If they do not meet standards, corrective actions are taken. Illegal street sales were harder to control, but the South African Police Service (SAPS) works with the Department to conduct raids and seize illegal products.

Mr Mudzunga clarified that South Africa aimed to phase out HHPs by 2025 and 2035. While banning them completely was not always possible, phase-outs would happen gradually, when safer alternatives were available.

The Department conducted awareness campaigns during raids to inform the public about dangerous products, but there was no formal media campaign yet.

Mr Dipepeneneng Serage, Acting Deputy Director-General (DDG): Agriculture Production, Health and Food Safety, said that agricultural support followed legal mandates and funding, with no bias.

Regarding governance, each entity, like OBP, had an accounting officer responsible for finances. The Department gave advice, but the board and CEO were ultimately accountable.

The Chairperson recalled issues at OBP, where the former CEO had resigned without facing consequences. Legal challenges made accountability difficult. The board had been replaced in November 2023, and the CFO had left before an oversight visit.

Concerns had been raised about officials leaving troubled entities and being rehired without accountability. Legal reforms were needed. The Chairperson also asked for updates on AAPs, noting time constraints due to a Human Rights Commission presentation.

Minister Steenhuisen acknowledged the 65% youth unemployment rate and the need for job creation. However, the promise to hire 10 000 Agricultural Assistant Practitioners was unfunded, so the Department did not have the budget for it. Hiring all 10 000 would take up the entire budget, so he urged the Committee to ask the Minister of Finance for more funding.

The Minister also mentioned that pesticide-related deaths were not new, referring to a 1984 inquiry. The Department followed international best practices to reduce risks.

Regarding OBP, he expressed concern about mismanagement. After taking office, he found that no formal investigation had been conducted. OBP was now working with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), and a report had been expected by 31 January. The SIU could recover costs, even from former employees.

Mr Mngxitama acknowledged the update, but stressed the importance of addressing the 10 000 AAPs. He suggested they could be absorbed into the President’s Youth Employment Programme.

Deputy Minister Capa assured Members that the government was working on the issue. She shared a success story of a graduate who was placed in a business support program. Financial constraints were still a challenge, but discussions on solutions would continue.

The Minister acknowledged the need to bring together public job programmes across departments. The Minister of Labour was working on this, and further discussions would follow.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and team for the updates, especially regarding OBP, and expressed hope that funding for the AAPs would be secured. The Committee would continue monitoring OBP's progress. The meeting was adjourned for the presentation from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).

SAHRC on impact of the use of pesticides on public health and the environment.

Ms Thenjiswa Nxumalo presented on the ongoing challenges with pesticides and their impact on public health and the environment. She emphasised the long-term health complications that arise from incorrect pesticide use and exposure, especially in communities where people lack proper training. She pointed out that Terbofos, though banned in other countries, had not been banned in South Africa, and it was one of the substances found in the investigations linked to fatalities, as reported by the President and the Minister of Health.

She also discussed the issue of environmental racism, stating that historically, environmental risks were deliberately targeted at low-income, marginalised groups, particularly in informal settlements and farm areas where previously disadvantaged people lived. She referred to a report by the UN special rapporteur, Dr Marcos Orellana, who had highlighted how inadequate sanitation services in these areas led to pest infestations, forcing people to use harmful pesticides like Terbofos.

She mentioned a petition submitted to the Minister of Agriculture in December 2024 by civil society, calling for a ban on pesticides due to their harmful effects. She also advocated regenerative agriculture, which works with nature to improve soil health, biodiversity, and water cycles. She stressed the importance of community involvement in decision-making and raising awareness about the dangers of pesticide use.

She called for policy change, urging the government to review pesticide regulations and implement policies that protect public health and the environment. She also pointed out that many regions have banned Terbofos, and South Africa's continued use of it damages the country’s international reputation.

In conclusion, she called for the South African government to take decisive action by banning Terbofos, enforcing strict food safety regulations, and investing in safer, sustainable farming practices. She ended with a quote from environmental activist Vandana Shiva: "Pesticides are not just a threat to the environment, but to the very rights of farmers and communities to live freely and safely.

See attached for full presentation

 Discussion

Mr Trollip raised a few important issues. He first pointed out the serious problem of water contamination caused by pesticides leaching into water supplies, which affects both water safety and security. He also mentioned that dysfunctional wastewater treatment plants were a major source of contamination, putting both the public and export markets at risk of E coli and other harmful diseases.

