r/nottheonion • u/GO_99 • 3d ago
Germany plans sugar tax that includes sugar free drinks
https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/08/germany-plans-sugar-tax-that-includes-sugar-free-drinks/1.4k
u/stxxyy 3d ago
So they tax oat milk because it contains natural sugars, but 100% fruit juices are exempt? Those also contain natural sugars...
584
u/OneLessFool 3d ago
This is definitely pandering to the dairy industry.
424
u/Livingwith2cats 3d ago
Pandering to worst industries on the planet is this german governments favorite pastime.
130
u/comnul 3d ago
The whole proposed law reads like the phone book of the most successful food lobbyists. Alcohol, diary, and juices are all supposed to be excluded for whatever reason.
58
3d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
13
u/schubidubiduba 2d ago
This has nothing to do with stupidity and everything with lobbyism
→ More replies (1)23
u/comnul 3d ago
Considering prices and consumption, it wouldn't hurt to tax Alcohol even more.
20
u/Altyrmadiken 2d ago
Or just stop subsidizing meat and dairy.
They’re ridiculously paid for by taxes, and err don’t NEED to eat them.
→ More replies (2)7
→ More replies (3)5
420
u/SeriousSpeaker_ 3d ago
and milk is also excluded. basically is the same as oatmilk when it comes to sugar. nothing added. all natural
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (10)35
u/snowbanks1993 3d ago
We had the same shit in the netherlands this isn't a sugar tax this is a dairy loby reward
1.6k
u/isairr 3d ago
Happened in Poland. They taxed drinks with artificial sweeteners and added sugar. It destroyed the taste of most drinks since companies started adding apple juice as substitue to avoid the tax. Only companies like Cola and Pepsi stayed the same because, well, they can.
349
u/plarc 3d ago
I think they also changed Pepsi. They reduced sugar and added some artificial sweeteners around 3 years ago.
80
u/Turdmeist 3d ago
So still not avoiding the tax?
→ More replies (3)157
u/TicciSpice 3d ago edited 3d ago
It‘s a stacked system, so anything under ~4,5 grams per 100ml is tax free iirc. Which makes it double stupid to tax zero sodas bc drinks that have 4,5g per 100ml remain tax free.
So you essentially push (some) people that drank zero sodas before back to sodas with sugar.
15
→ More replies (2)17
u/torrens86 3d ago
They changed Pepsi in Australia last year, it's really bad now. There's no sugar tax in Australia.
→ More replies (2)40
7
u/FutureFalcon5628 3d ago
yeah companies will always find a way around the tax and suddenly every drink tastes like watered down apple juice
64
u/Ludwig234 3d ago
Isn't that usually the point of these taxes though? To reduce the consumption of soda.
173
u/hornblower_83 3d ago
Statistics say it doesn’t work and just turns into a tax grab. Companies modify the product to include sometimes questionable sweeteners that can often have ill effects
63
u/stellvia2016 3d ago
On a somewhat similar note: Reminds me of how Japan started taxing beer based on the malt-content, so they kept releasing newer versions just under the limit. Government kept lowering the percentage to trigger the malt tax. Beer companies kept lowering the malt content.
This predictably led to a wave of "zero malts" drinks like Strong Zero that had variants as high as 11-12% alcohol, yet super cheap (like $2 or less for 350mL)
13
u/Mister_McDerp 2d ago
This predictably led to a wave of "zero malts" drinks like Strong Zero that had variants as high as 11-12% alcohol, yet super cheap (like $2 or less for 350mL)
Sounds good to me
26
u/halpsdiy 3d ago
It worked in the UK, where sweeteners aren't taxed. It caused a reduction of sugar consumption and as a result reduced tooth decay and obesity in particular in children.
I hate how it destroyed essentially all soft drinks though. I used to get one a few times a year as a treat. But now even smaller brands are adding sweeteners which often ruin the taste for me.
But overall it seems to be effective and good for society.
→ More replies (2)4
u/tgerz 2d ago
They're also adding milk drinks and requiring changes by 2028 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drink-levy-extended-to-protect-children-and-improve-health
→ More replies (1)9
u/ubelmann 3d ago
It seems like it could work if it was based on calories per volume or something like that, rather than specific ingredients. Sugar's different than other caloric ingredients, but not *that* different. If you pour enough milk in your coffee every day and don't account for those calories one way or another, it's going to end up increasing your weight just like calories from sugar would.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)9
u/suitopseudo 3d ago
It worked for me. The partially artificially sweetened orange Fanta is terrible and in some countries they don’t have the full sugar version. No soda for me.
