Department of Water and Sanitation reassures ARV traces in water pose no health threat
The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) has assured the public that there is no health risk following the detection of trace amounts of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in some of South Africa's rivers and drinking water sources.
The findings stem from a Water Research Commission (WRC) study conducted by North West University to investigate contaminants of emerging concern (CECs).
'The presence of ARV residues in drinking water is harmless,' DWS said, adding that the levels found were extremely low, measured in nanograms, or one-billionth of a gram per litre.
'Pharmaceuticals such as ARVs are drugs used to treat diseases; they do not cause diseases. Therefore, the presence of traces of ARVs in the water will not result in people contracting HIV.'
According to the report, traces of ARVs were detected in river systems and in a few treated water samples, with higher concentrations found downstream of municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
7 hours ago
- The South African
Cervical and Cervical Cancer in Focus: A Cross-Continental Fight Led by Movement Health Foundation
In the Lambayeque region of northern Peru, stories of delay and loss echo quietly through generations. They are not captured in photographs or archived in official records, but live in the memories of families who have waited too long for care that never came soon enough. In distant towns and rural communities, the journey to a clinic can take hours, and even then, the tools needed for screening are often out of reach. In South Africa, across the ocean but bound by the same fate, women in Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal wait—not for doctors, but for answers. The nearest hospital is 60 kilometres away. Transport costs nearly a third of their monthly income. And so, they wait—not just for diagnoses, but for the right to be heard. In these places, cancer is not simply a medical condition. It is the result of geography, of poverty, of a history written without their names. More often than not, it is an inheritance. The fight against it—especially breast and cervical cancer—demands more than science. It demands justice. The cost of delay is not just time. It's lives. Globally, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. Cervical cancer is the most preventable. And yet, they continue to take the lives of women in low- and middle-income countries at staggering rates. In South Africa, cervical cancer is responsible for more cancer-related deaths among women than any other type. In Peru, more than 4,000 women were diagnosed with the disease last year—many of them poor, and a disproportionate number Indigenous or Afroperuvian. Too many were diagnosed late, reflecting persistent gaps in early screening and access to timely care. To delay care is to decide who is worthy of survival. In both countries, early screening remains rare, while advanced-stage diagnoses are the norm. In Peru, screening levels for cervical cancer plummeted by 76% during the pandemic. In South Africa, 75% of cervical cancer cases are detected only after the disease has progressed beyond early intervention. And in the townships and rural provinces, where HIV prevalence is high and stigma travels faster than treatment, those odds worsen by the day. The Movement Health Foundation operates outside the spotlight. Instead, it works through local institutions, public clinics, and digital infrastructure, where change is measured not in headlines but in wait times shortened and referrals completed. With the Clinton Global Initiative as its commitment partner, the Foundation is now leading cancer interventions in Peru and South Africa that are designed not just to treat, but to reimagine the system itself. In South Africa, a Progressive Web App developed with Nelson Mandela University is helping women navigate cervical cancer screening—from understanding symptoms, to locating clinics, to preparing for appointments in their home language. The app includes voice input, offline features, and maps for rural areas. In Peru, the model is different, but the need is the same. A workflow coordination tool—originally piloted for maternal health in Cusco—is being adapted to help local clinics track screenings and patient referrals for breast and cervical cancer. The new program, under development in Lambayeque and Arequipa, targets 170,000 women and is built to scale to additional regions by 2026. The legacy of inequality cannot be fixed by apps alone. The question is whether these digital tools are surface patches or the beginning of deeper structural reform. Under new executive director Bogi Eliasen, the Foundation is positioning itself as a bridge between the technological and the political. 'We are not interested in pilots that fade,' Eliasen has said. 'We are building infrastructure that learns, adapts, and becomes public.' It's a bold vision in an industry littered with failed interventions and pilots that collapsed under the weight of poor implementation or vanished when donor funding dried up. But the Movement Health Foundation insists that local partnership, government integration, and community buy-in are non-negotiable. The work in Peru, for example, is embedded within national health policy timelines and budget cycles. In South Africa, the Foundation's collaboration with local institutions is explicit, not adjacent. This is how institutions gain roots—not through speed, but through alignment. The numbers should make us uncomfortable. In 2021, South Africa recorded 356.86 DALYs per 100,000 women for breast cancer—a steep increase from 196.28 in 1990. DALYs measure years of life lost not just from death, but from living with disease. These are years spent in waiting rooms, in silence, in systems that never called your name. Peru fares no better. In rural areas, Indigenous and Afroperuvian women often learn about cancer from other patients, not their doctors. The clinics are centralised, the health literacy campaigns are underfunded, and the result is predictable: women show up too late, and leave too soon. We are not talking about rare conditions. We are talking about preventable diseases with known interventions. The delay is not technical. It is the result of fragile policies and outdated processes, systems that have failed to evolve with the needs of those they serve. A woman in rural South Africa still needs to travel hours to reach care. A woman in northern Peru still needs three separate visits to complete a screening, colposcopy, and treatment. If she misses one, the clock resets. This is not a coincidence. It is a reflection of design—of systems built to be good enough for some, but not for all. And yet, that design is not immutable. It can be rewritten. The Movement Health Foundation is trying to write a different script. One where prevention is not a privilege, where follow-up is not optional, and where a diagnosis is not the beginning of the end. If global health is to mean anything, it must begin with the least protected. Not just in rhetoric, but in protocol. Not just in fundraising, but in follow-through. And so the question remains, not for them, but for us: what does it say about our global priorities when a woman needs to survive a system before she can survive a disease? 