He also discussed racial discrimination in pesticide regulation. He said that while products for export must meet global standards, such as Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), which include rules for pesticide use, there were fewer regulations for the domestic market. He explained that in informal farming, people often lacked the knowledge and guidance on how to use pesticides safely. He gave an example where the recommended dosage of a pesticide was 10 ml per litre, but people sometimes used 20 ml per litre to make it stronger, which could be harmful. He asked the Minister for clarity on the petition to ban certain pesticides, pointing out that the petition had already been submitted, and requested information on the legal process involved.

Mr Mngxitama expressed frustration over the delay in taking action on harmful pesticides. He said the community already knew the damage these pesticides cause, and stressed that the issue should not be delayed until 2036. Civil society had already submitted a petition to the government, and he urged immediate action to remove the harmful pesticides. He concluded by saying that the community needed clear answers to ensure their safety.

The Chairperson acknowledged the Human Rights Commission’s strong stance on banning HHPs. She stressed the importance of having the Minister present, and thanked the Commission for sharing its perspective. She also raised concerns about the Commission’s findings, which showed how pesticide exposure affected people, especially farm workers who were not provided with proper protective gear or facilities to clean up after using pesticides. She pointed out that workers often went home carrying the chemicals, which could then affect their families. She said that the impact went beyond the workers themselves, harming entire communities, particularly in areas where people lived in crowded conditions and lacked resources.

She asked the Department what steps they were taking to address these issues, noting that the presentation suggested a failure to follow safety protocols. While the Department had regulations for pesticide use and worker training, she questioned why the Department’s actions did not seem to align with the findings presented by the Commission.

Lastly, the Chairperson expressed her concern about the disproportionate impact on women, particularly those working on farms. She pointed out that women played a central role in family well-being, managing households and caring for children. If the environment was harmed by pesticide use, it affected not only the women working on farms, but also their families. Many women came from households with large numbers of people, meaning that pesticide exposure could affect entire communities. She called on the Department to take stronger action to ensure farmers follow regulations and protect workers’ health and safety.

SAHRC's response

Ms Philile Ntuli, Commissioner, began by acknowledging the Chairperson’s comments regarding the contamination of water sources, agreeing that this was a significant issue, particularly in farming communities. She highlighted that the use of pesticides led to contamination, which exacerbated the issue of water safety. She also pointed out the growing concern over why pesticides continued to be used in South Africa, and emphasised that she would address this in her response to Mr Mngxitama's question.

Referring to legislative compliance, she expressed concern about the tone of last week’s presentation, which seemed to defend large agricultural industries by suggesting that only small farmers failed to comply with regulations. She clarified that this was not the case, pointing out that big industries were still exposing farm workers and the environment to harmful pesticides despite complying with export regulations. Research, particularly in the Western Cape, had shown that large-scale farms lacked even basic facilities like toilets for workers, forcing women to relieve themselves in the fields, where they then became exposed to pesticides. Many farm workers were now suffering from cancer and neurological diseases, and due to the seasonal nature of their employment, they were often replaced by new workers, leaving their health issues unresolved.

Commissioner Ntuli said that while large industries may comply with export market regulations, they often fail to protect the human rights of workers who handle these hazardous chemicals. She called for a serious discussion on the consequences for farmers who put workers in such dangerous situations.

She said environmental racism was both a historical and current issue. She cited last year’s cases of children dying from foodborne illnesses, revealing that the victims came from impoverished communities, not from affluent areas. The cause of these deaths was linked to exposure to Terbofos, a harmful pesticide, which had been stored improperly by parents to kill rats. Children, in their curiosity, had come into contact with the pesticide and tragically died as a result. She referred to a study from 2010 to 2019, which found that 50% of children in the Western Cape suspected of dying from poisoning had been exposed to Terbofos.

Commissioner Ntuli criticised the state’s response to the issue, particularly the notion that South Africa lacked alternatives to pesticides and could not ban them immediately. She highlighted that this was not a new issue. As the Human Rights Commission, they were not advocating an overnight ban, but were questioning why government had not addressed this problem more proactively over the past decades. She pointed to South Africa's SADC neighbours and global partners, such as the EU, who had already successfully banned Terbofos. She questioned why the state had not followed suit after conducting research and reviewing trends in other countries.