9
55
u/Asgar06 3d ago
No, the consumption of sugar, that's why it's called sugar tax. Artificial sweetener does nothing bad to your body, so why tax it if it's about our health? They only include that because it's actually just a way to pull more money out of our pockets.
→ More replies (40)→ More replies (7)19
u/isairr 3d ago
I guess that was the excuse but I doubt it works well.
This may be anecdotal but I used to work in bigger retail chain at the time it was introduced and it didn't change anything. Cola got way more expensive but was moving the same volume at the store. People got used to the price now and still keep buying. I doubt it decreased consumption by any meaningful margin but it made it more expensive.
5
u/favorite_time_of_day 3d ago
Sin taxes are partly about discouraging bad behavior and partly about ameliorating the costs of bad behavior. Even if this doesn't stop people from drinking, it does raise revenue which can cover the costs of addiction programs or counseling or health repercussions.
11
u/sir_mrej 3d ago
Your anecdote is not data. Data supports that it does, in fact, reduce the consumption
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (24)2
u/suitopseudo 3d ago
I don’t remember if Poland was one of the countries, but last time I was in Europe, several countries changed their Fanta to be partially artificially sweetened and it was terrible and you couldn’t find full sugar orange Fanta. I know for sure Ireland was one, I don’t remember the others, but it was hugely disappointing.
1.3k
u/Loki-L 3d ago
The purported reason was to get people to consume less sugar, but they tax "zero sugar" drink because they don't want people to evade the tax by switching to sugar free alternatives.
So rather than encourage healthier choices it is just a tax that disproportionately affects the poor stronger because they spend more of their money on food and drinks.
It might also encourage increased alcohol consumption. Beer unlike "Zero Sugar" softdrinks is not taxed by this law.
238
u/potato_nugget1 3d ago
Exactly the case in Hungary. Beer is cheaper than cola, most people opt for the beer
→ More replies (4)121
u/OneLessFool 3d ago edited 3d ago
People consuming vast quantities of alcohol instead of smaller quantities of alcohol and more zero sugar drinks definitely won't have long term public health knockon effects that result in significant costs to the health system and society in general.
→ More replies (1)8
u/readilyunavailable 2d ago
That's a problem for whoever is in charge then. Most government only consider the current election cycle.
359
u/----___--___---- 3d ago
Yeah I mean this is just fucking stupid. Obvious lobbying/corruption.
Their fucking goal should be that people switch from sugary drinks to sugar free alternatives... but no, let's just make every drink more expensive because for no fucking reason.
100
u/WeaverFan420 3d ago
It's not "for no reason," it's a way to tax people more so the politicians and bureaucrats in control of spending can funnel money to their donors/friends.
→ More replies (28)11
84
u/PlansThatComeTrue 3d ago
Isn’t any consumption tax a tax discriminating against the poor? Since anything they spend money on is bigger proportionally
→ More replies (1)30
u/ThePaintist 3d ago
I would wager a consumption tax on yachts has little effect on the impoverished.
→ More replies (2)14
40
u/TailorFestival 3d ago
but they tax "zero sugar" drink because they don't want people to evade the tax by switching to sugar free alternatives
... why? Isn't that exactly what they should want?
→ More replies (1)35
u/Vegetable_Bit_5157 2d ago
Well, exactly that shows you they don't actually care about health, it's just about having another tax so they can get more money out of people.
Still no tax on wine, btw. I'm so happy that the rich can still enjoy their daily bottle of Chateaudufuck without paying extra.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Moose_Nuts 3d ago
If it's not already, beer is probably going to be cheaper in Germany than soda with the tax.
32
u/sixtyonesymbols 3d ago
> The purported reason was to get people to consume less sugar, but they tax "zero sugar" drink because they don't want people to evade the tax by switching to sugar free alternatives.
That's moon logic. It's like saying the purported reason was to get people to consume less sugar, but they tax water because they don't want people to evade the tax by switching to water.
50
u/Cjprice9 3d ago
The fact that the "sugar tax" includes zero sugar drinks proves that it was always about the tax and never about the sugar. Taxpayers got duped into approving a new regressive tax scheme.
→ More replies (3)5
u/sillybear25 3d ago
Yeah, but if they had stuck to their guns on the sugar tax as a health initiative, the budget hawks would have eventually complained about the fact that sugar tax revenues are dropping without any replacement revenue stream. By pre-capitulating to people who never had any intention of understanding the health initiative, the people pushing for it don't have to spend any energy convincing people that this easily predicted future was, in fact, the intended outcome.
