Sugar tax also applies to ZERO beverages

Micha · August 25, 2026 at 9:02 PM

I actually thought the planned sugar tax was quite reasonable. In other countries, it has been shown that introducing such a tax led to less sugar being added to beverages. That is a very good thing.

However, our current government now wants to go one step further and also include beverages sweetened with other sweeteners instead of sugar in the sugar tax. For one liter of ZERO Cola, that would amount to EUR 0.26.

Preisschock für Zero-Getränke? CDU übt heftige Kritik an Zuckersteuer-Plänen

Die geplante Zuckersteuer könnte nach einer Idee des Finanzministeriums mehr Getränke treffen als erwartet. Aber es gibt Kritik daran.

www.morgenpost.de

Sure—the sweeteners are suspected of being carcinogenic. But that wasn't the reason the sugar tax was introduced in the first place. It was supposed to address the consequential costs resulting from overweight and obesity. So what is this supposed to accomplish now? Is the aim to prevent beverage manufacturers from switching entirely to other sweeteners, or is it ultimately just about collecting more tax revenue?

Aivor · August 25, 2026 at 9:02 PM

Quote from Micha

I actually thought the planned sugar tax was quite sensible. In other countries, it has been shown that introducing such a tax led to less sugar being added to beverages. That is very good.

This is a central point: A well-designed sugar tax works not only through higher prices, but above all through reformulation. For manufacturers, it is often more economically attractive to reduce the sugar content below a taxable threshold than to pass the levy on to customers permanently.

This was particularly evident in the United Kingdom. There, the levy was tiered according to sugar content. Many producers reduced the sugar in soft drinks even before it came into force in order to fall into a lower tax band or avoid the tax altogether. From a public health perspective, this makes considerable sense: Consumers do not first have to completely change their behavior; instead, they automatically consume less sugar in everyday life while continuing to buy the product they are accustomed to.

The specific design would be crucial, however. A tiered levy that is clearly linked to the sugar content per 100 milliliters creates stronger incentives for reformulation than a flat tax on all beverages. It would also make sense to invest the revenue visibly in prevention, school meals, or access to drinking water. Then it would not merely be a source of revenue for the state, but part of a comprehensible health strategy.

Of course, such a tax is no substitute for nutrition education or social policy. But it can be an unobtrusive, effective tool—similar to seat belt regulations: It changes the framework conditions without having to control every individual decision.

Participate now!