She urged government to take immediate action and ban Terbofos, as the country already had the capacity to do so. She emphasised that continued inaction only benefited large industries and the economy, while farm workers and communities suffered. She called for the political will to address the issue swiftly, learning from countries that had already banned these harmful chemicals, and utilising the alternatives they had successfully implemented.

She appealed to the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the Portfolio Committee to join the SAHRC in advocating for the immediate ban of Terbofos and other HHPs. She stressed that this issue was not only a matter of public health, but also a fight against the history of environmental racism, which disproportionately affects certain communities.

The Chairperson expressed concern about why smaller countries could ban hazardous pesticides when South Africa struggled, especially given their known dangers. She emphasised that one life lost was enough to warrant action, and that one should not treat lives as numbers.

She referenced Professor Preston’s presentation, which clarified the difference between small-scale and commercial farmers. She commented that many children were not being exposed to pesticides from food bought at shops but from their own homes, as mothers unknowingly brought pesticide residues back from the farms.

She shared an experience where rural households unknowingly kept harmful pesticides, and stressed the urgency of addressing the issue to prevent widespread harm. She cited Professor Kirsten’s point that exports were safer than locally consumed products due to stricter regulations, questioning if the Department had the capacity to enforce the same for domestic products. She also raised concerns about non-compliance by pesticide manufacturers and distributors, and asked what this said about the Department’s ability to tackle the issues raised by the SAHRC.

Minister Steenhuisen responded to Mr Trollip's question about banning hazardous pesticides. He acknowledged receiving many petitions on various issues, including the ban of certain products, and emphasised that he had to balance competing interests when making decisions. As Minister of Agriculture, his primary responsibility was food security, ensuring citizens had access to nutritious food. He stressed the need to consider the long-term effects of banning pesticides, such as potential crop failures, job losses, and food shortages, especially given South Africa's fragile food security.

He also highlighted the need for consultation with various stakeholders, such as farmer organisations, to ensure a balanced approach. While committed to phasing out hazardous pesticides like Terbofos, he expressed concern about the immediate consequences of abrupt bans on small-scale farmers. He suggested a more gradual approach through review processes, and emphasised that agriculture must move toward more sustainable practices.

The Minister clarified that banning harmful pesticides must be done thoughtfully, considering both the risks to human health and the potential negative economic impact. He affirmed his commitment to food security and sustainable agriculture, noting that while the Department of Agriculture could not step into labour-related issues directly, Ms Nomakhosazana Meth, Minister of Employment and Labour, should oversee inspections of farms to ensure safe working conditions. He concluded by stressing the importance of taking a responsible, balanced approach to policy changes.

Mr Serage expressed concern about the initial approach to food safety discussions, particularly regarding the issue of Terbofos. He highlighted the importance of addressing food safety at a broader level, considering both scientific evidence and international standards, rather than focusing solely on smallholder farmers. He referred to the work of Professor Kirsten, who had pointed out challenges in food safety, especially regarding maximum residue levels in fresh produce markets.

He emphasised the need for a more coordinated approach to food safety, suggesting establishing a dedicated body similar to the Border Management Agency, to handle food safety issues comprehensively. He explained that food safety was a multi-level issue. There were standards and regulations on chemical residue levels at the international level, but at the national level, legislation was fragmented, which complicated coordination across departments.

He said that pest control measures should be balanced and based on scientific evidence, acknowledging that no single method -- whether political, mechanical, or integrated -- was entirely sufficient. He stressed the importance of responding to food safety concerns in a scientifically guided and balanced way. While acknowledging the need for action, he cautioned that policy decisions, such as banning certain products, must be approached carefully to avoid unintended negative consequences, as demonstrated by a previous case in Sri Lanka.

Mr Serage agreed with the Commission's recommendations on labour laws and protective gear for workers in the agricultural sector, and called for more advocacy and enforcement of these measures. He proposed further meetings with the SAHRC to address ongoing concerns and ensure a more coordinated, evidence-based approach to food safety.

The Chairperson addressed the issue of food security, pointing out a significant imbalance in the country. While South Africa may appear food secure at a national level, the majority of poor households were still facing food insecurity. She stressed that while food security issues might seem positive at the national level, the reality on the ground was different, especially for impoverished communities. There were children who went to school without food, relying on school meals, but faced hunger again once they returned home.