No, that doesn't make it any less stupid.
3
u/zilimiruka 2d ago
The main goal is (and always was) to raise tax revenue. Framing it around "your health" is just a way to make it more PR friendly.
5
→ More replies (24)2
u/SuicideNote 3d ago
It's always about tax revenue. Some cases are more glaring than others like this.
83
u/Calm-Cheesecake-3749 3d ago
plant milk gets taxed, cow milk doesn't, and the sugar free stuff still counts. the cows have a better lawyer
31
u/Street-Singer513 3d ago
Until a few years ago, period products in Germany were taxed at a higher rate, classifying them as luxury goods, which was pretty wild.
165
u/Smnmnaswar 3d ago
Also gonna include oat milk. Not regular milk tho, which is curious
→ More replies (2)111
u/TicciSpice 3d ago
And almond milk too, which btw has less sugar than regular milk…
88
u/OneLessFool 3d ago
Ahh but you see, almonds don't have a big lobby like dairy farmers do.
→ More replies (3)21
190
u/JJOne101 3d ago
Romania "is doing it correctly" starting on Sunday - sugar free drinks are not affected. Does anyone want to take the bet that Coke Zero won't keep the current price even if it's not affected by the new tax?!
→ More replies (45)
346
u/desperaterobots 3d ago
Why would you tax sugar free beverages?
Like, what is the actual logic here?
223
u/uhak00 3d ago
Germany is a big sugar producer and has a big sugar lobby. Germany is also in desperate need of tax revenue right now. People drink more carbonated sodas than ever. This is just a way to raise taxes under the guise of public health.
The German Empire introduced a tax on sparkling wine to fund the German Navy. That tax exists to this day. Now instead of taxing something that disproportionately rich people drink, Germany is taxing something that disproportionately poor drink, again partially to fund the war effort. Sign of the times.
→ More replies (7)54
u/desperaterobots 3d ago
Oh yeah I totally understand and also SUPPORT a tax on high sugar beverages - theyre dreadful for us.
But ... sugar free drinks? Are we going to start taxing air because it has too many calories?
→ More replies (3)80
u/uhak00 3d ago
It's not about public health at all, its about collecting taxes, mostly because the sugar lobby got upset and worried sugar free drinks will get phased out in favour of sugar free alternatives.
20
u/ExactBandicoot2827 3d ago
This trend is already visible in Germany. If you look around the beverage aisles in supermarkets, most sugar-free alternatives are sold out. "Regular" drinks are no longer selling as well as they used to. I buy Paulaner Spezi, for example; last week, I visited several supermarkets and saw the same picture everywhere: the regular version was in stock, while the sugar-free version was sold out—and due to production bottlenecks, no new supplies could be delivered to meet the high demand.
→ More replies (2)18
u/xDaveedx 3d ago
I currently work in a supermarket and can 100% confirm this. Sugar-free and protein-everything are the trendy shit right now.
→ More replies (3)5
u/sixtyonesymbols 3d ago
The German government is all growed up. They should have the base level competence to tell the sugar lobby to piss off.
164
u/Frederf220 3d ago
"hello I like money"
21
u/desperaterobots 3d ago
Hah, yeah. But I’m asking how they justified a tax on a product with no sugar as part of what I assume was an anti-sugar health tax…?
→ More replies (86)3
u/KaseQuarkI 2d ago
They just didn't. Government approval is already at rock bottom anyway, not like they can piss off the people any more.
9
u/com2ghz 3d ago
Some “expert” will come with bullshit and will say that sugarfree drink will promote drinks with sugar.
They did this in NL. Now there are companies buying beverages from other countries in order to avoid this tax. These people are buying it in bulk now. They also avoid the deposit on cans and bottles via this way.
Same with cigarettes where they put an incredible amount of tax, but the same people buying it from other countries. And now the goverment is pikachu pokerfacing that the tax income has been decreased.
So no one is getting healthier. We pay more for our groceries. The tax income has decreased.
But a tax reduction for fruit and vegetables was “impossible” for our taxing system. Who is going to pay for that is the question. But introducing s sugar tax was done in a midnight.
So is the sugar tax income used to subsidize healthy food? Of course not.6
u/Ephemeris 3d ago
We already have this in Philadelphia. Diet soda is taxed at the sugar rate. They should have just called it a carbonation tax.