'This is not about awareness,' Bogi Eliasen has said. 'This is about consequence.' He's right. The numbers are not just statistics. They are verdicts. And verdicts, if left unchallenged, become legacies. Let's not allow that. By: Lena Whitmere
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
South Africa's HIV Response: Hope, Tools, and Resolve
South Africa has the world's largest HIV treatment programme, with over 5.5 million people receiving antiretrovirals (ARVs). Yet we still see more than 100 000 new HIV infections each year. That is unacceptable — and preventable. Image: Tumi Pakkies/ Independent Newspapers Earlier this month, more than 3,600 scientists, activists, policymakers, and journalists gathered in Kigali, Rwanda, for the 13th International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference on HIV Science. It was the first time this major global event took place in an African city outside South Africa, marking a powerful recognition of the continent's critical role in the global HIV response. The conference came on the heels of deeply concerning news: in January, the US government announced sharp cuts to funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a move that cast a long shadow over the global fight against HIV, particularly in Africa. The numbers are staggering: of the 40.8 million people living with HIV globally, over 26 million (65%) are in Africa. And more than half of all new infections in 2024 occurred on the continent. A Call to Stay the Course Despite fears about reduced funding, the mood in Kigali was one of resolve. Delegates affirmed their commitment to ending HIV, recognising the extraordinary progress made in Eastern and Southern Africa. Many echoed a common sentiment: "We cannot stop now. We must fight to the end", emphasising the need for sustained commitment and effort to achieve an AIDS-free future. That optimism was reinforced by encouraging developments. The pharmaceutical company Gilead announced that Lenacapavir, a new HIV prevention drug administered via two injections a year, has shown high efficacy in clinical trials. If made widely accessible, this could be a game-changer— especially for those who struggle with daily pill regimens. Further hope came when the US Congress ultimately approved continued PEPFAR funding, although uncertainties remain around the duration and scope of future support. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading What This Means for South Africa South Africa has the world's largest HIV treatment programme, with over 5.5 million people receiving antiretrovirals (ARVs). Yet we still see more than 100 000 new HIV infections each year. That is unacceptable — and preventable. To address this, the government launched the '1.1 Million Campaign' in February to close the gap between those who know their HIV status and those who are virally suppressed. But for this initiative to succeed, we need national mobilisation. Every political leader, community organiser, religious institution, and employer must actively support the campaign. Unfortunately, media coverage has been limited, and public awareness remains low. Doing More with Less With reductions in funding from the Global Fund and PEPFAR, and despite increased domestic investment, every rand in our HIV response must count. Managers and community activists in the health and social development sectors must track data rigorously: Who is being tested? Who is on treatment? Who is virally suppressed? Who is using Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) — and who should be, but isn't? We must also stand firm against stigma. There is no justification for discrimination against people living with HIV or those using preventive treatments like PrEP. They are taking responsible steps to protect themselves and others. They should be commended and supported, not shamed. The Tools Are in Our Hands We now have powerful tools to fight HIV. HIV self-test kits are available free at public clinics and affordable at private pharmacies. Oral PrEP— a once-a-day pill to prevent HIV — is also free at government health facilities. And injectable PrEP, which could significantly improve adherence, is expected to be available next year. Condoms remain a highly effective prevention method. Let's not forget—they also prevent sexually transmitted infections like syphilis and gonorrhoea and help avoid unplanned pregnancies. They are free at all public clinics. Let's also remember the link between HIV and tuberculosis (TB). People with HIV are more susceptible to TB. If you have symptoms or have been in contact with someone with TB, get tested. Early detection saves lives. Health Is Everyone's Business Building a healthier South Africa is not just about medicine—it is about national prosperity. A healthy population is more productive, more resilient, and more able to seize economic opportunity. Each of us has a role to play in protecting our health and the health of our communities. Let's work together to end HIV. The finish line is in sight—but only if we don't stop now. Prof Yogan Pillay is the Director for HIV and TB delivery at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He was previously the Country Director of the Clinton Health Access Initiative in South Africa and senior director for universal health coverage. He has worked in various capacities at the National Department of Health. In 2021, the University of Cape Town awarded him an honorary doctorate, and in the same year, he was appointed extraordinary professor in the Division of Health Systems and Public Health, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University. Foster Mohale is the National Department of Health Spokesperson
Daily Maverick
10 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After US funding cuts, Mozambican children died — who bears responsibility?