She acknowledged the balance the Minister had mentioned, but stressed that it was crucial not to overlook the struggles of these communities. The issue of banning hazardous pesticides had been raised with an understanding that such decisions could not be made overnight. However, she emphasised the need to give hope to the communities by taking action, recognising that responsibility lay not only with the agriculture ministry but with others, including education and labour.

She expressed a commitment to supporting the work of the Commission and the Department of Agriculture, while ensuring that decisions were made responsibly and with the best interest of the people in mind. She also reaffirmed the Committee's role in pushing for changes on behalf of the communities they represented.

Deputy Minister Capa highlighted the multiple challenges facing South Africa, emphasising the deep inequalities in the country that exacerbated these problems. She stressed the importance of approaching issues like food safety, health, and environmental concerns holistically, as these were interconnected. For example, poor hygiene practices, such as littering, were not just environmental issues but also human rights concerns. She called for a greater effort to educate and empower communities to take responsibility for their safety and health. She also pointed out the lack of accountability in some informal sectors, like street vendors, where food safety was a concern. She suggested a need for better regulations and consumer awareness.

She raised the issue of the decline in public awareness of hygiene practices since the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly handwashing, which she identified as a carrier of diseases. She also addressed the importance of maintaining clean environments to prevent the spread of infection and disease, stressing the need for a collective effort across all sectors, including through programmes like the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP).

On the issue of banning harmful substances, the Deputy Minister expressed concern about how the discussion might be misinterpreted or politicised. She warned against allowing inequality to further divide the country, noting that even in wealthy urban areas, there were still pockets of poverty and neglect. She emphasised that the Department of Agriculture, being directly impacted by environmental and food safety issues, should take the lead in addressing these challenges and fostering a unified approach.

Commissioner Ntuli expressed strong support for the responses from the Minister and Deputy Minister, particularly praising the collaborative approach they advocated. She emphasised the urgent need for a complete ban on Terbofos, pointing out that without this, the issue of pesticide-related deaths, especially among children in townships and poor areas, would persist. She also addressed the emerging narrative that some of the harmful Terbofos found in townships were smuggled in by foreign nationals, suggesting that this claim should be dispelled unless evidence was provided, to prevent the issue from fueling xenophobia.

She made a broader point about knowledge and objectivity, emphasising that while leaders in various sectors may be influential, knowledge is always subjective and should be open to critique for societal progress. She also responded to the Deputy Minister's suggestion to move away from racial perspectives, asserting that the issue at hand was inherently tied to race and historical inequalities in South Africa. She noted that the children who died due to pesticide exposure were from specific racial and geographic backgrounds, and that this racial aspect must be acknowledged and addressed.

Commissioner Ntuli supported the idea of a structured, evidence-based consultation process, as suggested by the Minister and Deputy Minister. She proposed setting a deadline for making a final decision on banning HHPs, with the goal of having a clear research plan for alternatives within six months. She also called for the creation of a multisectoral team to oversee the process.

The Chairperson thanked everyone for their presentations, and expressed appreciation for the Minister's willingness to work with the SAHRC. She said the Committee would take time to discuss the matters, having heard both sides of the matter. The Minister had suggested inviting others to present, and the Committee was open to that. She assured the Minister and Deputy Minister that the message going out after the meeting would be positive and accurately reflect the discussions.

Development of the Animal Welfare Bill

Mr Tony Gerrans introduced the Animal Law Project’s (ALP's) presentation, stating that there was an urgent need for stronger animal protection laws in South Africa. Current legislation is inadequate, and animal suffering should be recognised as a social justice issue. He and Ms Charan Saunders had co-authored a manifesto advocating a legal framework that treats animals as sentient beings and provides for their rights.

He explained that the existing laws, particularly the Animal Protection Act of 1962, treated animals as property, conflicting with modern scientific understanding. He commented that the Department of Agriculture, responsible for animal welfare, lacked the resources and capacity to ensure effective protection and that there was limited coordination between government departments on this issue.

He proposed that the Department of Justice take on the responsibility for animal welfare, as it was better equipped to handle vulnerable groups. He also recommended that animal welfare laws include administrative and civil law remedies, such as permitting processes, to reduce the strain on the criminal justice system. This approach would provide a more holistic, multidisciplinary strategy for animal welfare.

