In previous iterations of this five-part series on the food systems of South Africa, I demonstrated how the political economy of food in the country is inseparable from the legal architecture of colonialism and apartheid.
Post-1994 reforms have achieved little to restructure laws that dismantled diverse local food systems and entrenched an agricultural economy based on capital-intensive commercial farming.
The state’s market-based land reform approach, grounded in the “willing-seller, willing-buyer” principle, prioritised negotiated transactions over redistribution at scale. The approach has slowed structural transformation and preserved large-scale commercial farming patterns.
The recently promulgated Expropriation Act has often been presented, given the Nil Compensation provisions, as a structural redress to fasten the pace of transformation.
However, many segments of society, including the South African Human Rights Commission, have posited that the Expropriation Act does not clarify the conditions for equitable redistribution of land and neither does it present a compensation framework that is historically sensitive.
The commission further cautioned that “allowing these continued references to the Expropriation Act as a mechanism for land redistribution to continue undisputed, may allow the state to claim compliance with Section 25(5), while in reality failing to address spatial and economic inequalities sustained by landlessness”.
At the same time, legislative reforms such as those introduced by the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act (47 of 1996) deregulated agricultural markets, thereby ushering in an era of agricultural liberalisation that favoured large producers with access to capital, infrastructure and supply chains.
As a result, the present-day status quo is such that the food value chain is characterised by enclaves of industrial monopolies which largely reflect pre-1994 patterns.
Midstream processing, for example, is concentrated in large firms such as Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and RCL Foods. Similarly, the downstream food economy is dominated by a handful of supermarket groups, including but not limited to Shoprite Holdings, Pick n Pay, Spar Group and Woolworths Holdings.
The groups collectively account for most of South Africa’s formal food retail sales, as reported in competition and market analyses of the grocery sector.
Corporate concentration in the food value chain is dangerous because it can translate into price-setting power, inadvertently allowing retailers and processors to
shape supply chains and determine production standards, prices and product availability. Effectively, the patterns govern what reaches consumers’ plates.
The landmark bread and wheat milling cartel case bears reference.
In 2006, the Competition Commission of South Africa investigated allegations of a cartel after receiving whistleblower complaints. The investigation unearthed a decade-long conspiracy (1994–2007) in which the major producers, including Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods, Premier Foods and Foodcorp, together coordinated bread and wheat-flour price increases, shared sensitive information and divided regional markets.
Secret meetings enabled the firms to inflate the cost of staple foods.
The case unravelled the cartel, leading to landmark fines, including R195.7 million for Pioneer Foods (Sasko), R98.9m for Tiger Brands (Albany) and R45.4m for Foodcorp (Sunbake). Premier Foods (Blue Ribbon) was exempted through immunity granted under the Competition Commission’s Corporate Leniency Policy.
Corporate power and dominance are not only reinforced by markets. Legislative and policy choices by the state enable access for some while marginalising others, who often constitute small-scale and subsistence farmers.
For example, food safety and certification regulations under laws such as the Agricultural Product Standards Act (119 of 1990) and the Perishable Products Export Control Act (9 of 1983) impose costly compliance obligations that favour industrialised supply chains.
Analysts have critiqued the rules as systematically exclusionary of small-scale producers from higher-value markets.
This position, while recognising the importance of public procurement rules and food safety standards, nevertheless notes that these often require volumes and compliance costs that small-scale producers struggle to meet, further entrenching large suppliers’ dominance.
As a matter of principle, a policy approach that prioritises efficiency and price stability over structural transformation does not merely tolerate concentration; it can inadvertently reproduce it.
Egregiously, in a policy environment that supports and promotes large-scale production at the exclusion of small-scale farmers, food wastage becomes a norm.
In November 2023, Statistics SA reported that 10 million tonnes of food go to waste every year in the country, accounting for a third of the 31 million tonnes produced annually in South Africa.
Similarly, in its latest study on food losses and waste, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research confirmed that because South Africa is a net exporter of food, the losses and waste is equivalent to 45% of the available food supply in the country.
Accordingly, most of the food losses and waste (68%) occur in the early stages of production, with 19% occurring during post-harvest handling and storage and 49% during processing and packaging. Food waste at the consumption stage is only 18%.
Much of the reported waste occurs within formal supply chains where over-stocking, strict cosmetic standards and logistics constraints lead to unsold food being discarded. This is avoidable. International practice shows that legislative interventions, which may include mandatory food donation requirements, can reduce waste and improve access.
The persistence of large-scale waste alongside deeply entrenched hunger reveals a structural glitch in the national food system/s. That this large-scale wastage of food occurs within a context of corporate concentration that is not demographically neutral is demonstrative of the transformational flaws in the national food value chain.
Furthermore, despite gradual, albeit slow transformation, the executive leadership and ownership in major food value chain companies remain disproportionately white and male. Women, in particular African women, occupy a minority of executive roles and board positions.
The demographics reflect historical inequalities while also shaping whose voices influence policy debates and whose knowledge informs food governance.
It is important to emphasise that recognising corporate power does not imply hostility toward the private sector. Large firms provide employment, logistics and technological capacity. Their collective contribution to the national economic structure is critical to the national fiscal wellbeing.
The challenge lies in ensuring that efficiency does not come at the expense of equity.
Ultimately, the question is not whether South Africa can produce enough food. It is whether the country is willing to govern food as a public good rather than solely as a commodity. Hunger in South Africa demonstrably persists not because the system is failing but because it is functioning according to a set of rules that reward scale, concentration and profit.
Confronting corporate capture is therefore not an ideological project. Rather, it is a constitutional one. If the right to food is to be realised, the political economy that shapes our plates must be historically conscious, human rights-focussed and ultimately become a matter of public accountability.
The South African Human Rights Commission, in fulfilment of its mandate to protect, promote and monitor the observance of human rights, is conducting an inquiry into South Africa’s food systems from 12 to 20 March 2026. The inquiry will interrogate, among others, the corporate capture of the national food systems.
The commission is receiving and inviting submissions from interested parties with information that may assist in this investigation.
The call for submissions is open until 27 February 2026.
Philile Ntuli is a commissioner of the South African Human Rights Commission. Her focal areas include land rights, the right to food and the national preventive mechanism. She is also a recipient of the M&G Power of Women 2025 award.
This is the fourth of a five-part series.
Hunger in the country persists not because the system is failing but because it is functioning according to a set of rules that reward scale, concentration and profit