Germany’s plan to introduce a levy on sugary drinks as part of a wider health reform has reopened a heated debate about government intervention in diets — even though many countries already use similar taxes.
The health ministry says the levy would start at the beginning of 2028 to give producers time to adapt and is expected to raise about €450 million (roughly $530 million) a year. The money would not go into the general federal budget but be ring‑fenced for investment in the health care system.
A panel of experts that published proposals in March recommended a tiered approach: drinks with under 5 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters would be tax‑free; drinks with 5–8 g/100 ml would face a levy of €0.26 per liter; and drinks with more than 8 g/100 ml would be charged €0.32 per liter. The government’s draft law has not fixed the final details.
Health Minister Nina Warken of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has voiced support for the measure, while acknowledging the Finance Ministry will ultimately decide fiscal policy. The proposal has already provoked controversy within the CDU, where some members warned it could make the government appear paternalistic.
Medical and public health experts, however, largely back the idea. Peter Philipsborn, chair of public health nutrition at Bayreuth University, notes that more than 100 countries have introduced sugar taxes on drinks and that the evidence shows these levies reduce consumption of sugary beverages. Regular intake of sugar‑sweetened drinks is linked to weight gain and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, he says.
Research cited by consumer groups shows Germans take in a high amount of sugar from soft drinks: one study put daily sugar intake from drinks at nearly 26 grams per person — more than the sugar people consume from chocolate and candy. By contrast, the UK, which introduced a tiered sugar levy in 2018, has average per‑person soft‑drink sugar consumption around 16 grams per day. The UK example also illustrates industry reformulation: after the levy was announced and implemented, the sugar content of many soft drinks in the UK fell, and by 2019 overall sugar in soft drinks had declined significantly.
The food and beverage industry questions the measure’s effectiveness. Some trade representatives point out childhood obesity remains higher in the UK than in Germany despite the levy, and warn of a possible ‘substitution effect’ — that consumers might simply shift from sugary drinks to other sweet snacks. Manon Struck‑Pacyna, spokesperson for Food Federation Germany, which represents some 250 companies, argues that the tax risks increasing short‑term costs for consumers and creating bureaucratic burdens for businesses, which must assess sugar content across their portfolios. She also warns small and medium producers who rely on a single signature drink could be hit hardest if reformulation changes taste.
Supporters counter that the evidence does not show a clear rise in consumption of other sugary foods after drink levies, and that the modest additional cost per household is outweighed by health gains. Philipsborn says the overall financial burden of a sugar levy would be small — a few euros per household annually on average — while the health benefits would disproportionately aid lower‑income households, who suffer more from diet‑related illnesses. In that view, revenue reinvested into health care or prevention measures can improve social equity.
Both sides agree, however, that a sugar levy alone is not a silver bullet. Experts call for a package of policies to reduce obesity and improve public health: healthier meals in schools and day care, stricter rules limiting junk‑food advertising aimed at children, improved workplace catering, and fiscal measures that make healthy foods more affordable.
The proposed sugar levy still needs parliamentary approval, and the political debate is expected to continue as lawmakers weigh the public‑health evidence, economic impacts and questions of fairness and government reach.