RPO SE REAKSIE OP OPROEPE VIR ‘N NUL BTW-KOERS OP BEVRORE HOENDER / RPO’S RESPONSE TO CALLS FOR A ZERO-VAT RATING ON FROZEN CHICKEN
RPO SE REAKSIE OP OPROEPE VIR 'N NUL BTW-KOERS OP BEVRORE HOENDER
Die Suid-Afrikaanse Pluimveevereniging (SAPA) en die Demokratiese Alliansie (DA) doen tans ‘n beroep dat individuele kitsbevrore hoenderprodukte ‘n nul-BTW-koers moet hê om dié produkte meer bekostigbaar vir verbruikers in Suid-Afrika te maak.
Alhoewel die Rooivleisprodusente-organisasie (RPO) heelhartig saamstem dat voedselpryse so laag as moontlik moet wees vir die gemarginaliseerde en lae-inkomste huishoudings in die land, voel ons dat verskeie faktore in ag geneem moet word wanneer BTW teen ‘n nulkoers by produkte gevoeg word.
In Suid-Afrika word basiese voedselprodukte teen ‘n nul-koers BTW gehef. Dit word gedoen om basiese voedsel meer bekostigbaar te maak vir marginale en lae-inkomsteverbruikers, en om hongersnood en wanvoeding in die land aan te spreek. Met ander woorde, dit gaan nie net oor die verskaffing van genoeg kos nie, maar ook oor die korrekte tipe kos. Kyk ons na die huidige lys voedselitems wat teen ‘n nul-koers BTW is, is dit duidelik dat bogenoemde in gedagte gehou is aangesien daar noodsaaklike bronne van die aanbevole voedselgroepe (proteïen, energie, vesel, ens.) op die lys is. Dit beteken egter nie die huidige lys is perfek nie, en dat dit verseker dat honger en wanvoeding aangespreek word nie.
Verskeie navorsingstudies het aangedui dat marginale en lae-inkomsteverbruikers te min vleis eet, meer spesifiek rooivleis. Alhoewel vleis van dierlike oorsprong ‘n integrale deel van ‘n mens se dieet is, is rooivleis ‘n noodsaaklike bron van vitamien B1, B2, B6, B12, yster en sink in vergelyking met ander vleisbronne. Die insluiting van hoender sal ongetwyfeld help om vleisverbruik te verhoog, maar sal dit voldoende wees om wanvoedingskwessies aan te spreek?
‘n Tweede punt is die vraag wat as ‘n basiese voedselsoort beskou moet word wanneer dit by dierlike proteïen kom. Huidige bronne op die lys is pilchards en eiers. As ons die lys moet uitbrei, moet ons sekere faktore in gedagte hou, soos die prys van produkte, die hoeveelheid werklike vleisproteïene, en die beskikbaarheid van die produkte, terwyl ons al die verskillende bronne en vleissnitte vergelyk.
‘n Vinnige vergelyking van die prys en werklike vleisinhoud van vleisprodukte by ‘n plaaslike kleinhandelaar is beskikbaar in Tabel 1. Die vergelyking toon dat die rakprys van kitsbevrore hoender die tweede laagste is naas beesvleislewer, maar wanneer ‘n mens die hoeveelheid pekel en bene in die produk in ag geneem, is dit die tweede duurste produk op die lys naas beesbredie. Hierdie vergelyking is slegs op ‘n paar produkte gedoen, maar wat van produkte soos pens, pote, rooi-afval (longe, hart en niere), ens., wat bekostigbare vleisprodukte is?
As die RPO verskil ons nie daarmee om kitsbevrore hoenderporsies op die nul-BTW-lys in te sluit nie, maar ons voel wel dat daar ander vleisprodukte is wat ook, en dalk beter, by die profiel van basiese voedselitems pas. Ons glo ‘n wye verskeidenheid vleisprodukte moet oorweeg word volgens hul prys, voedingsinligting en beskikbaarheid om te verseker dat die regte produkte ingesluit is.
Tabel 1: Vergelyking van die prys en ware inhoud van vleisprodukte by ‘n handelaar
| Prys (R/kg) | Soutwater/bymiddels | Been | Vleis % | R/kg vleis | |
| Kitsbevrore hoender | R50.00 | 15% | 32% | 53% | R94.34 |
| Hoenderlewer | R55.96 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R55.96 |
| Varkmaalvleis | R89.99 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R89.99 |
| Varkbredie | R65.99 | 0% | 20% | 80% | R82.49 |
| Gemaalde beesvleis | R89.99 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R89.99 |
| Beesbredie | R89.99 | 0% | 20% | 80% | R112.49 |
| Beeslewer | R48.99 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R48.99 |
Die derde faktor wat in ag geneem moet word wanneer slegs kitsbevrore hoender op ‘n BTW-nulkoers is, is die impak daarvan op die hoenderbedryf en die dinamika van die groter vleisbedryf. ‘n Markontleding wat RMRD SA laat doen het oor die moontlike gevolge van ‘n nul-BTW-gradering op vier verskillende vleisscenario’s (alle vleis, slegs hoender, slegs beesvleis en slegs rooivleis) het getoon dat ‘n nul-BTW-gradering op ander scenario’s as alle vleis tot beduidende verwringingseffekte in die vleisbedryf kan lei. Byvoorbeeld, slegs in die geval van hoender, kan die aansporing van vraag deur ‘n eksklusiewe nul-gradering van hoender verbruikers vanuit ‘n prysperspektief ondersteun. Die groter vraag na laerwaarde hoenderporsies sal egter waarskynlik deur invoer bedien word, wat skade aan die plaaslike pluimveebedryf kan aanrig.