 Mr Gerrans called for further consultation on the proposed bill, suggesting the organisation of a colloquium to bring together all stakeholders to discuss improvements to animal welfare legislation. He emphasised that these steps were crucial to aligning the laws with South Africa’s constitutional values and ensuring better protection for animals.

He explained that the Animal Protection Act currently allows the Minister to regulate specific issues like transport, but there were no regulations addressing matters such as live exports. The Meat Safety Act provides some regulations on animal welfare and slaughterhouses, but for transport standards, one must refer to the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) and national standards, which were negotiated between industries and other groups. These national standards were not enforceable through law, highlighting a gap in the legal framework. He proposed a more structured framework to address such issues, particularly those concerning traditional slaughter practices.

He emphasised that the goal was not to ban traditional practices, but to apply a principle-based test, ensuring fairness, transparency, and the least harm, similar to the guiding principles found in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) for the environment. While acknowledging the importance of traditional and cultural rights, he argued that principles must also protect animal welfare.

Regarding animal sentience, Mr Gerrans argued that animals should not be treated as property. He stressed the need for a balanced approach, where animal interests were properly considered in decision-making. He used the example of factory farming and the confinement of pigs in small cages to demonstrate how the law currently lacks clarity on what constitutes necessary or unnecessary harm. He argued that a principles-based test would provide the necessary framework to balance animal interests against human needs, without disregarding cultural traditions or economic interests.

He also stressed that South Africa’s outdated animal protection laws presented a business challenge, particularly in international trade. As global trade partners like the EU increasingly required animal welfare equivalency in their agreements, South Africa risked falling behind in competitiveness if it did not update its legislation. The current law did not provide the business certainty needed, which was why industries like mohair, crocodile farming, and ostrich farming had created their own welfare standards, which were better than the national law. Updating the legislation would improve animal welfare and ensure consistent access to international markets.

Discussion

Deputy Minister Capa sought clarification on why dogs should receive more protection than other animals. She questioned the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' (SPCA’s) authority over different animals, including livestock. She asked how the proposed changes would differ from the current Animal Protection Act. She also raised concerns about the use of animal products for beauty purposes, and whether South Africans would support such practices.

The Chairperson addressed concerns raised about the Department, particularly regarding stakeholder engagement and staffing challenges in handling the bill. She inquired whether the proposal had been tested with the Department of Justice and whether the Department of Environment had raised concerns about its capacity to manage animal welfare.

ALP's response

Mr Gerrans said the issue with the current law was that animals should be protected equally, regardless of their living situation whether in a home, on the street, or in a laboratory. He emphasised that the goal was to prevent unnecessary harm to animals by setting a minimum standard for their protection. While recognising that some animals in South Africa were treated better than people, he noted that this reflected the country's legacy of discrimination, though progress was being made.

He said that the ALP was not advocating equality between animals and humans, but rather for consistent treatment of animals, whether they were pets, used in science, or regarded as pests. From the animal's perspective, the suffering was the same in all contexts. He explained that animals, like pigs and mice, could be treated with high standards in some cases and neglected or abused in others, sending a confusing message to people about what was acceptable.

The principle they were advocating for was to avoid arbitrary distinctions, and the Constitution's prohibition on arbitrary actions should also apply to animal welfare. The current Animal Protection Act did not address the issue of unequal treatment of animals in different contexts, such as the difference in standards between a pet pig, and pigs in industrial production. He argued that people should be expected to treat animals with respect, regardless of the context, and that the boundaries for what was acceptable treatment needed to be clearer.

Mr Gerrans said that although they did not have all the answers, they were proposing a test with principles that could be applied consistently to animal welfare. Regarding the new Animal Welfare Bill, they had engaged with the Department, specifically with Dr Mphane Molefe, Director of Veterinary Public Health. He expressed concern that the bill's framing may be too narrow, potentially carrying over the same institutional challenges seen in the Animal Protection Act, particularly in terms of access to justice within South Africa's criminal law system.

He said they would like to see more consultation before the bill was finalised. He said that the bill was currently being reviewed by legal and veterinary experts at the University of Pretoria, which was a positive step. However, he believed that more widespread consultation was needed to incorporate the feedback and work done by their team to improve the process.

Mr Serage acknowledged areas of convergence regarding the principles set out by both parties. He said the SPCA's legal victory in the case declaring animals as sentient beings, highlighting its impact on legal rulings. He also recognised the role of various international animal welfare indices and standards used for trade purposes, agreeing that these were critical to ensuring better trade and animal welfare recognition.

