By Lucas Shiller
Editor at Opinary
The German government’s recent decision to go through with a sugar tax on soft drinks has revived an international debate on the pros and cons of taxing unhealthy products. The World Health Organization is decidedly in favour of a sugar tax, having called for $1 trillion in worldwide health taxes to be raised by 2035. Some industry groups and businesses, however, are pushing back, claiming the tax will only raise prices for consumers without meaningful benefits for public health. So would the sugar tax be a public health panacea or just unsweetened virtue signalling?
The UK: A Blueprint for Europe?
Luckily for Germany, there is a test case just next door. The UK adopted a tax on drinks with more than 5g of sugar per 100 millilitres in 2018 and the measure has proved popular since its inception. In our polls, Times of London readers voted in favour of measures to reduce sugar intake, even going as far as favouring restrictions in advertising for sugary cereals:
Source: Times of London
So, has the sugar tax worked? Results are still coming in, but there is reason to be optimistic. According to a UCL study, daily sugar intake for adults fell by 11g after the tax was implemented, with similar benefits observed in children. Critics maintain that there is little evidence that the tax has had a meaningful effect on obesity rates in the UK. As more data comes in, the efficacy of the tax will become clearer, but our polling suggests that whatever the verdict on obesity, the tax has grown more popular in Britain since its introduction.
Crossing the Channel: German Audiences Divided
The sugar tax debate in Germany is still in its infancy, but it’s already clear that reactions to the soft drink tax making its way to mainland Europe are mixed. When local newspaper the local newspaper Braunschweiger Zeitung polled their readers on so-called ‘sin taxes’, levies on unhealthy products like alcohol, tobacco, and sugar, a majority of readers were sympathetic:
This picture can shift, however, when the question is framed differently. Readers of the Franconian outlet InFranken were asked to choose between two positions: is a sugar tax good health policy—or paternalism? That more sceptical framing may help explain the strength of opposition.
Across national publications, audiences were similarly divided, often along the lines of the outlet asking the question. Readers of legacy newspapers such as Tagesspiegel and FAZ tended to be more supportive than audiences of digital-first platforms, with readers of the online magazine FOCUS falling closer to the latter camp:
What does this data tell us? Primarily that attitudes toward the sugar tax in Germany vary sharply depending on who is being asked. Interestingly, the divide is not only regional but also demographic and editorial. Broadsheet readers appear more settled in their support for the policy, while audiences of news aggregators and online magazines remain more sceptical.
Cui Bono?
Before declaring the sugar tax a success or a failure, it’s worth asking a simpler question: who pays? Consumption of sugary drinks is highest among lower-income households, meaning a flat levy hits those hardest who are least able to absorb it, a fact that can feel at cross purposes with the public health ambitions behind the policy. Doctors and campaigners are increasingly calling for sugar taxes to sit within a broader package of reforms: subsidies for fresh food, restrictions on junk food advertising, and tax relief on healthy staples. Without these, the sugar tax risks being less a cure than a palliative: leaving the underlying conditions untreated while foisting the bill on those who can least afford it. Our polls suggest that public appetite for action on overconsumption of sugar is real, even if the politics is complicated. The question for governments isn’t really whether to act, but how to act comprehensively. A tax alone won’t fix diets. But paired with the right measures, it might just sweeten the deal.
Recent Comments