(Gemini Audio)
(de-news.net) – The establishment of a sugar tax in Germany has been vehemently opposed by Federal Agriculture Minister Alois Rainer (CSU), who has repeatedly argued that any form of tax increase lies outside the scope of the current coalition agreement and that the proposal itself is unnecessary. He emphasized that the government, in cooperation with the food sector, had already adopted a voluntary reduction strategy targeting sugar, fat, and salt in processed foods—an approach he characterized as demonstrably effective and more proportionate than regulatory intervention. At the same time, Rainer reiterated his broader skepticism toward restrictive state measures, maintaining that prohibitive regulation should be used only as a last resort in public health policy.
In discussing the rising incidence of childhood obesity, Rainer pointed to a constellation of contributing factors that extend well beyond dietary habits. Excessive screen time, insufficient physical activity, and broader lifestyle changes were cited as central drivers of the trend. Because of the strong interdependence between healthy eating and regular exercise, his ministry—working jointly with the health and family ministries—planned to launch a comprehensive public awareness campaign aimed at promoting healthier routines among children and adolescents. According to Rainer, preliminary consultations at the ministerial level had already been conducted, laying the groundwork for a coordinated national effort.
Momentum surrounding the issue increased after Schleswig‑Holstein’s Minister‑President Daniel Günther (CDU) announced his intention to introduce a Bundesrat initiative advocating a nationwide sugar tax. The proposal immediately triggered resistance from the food industry. Christoph Minhoff, who heads both the German Food Association and the Federation of German Food and Drink Industries, argued that Günther had chosen an especially ill‑timed moment to advance such a measure, asserting that it would dampen consumer enthusiasm for sweets during the holiday season. Minhoff further contended that Germany had abolished its previous sugar tax in 1993 for sound policy reasons and that similar levies in Denmark and the United Kingdom had failed to produce convincing public health benefits. He added that constructive dialogue with the state government would be preferable to unilateral political initiatives.
The Federal Finance Ministry likewise stated that it saw no legal or political basis for introducing a sugar tax, noting that the measure was absent from the coalition agreement negotiated between the CDU/CSU and SPD. Rainer echoed this position and reaffirmed that the voluntary reduction program for processed foods was already yielding measurable results. Günther, however, sought to advance the proposal as part of a broader strategy to promote healthier diets and reduce obesity rates nationwide. He argued that, given the current political and economic environment, a sugar tax was long overdue, as excessive sugar consumption contributed to significant health burdens and substantial societal costs. Although he expressed a preference for avoiding state intervention, he maintained that the situation had reached a point where regulatory action could no longer be postponed.
Medical associations have long supported the introduction of such a tax, frequently citing international examples—including Mexico and the United Kingdom—where sugar levies and advertising restrictions are reported to have produced measurable improvements in public health outcomes. In Germany, the Kiel state assembly has already endorsed a manufacturer fee on highly sweetened soft drinks and energy beverages, signaling growing regional support for fiscal measures targeting sugar‑rich products.
Former Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) welcomed Schleswig‑Holstein’s initiative, asserting that a sugar tax would represent a significant step forward from a public health perspective. He argued that Germany’s comparatively low life expectancy within Western Europe, combined with its status as the European Union’s most expensive health‑care system, reflected a longstanding deficit in preventive health measures. According to Lauterbach, a sugar levy could help alleviate pressure on health insurance contributions while simultaneously preventing numerous cases of diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular events—conditions that impose heavy financial and social costs on the health‑care system.