Nog ‘n vraag rakende die pluimveemark is hoe voordelig die nul-BTW-gradering vir verbruikers op die lang termyn sal wees. ‘n Prysdaling sal ‘n gepaardgaande toename in die prys op kort termyn veroorsaak. Die vraagkurwe van pluimvee behoort egter oor die langer termyn te verskuif, aangesien die pryse van ander vleisprodukte nou relatief hoër is in vergelyking met hoender wat op sy beurt weer ‘n styging in die koste van hoender kan veroorsaak. Die prys behoort dus nie op ‘n vlak van 15% laer te bly nie.
Die negatiewe gevolge kan ook na die breër vleisbedryf oorspoel. Die nul-BTW-gradering van hoender behoort die onmiddellike prys te verlaag, die vraag na hoender te verhoog en die vraag te verlaag; dus die prys van ander vleisprodukte, aangesien hoender relatief goedkoper sal word. Die rooivleisbedryf sukkel die afgelope twee jaar met baie lae produsenteprysvlakke, en ’n afname in vraag en prys sal baie produsente uit die mark dwing. Om die negatiewe uitwerking wat die nul-BTW-gradering van ‘n enkele vleissoort kan veroorsaak te verminder, voel ons dat verskillende soorte ingesluit moet word om die pryse relatief nader aan mekaar te hou.
Ons moet ook die huidige ad valorem-invoertarief op pluimvee- en rooivleisinvoere oorweeg. As ons begin redeneer dat vleis as ‘n basiese voedselitem beskou moet word, moet hierdie produkte so goedkoop as moontlik aan verbruikers verskaf word. Die vraag is dan of ons nog beskerming teen goedkoop invoere nodig het as ons redeneer dat vleis ‘n basiese voedselproduk is wat so goedkoop as moontlik moet wees.
Die laaste punt wat ons graag wil uitlig, is die uitwerking en monitering van BTW-nul-gradering, veral wanneer ‘n enkele produk in ‘n poel soortgelyke produkte ‘n nulkoers het (kitsbevrore hoender vs hoenderprodukte vs vleisprodukte). Wat die uitwerking betref, wil ons verwys na die geval van bruinbrood, wat op ‘n nulkoers is, maar witbrood nie. Die prys van bruin- en witbrood is egter dieselfde by die meeste kleinhandelaars, so is daar enige voordeel in die nul-BTW-gradering vir die verbruiker, of is dit slegs ‘n koste vir die regering aangesien hulle nie die BTW-inkomste ontvang nie? Die broodvoorbeeld kan ook vir die moniteringskwessie gebruik word. Wie is daarvoor verantwoordelik om te verseker dat die nul-BTW-voordele op bruinbrood aan verbruikers deurgegee word? Wie monitor dat witbrood, byvoorbeeld, in die geval van in-huis kleinhandelbakkerye, nie ook verkoop word teen ‘n nul BTW-gegradeerde kode om die produkkoste vir mededinging te verminder nie? Dieselfde kommer sal bestaan as slegs een vleisproduk, in ‘n poel van alternatiewe, nul-BTW-gegradeer is.
Terwyl die fokus van die uitbreiding van die nul-BTW-gegradeerde lys van basiese voedselsoorte moet wees om honger en wanvoeding te verminder deur toenemende vleisverbruik, moet noukeurige oorweging gegee word aan watter produkte ingesluit moet word.
Die RPO wil graag voorstel dat ‘n werkgroep bestaande uit regeringsverteenwoordigers, voedingkundiges, ekonome en landboukundiges die koste en voordele van die insluiting van verskillende vleisprodukte op die basiese voedsellys hersien om nul-BTW-gegradeer te wees. Op hierdie manier kan ons verseker dat ons die voordele vir verbruikers optimaliseer terwyl ons die potensiële risiko’s en koste in die verskillende sektore van die vee- en vleisbedryf tot die minimum beperk.
RPO’S RESPONSE TO CALLS FOR A ZERO-VAT RATING ON FROZEN CHICKEN
The South African Poultry Association (SAPA) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) are currently asking for individual quick frozen (IQF) chicken products to be zero VAT rated to make these products more affordable for consumers in South Africa.
Although the Red Meat Producer’s Organisation (RPO) wholeheartedly agrees that food prices should be as low as possible for the marginalised and low-income households in the country, we feel that several factors should be considered when adding zero VAT to products.