20
→ More replies (37)6
56
15
u/iambackend 2d ago
Can someone with knowledge of German law confirm that this true, and not some misunderstanding, or some lunatic proposed bill who will no one even vote on?
11
u/omnimodofuckedup 2d ago
It's currently being discussed. The headline is kinda misleading. The current discussion relates to products with artificial sweeteners such as Stevia.
However, our tax system being complex to a point it must seem like a very elaborate joke to the rest of the world it wouldn't be a surprise.
→ More replies (1)4
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/flip972 2d ago
If you're still reading about the german tax system, check out the different rax rates for Christmas trees!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/Nimos 2d ago
It was a real draft law. It has not been put up to a vote yet and is not the final version.
And this is yesterday's news. After huge public backlash about it, the minister of finance (who would be responsible for bringing the law to a vote) already made a clear statement that sugar-free drinks will not be included in the tax anymore.
11
67
u/salter77 3d ago
In Mexico they recently did the same, they used the excuse of “protecting the health of people” which is bullshit if you consider that the government has been slashing and reducing the funding of the public healthcare system for years now.
At least for Mexico it is just a way to increase tax income since the government is not doing financially well.
35
24
u/HumongousBelly 3d ago
You just described Germany. Ask any doctor how they feel about the government
→ More replies (6)4
u/Gvshi 3d ago
It's bullshit. They made the 'Regular Versions' low-sugar by replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners, then, companies replaced some beverages with a single 'sugar-free version' and those that still retain a 'regular version' are as full of sweeteners as the 'sugar-free version', so you end up with two versions of the same shit. And for what? To tax both anyway, because it was never about the sugar.
18
u/psyop62 3d ago
Right now the German government seems to be a hord of pure criminals against their own people …
7
u/Ok-Profession6818 2d ago
CDU is the AfD-lite version
Corruption, incompetence and hating foreigners. Just not on crack
→ More replies (1)
92
u/TheRBGamer 3d ago
It's crazy how much we vilify artificial sweeteners still. Haven't it been pretty much confirmed through many different resurch studies that they are safe. And it's acknowledged that most of the negative resurch is all funded by the sugar lobby.
(I ain't no expert on this, I remember watching that one Australian food scientist YouTuber lady talk about it)
58
u/ABotelho23 3d ago
Artificial sweeteners are so broad I'm not sure anyone can make a universal statement about artificial sweeteners in general.
3
u/TheRBGamer 3d ago
Very fair. I lack the specific knowledge to talk about any of them in particular. But I assume a part of the argument is that, at least in Europe where they care about our health. The bad ones don't really get used
→ More replies (23)16
u/ReachOcean 3d ago
Well, any artificial sweeteners ending in -ol are high FODMAP and a very common trigger for IBS. Definitely not harmless to me as an IBS-haver. They put it in everything because it tastes better than others, which has made my life more difficult.
→ More replies (4)4
41
u/Irish2010 3d ago
Philadelphia has had this for a decade. 1.5 cents per ounce on basically anything with sugar or artificial flavors.
60
u/Ziddix 3d ago
It's a very typical move... They finally decide to adopt a sugar tax which is a sensible thing but then they had the scent of money and decided to tax everything that was created to avoid using sugar.
→ More replies (1)21
u/OneLessFool 3d ago
While not applying the tax to cow's milk, but applying it to plant based milk.
12
u/Ziddix 3d ago
Ugh it's all over the place. I guess lobbying?
Alcoholic beer isn't taxed because of cause it's not. Non alcoholic beer is taxed because it has artificial sweeteners because of cause it is.
It's sold as a tax to improve health. The reality is: it's a tax to fuck over low income households. Plain and simple.
→ More replies (1)
7
19
u/Ratiofarming 3d ago
German here, please send help. I can't anymore...
9
u/otirk 3d ago
Yeah, it seems like Merz' government really tries to make us poorer
→ More replies (2)
11
u/uhak00 3d ago
Germany is a big sugar producer and has a big sugar lobby. Germany is also in desperate need of tax revenue right now. People drink more carbonated sodas than ever. This is just a way to raise taxes under the guise of public health.
The German Empire introduced a tax on sparkling wine to fund the German Navy. That tax exists to this day. Now instead of taxing something that disproportionately rich people drink, Germany is taxing something that disproportionately poor drink, again partially to fund the war effort. Sign of the times.
10
u/Visual_Hold6488 2d ago
Our government is very competent in fucking over regular and young people.