He pointed out that the South African Constitution did not directly address animal welfare, though there were areas of competence relevant to the issue. He discussed Section 8 of the Animal Protection Act, which grants the SPCA its mandate for animal welfare. He expressed concerns about the balance of mandates between different departments, particularly in terms of how animal welfare issues were addressed by the Department of Agriculture, which was responsible for the bill currently under development.

Mr Serage explained that his Department was committed to working on the new Animal Welfare Bill, and had already held consultations on it. He emphasised that the bill's details should be handled by the professionals, such as veterinarians, who were directly involved in this field. He pointed out that while there may be differences of opinion, there needed to be respect for the process that includes public consultations, followed by parliamentary engagement. He suggested that any changes to the bill should take into account the broader public input, and ensure that a balance was struck outside of departmental biases.

He also highlighted past legal challenges, such as the case involving the Performing Animals Protection Act, where certain provisions had been declared unconstitutional. This ruling set a precedent for how mandates and responsibilities should be managed, especially regarding licensing and judicial involvement.

He raised the issue of overlapping responsibilities among departments, particularly between agriculture and the environment, in relation to captive and non-captive animals. He proposed consolidating these mandates under one umbrella to ensure more efficient management of animal welfare. He gave an assurance that the Department was open to further consultation and discussions, including the possibility of a colloquium to bring together diverse perspectives before moving forward with the legislation.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters for their time and insights, acknowledging that the consultation process was ongoing within the Department. She assured them that there would be further opportunities to engage when the Committee conducts its consultations. She emphasised that such discussions would help shape the Committee’s understanding and enable them to represent their communities effectively. She hoped for continued engagement on the law project.

Citrus farmer projects in the Eastern Cape

Mr Serage said that the Department of Agriculture would present on citrus farmer projects in the Eastern Cape as part of efforts to advance agriculture. There had been engagements with prospective farmers just before, and even during, the December holidays. These farmers had specific requests to make to the Department, leading to consultations. Mr P Mgedezi, Acting Chief Director: Provincial Shared Services Centre (PSSC) in the Eastern Cape, had been tasked with providing a brief report on these engagements, which were deemed valuable and necessary.

Mr Mgedezi provided feedback on a meeting arranged by Mr Trollip with the Department, the provincial Department of Rural Development, and three farmers from the Kat River citrus valley. The farmers had raised concerns about financial struggles, lack of electricity, poor road infrastructure, and difficulties in securing funding due to the absence of title deeds and water rights.

The Department outlined its previous support, including 30 year leases, financial aid for citrus production, infrastructure improvements, and mechanisation. However, the farmers still required urgent assistance. To address land tenure issues, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Land Reform directed policy changes to enable land transfers, allowing farmers to use land as collateral. Cricket Farm's title deed was in process, Waterfall Farm’s transfer had been delayed due to unpaid bills, and Kila Farm faced legal issues due to a deceased entity member.

To support farmers financially, the Director-General had engaged with the Land Bank, which was now reviewing business plans for possible funding. Meanwhile, the Department was identifying budget savings to provide short-term grant funding for operational needs while awaiting the Land Bank’s decision. Regular updates would be provided to ensure ongoing support.

Discussion

Mr Trollip thanked the Committee for addressing the issue. He expressed appreciation for the DG and his team’s swift response, including a meeting with farmers in December, despite being on leave. He raised concerns about government investments in three farms -- two greenfield projects that had deteriorated, and one brownfield citrus farm that had lost its strategic partner, rendering prior investments ineffective.

He emphasised that without proper support, farmers would fail, wasting millions in funding. He acknowledged the DG’s efforts in engaging the Land Bank, but cautioned that bureaucratic delays could lead to further losses. He urged the Committee to ensure investments in agriculture led to sustainability, not failure, and committed to ongoing oversight.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Trollip for raising concerns about the farmers, and appreciated the Department’s swift response. She noted that many resettled farmers had been neglected, leading to failures despite initial investments. She stressed the importance of continued support to prevent wasted resources. Addressing challenges like theft on farms, she emphasised the need for proactive solutions.

She thanked the Deputy Minister and the DG for their efforts, and extended regards to the Minister.

The meeting was adjourned.