Browse all documents

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This fact sheet from the Institute for Economic Justice argues that hunger and food insecurity in South Africa are primarily driven by a lack of income rather than a lack of food production. It proposes a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a key mechanism to ensure all citizens can afford nutritious food, thereby breaking cycles of poverty and malnutrition.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Food insecurity in South Africa is caused by insufficient income and unequal distribution rather than a lack of food production, as the country produces enough food to feed all its inhabitants.
  • Official data indicates significant levels of hunger: in 2023, 23.1% of households had limited access to food, and 13.5% of households reported at least one member experiencing hunger.
  • A large portion of the population cannot afford nutritious food; the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) estimates that 63.5% of South African households cannot access adequate nutritious food.
  • Malnutrition has severe health and economic consequences in South Africa, including a 28.8% stunting rate among children under five. In the 2022/23 health department report cycle, 1,000 children died from malnutrition and over 15,000 were hospitalized.
  • The World Bank estimated that in 2009, South Africa's economy lost approximately US$1.1 billion (0.3% of GDP) due to decreased economic productivity caused by vitamin deficiencies alone.
  • Existing social grants, such as the Child Support Grant (CSG) and Older Persons Grant (OPG), have positively impacted food access, and 93.3% of Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant recipients report using the funds primarily for food.
  • The document argues against food vouchers, stating they are more administratively burdensome, prone to corruption, and may harm local street vendors by favoring large stores; cash transfers are preferred for their ability to stimulate local economies.
  • While a UBIG is presented as a critical tool, the document notes it must be part of a multi-pronged strategy including a 'just food transition' (JFT) to address climate change risks, corporate retail power, and agricultural regulation.

Cite the original document

APA
Institute for Economic Justice (2024). Idokhumenti yemininingwane: I-UBIG nendlala. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IEJ-UBIG-Factsheet-11-Zulu.pdf
Chicago
Institute for Economic Justice. Idokhumenti yemininingwane: I-UBIG nendlala. 2024. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IEJ-UBIG-Factsheet-11-Zulu.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Institute for Economic Justice |title=Idokhumenti yemininingwane: I-UBIG nendlala |date=October 2024 |url=https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IEJ-UBIG-Factsheet-11-Zulu.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{instituteforeconomicjustice2024idokhumenti, author = {{Institute for Economic Justice}}, title = {{Idokhumenti yemininingwane: I-UBIG nendlala}}, institution = {Institute for Economic Justice}, year = {2024}, month = oct, url = {https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IEJ-UBIG-Factsheet-11-Zulu.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated