On 15 May 2025, DG TAXUD published the study commissioned to ECORYS entitled ‘’Health taxes from an EU perspective’’, which aims to serve as a basis for initial discussions with member states on the implementation of taxes on foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS), as a health measure in Europe.
UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe, representing the European soft drinks sector, considers that the study’s recommendations are totally misleading and not grounded in evidence in claiming that targeting soft drinks will result in health benefits.
The study includes some questionable conclusions on presumed health benefits of soft drinks taxes that are not at all supported by current evidence that showcases their ineffectiveness in achieving positive health outcomes1. Such evidence can be found, among other sources, in the recent study from Tax Foundation Europe, which demonstrates that soft drink taxes do not lead to health improvements even over time, by demonstrating that obesity rates are still on the rise in countries where soft drinks taxes have been in place for years. This study states: “The growing body of empirical evidence finds no evidence of body mass index (BMI) reductions or a decrease in obesity prevalence following the imposition of SSB taxes”.
UNESDA, however, welcomes the report’s recognition of some key tax design elements: if they are to be considered, such taxes should be nutrient- and not product-based, tiered or progressive, with a threshold below which products are tax-free to encourage reformulation. The study also acknowledges that the case to tax low- and no-calorie sweeteners is weaker.
Nicholas Hodac, Director General of UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe, stated:
“We appreciate the exploratory efforts made by DG TAXUD in providing considerations on a potential HFSS tax design that supports industry’s reformulation efforts.
However, the study contradicts itself by making the case for nutrient-based taxes, but then still proposing HFSS taxes to focus first on sugar-sweetened beverages taxes, simply because these ‘are easier to implement than other HFSS taxes’. This approach singles out and penalises the soft drinks industry. It is disappointing that this is not guided by an evidence-based, scientific approach.
It is also worrying that the study claims associations between HFSS taxes, including sugar-sweetened beverages taxes, and health improvements, when this is based on simulations relying on unrealistic assumptions regarding price elasticity of demand. Actually, the study also acknowledges that “the evidence on longer-term impacts of HFSS taxation on population health is not as robust”.
Soft drinks taxes are just an ineffective and discriminatory quick fix. We see that in some of the markets used as case studies, where soft drinks taxes have been in place for many years, but obesity rates continue to rise2, or remain stable despite a reduction in soft drinks consumption. This highlights that these taxes do not deliver health benefits, as the recent Tax Foundation study, covering some of the same markets, demonstrated.
Finally, it is misleading to consider that reformulation is only driven by taxation. Decades of industry’s voluntary reformulation efforts have shown that we take our responsibility in reducing sugar in our existing beverages and offering new low- and no-calorie alternatives to support balanced diets. We are proud to have already achieved an average sugar reduction of 33.9% across Europe since 20003.
Let’s make sure that taxation recommendations are grounded in solid science, are balanced and treat all foods fairly.’’
****ENDS****
Note to Editors
1 Recently, the WHO Europe excluded taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages from its 25 public health measures (‘quick buys’) to tackle non-communicable diseases (NCDs), acknowledging that, based on current evidence, it is neither a quick nor effective solution for driving positive health outcomes.
A 2022 European Commission report also confirmed that there is no concrete, empirical evidence that selective taxation policies have reduced obesity, overweight and associated non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This report also concluded that alternative policies, other than soft drink and food taxation, can actually have a positive effect on Europeans’ health.
Similarly, a McKinsey report concluded that taxation is a rather inefficient intervention compared to other measures. As mentioned in this report, the two most efficient interventions in tackling obesity are portion control and reformulation – two interventions our sector has been prioritising for years.
Furthermore, an article from 2023 in the Annual Review of Resource Economics* concluded the lack of studies providing clear, consistent evidence on the effectiveness of these taxes in reducing sugar intake or positively impacting health outcomes: “The literature provides no consistent evidence that sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) taxes have incentivized increased purchases of healthier beverages and caused overall SSB consumption to decrease.”
* A New Wave of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Are They Meeting Policy Goals and Can We Do Better? Kristin Kiesel, Hairu Lang, and Richard J. Sexton, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2023.
2 WHO Europe HBSC Surveys, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018.
3 Source: GlobalData.
For further information, please contact:
Inês Rebelo, Senior Communications Manager, UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe
irebelo@unesda.eu, M: +32 477 860 901
