Ha Sang-do, Ph.D.

Professor of Department of Food Engineering Chung-Ang University

  Kang Byung-won, of the ruling party, proposed a partial revision of the National Health Promotion Act on February 26^th. It is to impose a fee for health promotion which is also known as a sugar tax  on companies that manufacture, process, and import sugary drinks. The reason for the proposal is that if sugar intake through processed foods exceeds 10% of one’s total daily calorie intake, the risk of various diseases is higher than to those who do not. In this case, the risks of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes increases significantly. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that excessive consumption of sugar is one of the main causes of obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. It also recommended that financial policies such as subsidies should be considered for the consumption of healthy food and beverage. Furthermore, the National Assembly Research Service (NARS) released a report last year that said it could consider a sugar tax as a policy for encouraging people to improve their eating habits.

   Currently, more than 40 countries around the world already impose a sugar tax. Norway was the world's first country to impose a high rate of taxes in chocolate and sugar in 1922. Subsequently, Hungary began charging for sugary carbonated drinks in 2011, and France and Finland in 2012. The trend has spread mainly in European countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland in 2018, and Italy in 2020. Meanwhile, in Asia, Thailand imposed a sugar tax in 2017, the Philippines in 2018, and Malaysia in 2019. Mexico and Chile, also started a sugary drink tax in 2014. Finally, Korea has boosted the discussions on the sugar tax. Recently, Rep. Kang suggested a way to pay a higher levy on higher sugar amounts of 28,000 won when the sugar exceeds 20kg per 100 liters. Specifically, for 500ml of Coca-Cola, the sugar amount is 54g. Extrapolating this to 100 liters, we can see that 10.8kg of sugar will be added. Therefore, a tax of 55 won will be added to each 500ml product. As with all regulations, sugar taxes also have strengths and weaknesses. the proponents says that regulations are necessary to protect humanity because sugar causes various adult diseases. According to the Norwegian Directorate of Health, when sugar taxes were raised 83% in 2018, sugar intake decreased 27% compared to 10 years ago. In the United Kingdom, more than half of soft drink companies reduced their sugar amount after imposing a sugar tax. Besides, the tax funds were used to increase school sports facilities, further contributing to the prevention of obesity among children and teenagers. In other words, a sugar tax has a positive aspect such as decreasing sugar consumption due to raising product prices and increasing state coffers through the tax.

  However, the negative effects are also serious. In Norway, the introduction of a sugar tax had not only positive effects but also some side effects, as sugar taxes increased the price of sugar, people went shopping in Sweden, even crossing the border. Denmark eventually abolished the tax after a year because of job losses and the burden on low-income people. In addition, in Mexico and France, the introduction of sugar taxes did not affect the reduction of carbonated drink consumption, and Finland has already abolished some of their sugar taxes. Many countries are hesitant to implement a sugar tax even though they recognize the necessity. Because the consumption of sugar-containing products is inelastic. One of the reasons for hesitating to introduce a sugar tax is that Korean food industry is already voluntarily making efforts to reduce sugar, such as releasing many products that have reduced or eliminated sugar. Moreover, it may enhance the consumption of artificial sweeteners that replace sugar, and make small companies less willing to invest due to taxes.

  Sugar has become a common enemy, being called the "cigarette of the 21^st century," around the world. Nevertheless, people continue to steadily eat sugar. In fact, sugar is not the main factor of obesity. Instead, it is an ‘over consumption of calories' and 'low calorie consumption’ in our daily lives. In other words, it means the high input and low output of nutrients in the body. Similarly, if sugar is the main factor of obesity, people should also care for all foods containing sugar, even fruits and vegetable juices, rice, and noodles.

  The National Assembly's sugar tax discussion is a good idea to reduce obesity and maintain health, and its purpose is appropriate. However, a Korean sugar tax should not be imposed in terms of effectiveness. It is not reasonable to define sugar as just a bad ingredient or focusing only on soft drinks and processed food. There is no good sugar or bad sugar in the world. You should not only be aware of sugar-added drinks, but also of eating fruits and honey. This partial supply regulation policy will only be effective in the short term. As a result, it is difficult to expect much of the advancement of public health. We should be careful about the excessive sugar intake and health problem, however, it is meaningless to witch-hunt sugar with the wrong logic. Of course, excessive consumption of sugar is harmful to us, but do not forget that sugar is also a good food that has long been helpful to mankind, such as its use as a medicine. Imposing an unequal tax on sugar may alert consumers, but it will only cause food faddism which is an unnecessary concern about food. After all, it cannot be the ultimate solution to human diseases.