France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are debating sugar taxes once again. The promise is better health. But what do these taxes actually achieve? Who pays? And where does the money go? Competere’s new paper, developed with the support of UNALA, challenges the use of taxation as a shortcut to prevention.
In a nutshell:
- Health is not measured in tax revenue. Lower purchases do not necessarily mean less obesity or diabetes. We need results, not promises.
- A few grams less. At what cost? The estimates reviewed suggest reductions of 2–4.4 grams of sugar per day. But who bears the economic and social costs of the tax?
- Enough fiscal shortcuts. Obesity has multiple causes. Prevention requires knowledge, physical activity, and informed choices, not just higher prices.
Health Makes the Promise. The Treasury Collects.
There is a magic word that makes any tax easier to sell: health. Across Europe, strained budgets and new spending demands are bringing sugar taxes back into the spotlight.
France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are pursuing different tax measures, promising benefits for both public health and public finances. But at what cost, and with what results?
In Italy, the sugar tax has become a curious balancing act: introduce it, postpone it, put it back on the calendar. A tax that seems conveniently at home in budget forecasts.
The Paradox of Tax-Based Prevention
The principle is simple: tax a product to discourage consumption and use the revenue to fund prevention. But does money flowing into the treasury mean people are getting healthier?
Studies show mixed results: a fall in purchases does not necessarily translate into lower overall consumption.
- According to the estimates reviewed in our paper, a tax on sugary drinks may reduce daily sugar intake by around 2–4.4 grams. That amounts to roughly 9–18 calories a day, or less than 1% of a 2,000-calorie diet.
That is not necessarily insignificant. But how much does it actually affect obesity and diabetes? A change in consumption is not, by itself, evidence of better health.
The Costs That Never Make It Onto the Receipt
What happens beyond the products covered by the tax?
Consumers may switch to untaxed alternatives that are not necessarily healthier. They may shop across borders. Price increases may place a greater burden on people with lower incomes.
Businesses face additional costs, while the product reformulation encouraged by these taxes does not necessarily lead to a more balanced diet.
And where does the revenue go? Does it fund additional prevention efforts, or cover spending already planned? Calling a levy a health tax does not prove that it serves that purpose, especially when the tax system lacks transparency.
Should We Tax Social Media Too?
Obesity has multiple causes. Diet, physical activity, sleep, individual circumstances, and the surrounding environment all matter.
In our work on ultra-social scrolling, we examined the relationships between excessive screen use, sedentary behavior, and health.
- If we tax what may contribute to obesity, why stop at sugary drinks? Should we tax social media, streaming, and video games too?
The question is deliberately provocative. But it exposes the limits of a prevention strategy that claims to solve complex problems by targeting a single product.
Stop Dressing Up Taxes as Prevention
Competere’s new paper, Understanding Sugar – Beyond the Narrative, developed with the support of UNALA and launching next week, proposes an alternative: nutrition education, physical activity, innovation, and personalized prevention.
We call on governments to abolish sugar taxes.
- Their costs and unintended consequences must be weighed against benefits that have actually been demonstrated.
- If governments need revenue to balance their budgets, they should look elsewhere. Tax collection must not be confused with prevention.
Citizens are not ATMs. Not even when the withdrawal is labeled “health.”