In South Africa, basic food products are rated at zero VAT. This is done to make basic foodstuffs more affordable for marginal and low-income consumers, and address hunger and malnutrition in the country. In other words, it is not only about providing enough food but also the correct type of food. Looking at the current list of food items that are zero VAT rated, it is clear that the above was kept in mind as there are essential sources of the recommended food groups (protein, energy, fibre, etc.) on the list. However, this does not mean the current list is perfect, and ensures that hunger and malnutrition are addressed.
Various research studies have indicated that marginal and low-income consumers eat too little meat, more specifically red meat. Although meat from animal origin is an integral part of one’s diet, red meat is an essential source of vitamin B1, B2, B6, B12, iron, and zinc compared to other meat sources. The inclusion of chicken will undoubtedly assist in increasing meat consumption, but will it be sufficient to address malnutrition issues?
A second point is the question of what should be considered a basic foodstuff when it comes to animal protein. Current sources on the list are pilchards and eggs. If we must expand the list, we have to keep certain factors in mind, such as the price of products, the quantity of actual meat protein, and the availability of the products, while comparing all the different sources and cuts of meat.
A quick comparison of the price and actual meat content of meat products at a local retailer is available in Table 1. The comparison reveals that the shelf price of IQF chicken is the second lowest after beef liver, but when one takes the amount of brine and bones in the product into account, it is the second most expensive product on the list after beef stew. This comparison was only done on a few products, but what about products such as tripe, trotters, red offal (lungs, heart and kidneys), etc., which are affordable meat products?
As the RPO, we do not disagree with including IQF chicken portions on the zero VAT list, but we do feel that there are other meat products that also, and perhaps better, fit the profile of basic food items. We believe a wide variety of meat products should be considered according to their price, nutritional information, and availability to ensure that the right products are included.
Table 1: Comparison of the price and actual contents of meat products at a retailer
| Price (R/kg) | Brine/additives | Bone | Meat % | R/kg meat | |
| IQF chicken | R50.00 | 15% | 32% | 53% | R94.34 |
| Chicken liver | R55.96 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R55.96 |
| Pork mince | R89.99 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R89.99 |
| Pork stew | R65.99 | 0% | 20% | 80% | R82.49 |
| Ground beef | R89.99 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R89.99 |
| Beef stew | R89.99 | 0% | 20% | 80% | R112.49 |
| Beef liver | R48.99 | 0% | 0% | 100% | R48.99 |
The third factor that should be accounted for when only IQF chicken is VAT zero rated is its impact on the chicken industry and the dynamics of the larger meat industry. A market analysis that RMRD SA commissioned on the possible consequences of zero VAT rating on four different meat scenarios (All meat, Chicken only, Beef only, and Red Meat only) showed that a zero VAT rating on scenarios other than All meat could have significant distortive effects in the meat industry. For example, in the case of Chicken only, incentivising demand through an exclusive zero rating of chicken might support consumers from a price perspective. However, the increased demand for lower-value chicken portions will likely be serviced by imports, which could do damages to the local poultry industry.
Another question regarding the poultry market is how beneficial the zero VAT rating will be for consumers in the long run. A price decrease will cause an associated increase in the quantity demanded in the short run. The demand curve of poultry should, however, shift over the longer term, as the prices of other meat products are now relatively higher compared to chicken which could, in turn, cause an increase in the cost of chicken again. The price should thus not remain at a level of 15% lower.
The negative effects could also spill over to the broader meat industry. The zero VAT rating of chicken should decrease the immediate price, increasing the demand for chicken and decreasing the demand; thus, the price of other meat products, since chicken will become relatively cheaper. For the past two years, the red meat industry has been struggling with very low producer price levels, and a decrease in demand and price will force many producers out of the market. To minimise the negative effects that the zero VAT rating of a single meat type might cause, we feel that different types should be included to keep the prices relatively closer.
We should also consider the current ad valorem import tariff on poultry and red meat imports. If we start to argue that meat should be regarded as a basic food item, these products should be supplied as cheaply as possible to consumers. The question then is if we still need protection from cheap imports if we argue that meat is a basic food product that should be as cheap as possible.
The last point we would like to highlight is the effect and monitoring of VAT zero rating, especially when a single product in a pool of similar products is zero-rated (IQF chicken vs chicken products vs meat products). Regarding the effect, we would like to refer to the case of brown bread, which is zero-rated, but white bread is not. The price of brown and white bread however is the same at most retailers, so is there any benefit in the zero VAT rating for the consumer, or is it only a cost to the government as they do not receive the VAT income? The bread example can be used for the monitoring concern as well. Who is responsible for ensuring that the zero VAT benefits on brown bread are passed on to consumers? Who monitors that white bread, for example, in the case of inhouse retail bakeries, is not also sold at a zero VAT rated code to reduce the product cost for competition? The same concerns will exist if only one meat product, in a pool of alternatives, is zero VAT rated.
While the focus of expanding the zero VAT-rated list of basic foods should be to reduce hunger and malnutrition through increasing meat consumption, careful consideration should be given to what products should be included. The RPO would like to propose that a working group consisting of government representatives, nutritionists, economists, and agriculturalists review the costs and benefits of including different meat products on the basic foods list to be zero VAT-rated. This way, we can ensure that we maximise the benefits for consumers while minimising the potential risks and costs in the various sectors of the livestock and meat industry.