Last month, Spotlight and GroundUp published a two-part exposé showing how US aid cuts led to the deaths of children in Mozambique. Here, Jesse Copelyn considers what led to this tragedy and who should bear responsibility for it. After the US Agency for International Development (USAID) abruptly terminated billions of dollars in overseas aid grants, the health system in central Mozambique was left in tatters. Earlier this year, I travelled to two badly hit provinces of the country to describe the toll. In one article, I reported how thousands of orphaned and vulnerable children in Sofala province had been abandoned by their USAID-funded case workers. Many of these children are HIV-positive and had relied on case workers to bring them their medicines or accompany them to hospital. Without them, some children stopped taking their treatment and died. In a second piece, I reported how USAID had cut funding for contractors transporting medicines and diagnostic tests to health facilities in Manica province. This led to shortages of HIV drugs at hospitals in the area, which also led to the deaths of children. Amid all this chaos, I was often curious to know from people on the ground who they held accountable for this situation and who they believed needed to solve the problem. My assumption was that they would call for the Mozambican government to help them out. I was surprised to find that in the affected villages which I visited, this was far from anyone's expectation. In fact, for most it was simply unthinkable that their government could do anything to save them. 'You mentioned the government,' one community leader said after I asked whether the state should intervene. 'But even these chairs we're sitting on are stamped with USAID logos. So what help can we expect from the government?' Indeed, the more I learnt about governance in Mozambique, the more understandable this attitude became. Throughout the country, core government functions have been outsourced to a combination of foreign governments, aid agencies, interstate bodies and private companies. For instance, many of the country's essential medicines are procured by a large international financing body called the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Up until January, the transportation of these medicines to hospitals was overwhelmingly financed by US aid agencies, as were the paycheques of many health workers. Outside of the healthcare sector, the story is similar. The main highway that I travelled along to reach different villages was built and paid for by Chinese corporations and banks. To keep hydrated I relied on bottled water supplied by private companies since the taps either didn't run or produced contaminated water. In many of the impoverished rural settlements that I visited, there was virtually no state infrastructure, and people received no financial support from the government. Instead, they primarily depended on aid organisations. The country's national budget has historically been heavily supplemented by foreign bodies, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Union. (Though much of this support was suspended in 2016/17.) Even national defence has been partially outsourced. When Islamist militants began rampaging through the northern province of Cabo Delgado, the government struggled to contain it and contracted Russian and South African mercenary groups. When that failed, they authorised a military intervention by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and invited a parallel mission by the Rwanda Defence Forces. It is thus no surprise that Mozambicans have virtually no expectation that their own government will come to the rescue when facing an emergency. Instead, they look outward. As one community leader in a rural village told me, 'Here, we depend on Trump.' Cash-strapped and corrupt Mozambique has 35 million people. About 2.5-million live with HIV, the second-highest HIV-positive population in the world after South Africa. Life expectancy is well under 60. The country is extremely poor: eight in 10 people live on less than $3 per day. The government is also deeply cash-strapped. The South African government spends 10 times more per citizen than the Mozambican government does. A large chunk of its spending goes towards paying off debt. At present, Mozambique simply doesn't have the money to build an effective health system, though had it spent its limited budget reserves more effectively over the years it could have developed a health system that was at least a bit more independent of donor support. Instead, the country's budgetary resources have often been wasted on corruption. Mozambique currently ranks 146th out of 180 in the world on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. This has directly played a role in its public health woes. One clear example of this is the Tuna Bonds scandal, in which state-owned companies took out $2-billion worth of loans, backed by secret state guarantees. This was supposedly to finance large fishing and maritime security projects. In reality, much of the money was siphoned off to enrich political elites, including the then-finance minister (who is now in prison). As a result of those decisions the country was swallowed by debt. And when the extent of the corruption was publicised in 2016, the IMF pulled its financial support for Mozambique. A detailed 2021 report found this directly led to a fall in economic growth and government spending. It states: 'Comparing the three-year average of 2016-18 to the three previous years, spending on health and education fell by USD 1.7 billion – entirely due to the debt.' The country's governance crisis is further demonstrated by the political unrest that engulfed the country after the October 2024 elections, triggered by accusations of election fraud. The accusations are likely to have been overblown, but international observers said the election was not free and fair. Even during the brief week I spent in central Mozambique, signs of corruption and mismanagement filtered into