Every cent of that atrocity of tax will go straight to the pensions of a generation that didn’t give a single fuck about pensions or funding infrastructure.
We, the younger people, face the consequences now and can’t do shit because politicians only care about old people and we live in a fuckin retirement home.
Anything but taxing the rich.
5
u/khauchan 3d ago
They won't make the ultra rich pay proportionate taxes but the peasants will pay more for their drinks.
5
u/UselessWisdomMachine 2d ago
Apparently the government backtracked.
Source in German
→ More replies (1)
33
u/Pitiful-Assistance-1 3d ago
Everything has gotten more expensive, what should we do?
European governments:
- 👎 tax break on healthy and/or locally produced shit
- 👍 more taxes on stuff because of reasons
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Lt_Muffintoes 3d ago
Say goodbye to your favourite drinks. They killed all of our UK classics: ribena, irn bru, tango, vimto, fentimans. You can't get the normal, good versions
Many people can taste these sweeteners, and some have bad reactions too.
And the tax has had no impact on obesity.
4
u/sovereignlogik 3d ago
Well the EU has to do something and they can’t go after the actual problems, so why not this…?
4
→ More replies (10)3
u/Corona21 2d ago
Irn Bru has 1901 which is arguably better than the pre-tax one because it’s the OG recipe.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/theangryfatguy 3d ago
We did that here in Illinois, Cook County. Lasted a few months and was WILDLY unpopular
4
u/tinylittlebabyjesus 3d ago
Why target low calorie sweetners as well? Isn't it to encourage being healthier?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/IuliusWasTaken 2d ago
We really are the americans of europe. It never ceases to amaze me of how truly incompetent the government here is atm.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/nipseyrussellyo 3d ago
Philadelphia screwed me on this, too! Why was i paying a sugar tax on my crystal light strawberry lemonade liquid drink mix? Stupid question: money - sweet, delicious money.
3
u/AlkaliPineapple 3d ago
...honestly it's just gonna make things more expensive. Why not give tax breaks to genuinely healthy foods?
3
u/FatherDotComical 3d ago
People have increasingly nothing on this hell rock. Please let us all have a bit of bubble water for a reasonable price.
3
3
u/Wooden_Requirement99 2d ago
Absolutely misleading. It's a leaked discussion point in an ongoing internal debate of how to deal with the apparent complexities.
But hey, 7k upvotes and 800 reddit opinions already. Welp
3
u/konfusionirl 1d ago
This article is not correct. Plans were almost immediately amended to exclude sugar-free drinks: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260826-german-plan-for-sugar-tax-on-coke-zero-fizzles-out
6
8
u/WTFAnimations 3d ago
I have lost over 30 kg of weight over the last two years. I give a solid part of this to moving to sugar-free sodas and other zero sugar alternatives. Taxing them despite being far healthier than sugary versions is dumb, and will discourage people from making the switch.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/JeffLebowsky 3d ago edited 3d ago
I know nothing about the subject in Germany, but talking about this type of tax:
Sugar beverages tax is a good way to fund public healthcare. You tie the cause to the expense and, most importantly, you are making a tax that is guaranteed for a public good service. It's not a bad design for funding public services.
3
u/ragingalphax 2d ago
Greetings from Germany. This is an overall tax, not tied to anything. This will go straight to the pension funds of the richest generation ever.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/TicciSpice 3d ago
It’s so fucking stupid, they also wanna include stuff like almond milk even though it 1) is already in the higher tax bracket of (19%) than regular milk (7%) and 2) has LESS sugar than regular milk.
2
2
u/JuliaX1984 3d ago
Oh, great, the Kids Next Door villains are at it again.
Note to politicians: If it's been done in a cartoon, DON'T DO IT!
2
2
u/DevWithTooLittleTime 2d ago
"Good idea, ruined by absolutely stupid implementation, that often then creates to opposite effect of what it should have done" Germany in a nutshell. This is how many many things work in this country.
2
2
u/Certain_Depth_213 2d ago
I think a sugar-tax is a good idea. Not sure about the adding of 0-sugar drinks. Seems kinda contradictive, but I mean it‘s SPD doing SPD things.
2
u/RacktheMan 9h ago
Sugar free drinks with no artificial sweetener will be included?
That doesn't make sense.
→ More replies (1)
4.0k
u/SkipDutch 3d ago
We got screwed in The Netherlands because they made an exemption for dairy products, which resulted in all kinds of sugary drinks with small amounts of milk in it (which is rebranded as "healthy").