my interactions with officials. For instance, before I embarked on a multiday tour of one province, government officials told me that someone from the provincial health department would need to accompany me on my trip. This was apparently to make formal introductions to district-level officials that I hadn't asked to meet. For this apparently vital service, the man would need to be paid a per diem of roughly R500 a day for two days, they said. The civil servant in question was a very senior person in the provincial health department. Despite facing a collapsing health system in the wake of the US cuts, he was apparently ready to drop everything he had going for the rest of that week to follow me around. When I explained that I wouldn't pay a government official to stalk me, I was told that saying no wasn't an option. This is unfortunately the way things are done around these parts, said a local who helped arrange the tour. (Neither GroundUp, Spotlight nor I paid the bribe, incidentally.) US responsibility Against this backdrop, it is perhaps no surprise that defenders of the current US government have often resorted to arguments about moral responsibility when justifying the decision to abruptly slash aid. It is reasonable to ask why the American taxpayer should bear any of the brunt of Mozambique's public health system when so many of its problems have been caused by the Mozambican government itself. But it's not so simple. The Mozambican civil war from 1977 to 1992 destroyed the country. The anti-communist Renamo insurgency likely received millions of dollars of support from US evangelists, despite committing numerous atrocities. It is strongly suspected that the US government also materially supported Renamo. So the US's involvement in Mozambique has not been innocent. It could be argued that its aid spending was the least the US could do to make amends for its role in the war. Moreover, Mozambique didn't develop its high level of dependency in isolation. For more than two decades the US actively took responsibility for core functions of the country's health system. Up until January, the US government continued to sign numerous contracts with local organisations, pledging millions of dollars to help run life-saving health programmes for years into the future. The health system was consequently built around these commitments. If the US was going to take that much responsibility for the wellbeing of some of the world's most vulnerable people, then it had a duty to at least provide notice before pulling the plug. Instead, it chose to slash the funds instantly, and in a manner that needlessly maximised damage and confusion. Stop-work orders were issued overnight which required that people who were doing life-saving work down their tools immediately. Organisations decided to adhere to these instructions rigidly in the hope that their funding would be reinstated. At that point the Trump administration said it was only pausing aid funding pending a review, and no one wanted to give the reviewers a reason to terminate their programmes. The consequence was complete chaos. Orphaned children in extremely rural parts of Mozambique waited for their case workers to bring them their medicines, but often they simply never came. Many of these children had no idea why they had been abandoned. When certain case workers decided to defy the stop-work order and continue their work voluntarily, they were forced to do so in secret. To add fuel to the fire, the Trump administration routinely provided contradictory information to its former recipients and to the public. The initial executive order signed in January said all foreign development assistance would be suspended for 90 days, pending a review, and might be restored after this time. Then, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a waiver which stated that the suspension wouldn't apply to life-saving humanitarian services. Rubio told the public that organisations providing these life-saving services could instantly resume their work under this order. Yet the organisations themselves received different instructions from their USAID officers. Rather than immediately continuing their work, they were told to submit revised budgets that only covered life-saving services and to wait for approval. Organisations rushed to submit these budgets by the deadline. But in the end, the green light never came and their funds remained frozen. This was not only the case in Mozambique; researchers estimated that virtually no funds were released under Rubio's waiver globally. In the meantime, Rubio stated that organisations that hadn't resumed life-saving activities were clearly unable to understand instructions or were simply trying to make a political point. Later on, the organisations received explicit termination notices, ending their programmes. Despite this, US embassies and several large media outlets continued to reference Rubio's order as if it was actually implemented en masse. Even as I write this, the on-again, off-again US aid story is unfinished. This mixed messaging created an enormous amount of confusion for staff of these organisations and the recipients of their work, ultimately for no clear benefit to the American people. There was simply never any reason to act this callously towards health organisations to whom USAID had pledged its support. In contrast to the rampant corruption which has plagued the Mozambican government, these organisations were heavily audited in order to continue receiving funding. The work they were doing was clearly making a material difference to some of the poorest people on Earth. In the far-flung settlements that I visited, villagers told me about how their lives had been transformed by these organisations. Many were only put on life-saving HIV treatment because of them. Whatever arguments one may want to advance about the importance of self-sufficiency and national responsibility, none of this justifies the US government administering the aid cuts in such a callous and confusing manner. DM
