The discussion is now spreading to Korean society over the introduction of a sugar tax that would impose taxes on processed foods such as soft drinks to reduce the intake of sugars. Of course, we should take precautions not to eat excessive sugar products that cause obesity and many other adult diseases. Solving the problem of excessive sugar intake is now a must-do task at the national level as sugar intake is steadily increasing in Korea. But introducing a sugar tax is not a good solution. The compulsory price policy, which is enforced before the people voluntarily form a social atmosphere to reduce sugar products, is ineffective. It also goes against equity in that it increases the burden on consumers by causing inevitable price hikes, and above all, the damage is concentrated on low-income brackets. Considering these negative consequences, the introduction of a sugar tax in Korea is not desirable.

           First, a sugar tax is ineffective and cannot be a fundamental solution to reducing sugar intake. The best way to reduce sugar intake is to make companies and consumers voluntarily reduce production and consumption by letting them know the risk of sugar intake and forming a national consensus on it. It is dangerous to collecting taxes alone without this policy. The spread of cultural awareness should come first before the forced price increase policy. It is not too much to say that modern Korean society is 'in love with sugar.' Various TV programs, including YouTube's popular content ‘Mukbang,’ show famous desserts such as macaroons and cakes, and the influencers stimulate people's desire to eat them by showing themselves enjoying the food. While all kinds of media are enthusiastic about desserts and sweets, it is paradoxical for the government to impose only taxes without doing any efforts to change people’s awareness. It also cannot offer appropriateness of cutting on sugars to consumers. Only when people think that they should not consume a lot of sugar can the consumption decrease. Taxing sugar products to people who still like sugar will only cause a backlash against the tax. It is also wrong to think that the tax on sugar(sucrose)-added drinks or processed foods alone could reduce sugar intake. In addition to sugar(sucrose), we should take care of all foods containing sugar, such as fruits, fruit juice, and rice. In Korea, about one-third of the sugar intake is through fruits. According to the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 33% of the average daily sugar intake per person was from fruit, followed by 14.5% milk and 8.3% soda. “Although reducing sugar in processed foods will bring good results in the short term. However, it is more appropriate to accurately inform people of the sugar content of all foods, and persuade people to reduce their sugar intake in their lives by campaigns, etc.,” said Ha Sang-do, a professor of food engineering at Chung-Ang University.

           Second, the sugar tax can lead to raising the prices of the taxable products, increasing the burden on consumers, and distorting the market economy. When a sugar tax is imposed on processed foods, it is inevitable for companies to raise the price of a certain portion of the tax amount. This is because if a company pays all the tax amount, it will suffer losses, and its profitability will be reduced. The burden on consumers is already high due to continued inflation. The producer price index [1]has continued to rise for four consecutive months. The Bank of Korea said the producer price index reached a tentative 105.85 in March, up 0.8 % from a month earlier and the highest level in 8 years and 5 months. In particular, the increase in the staple food of Koreans such as rice, red pepper powder, and meat was large, forcing consumers to feel more burdened by rising prices. In addition, side effects that distort the market economy can occur. According to the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Denmark, which introduced a sugar tax in 2011, abolished it in 2013. Because the sugar tax was not effective in curbing beverage consumption, and also as prices of related products increased, people went to neighboring countries such as Sweden or Germany to purchase related food. It is economically obvious that taxes reduce overall social welfare, whether they are passed on to the companies or consumers. To implement tax policies at the expense of reducing social welfare, there must be greater utility than the reduction. However, the price-inelastic sugar products do not have much effect on curbing consumption. According to a 2012 study by the Korea Institute of Public Finance, the price elasticity of soft drinks for Korean adults is -0.69[2]. So although it may be effective in curbing sugar intake in the beginning, the increased price may not have much effect by becoming the standard price later.

           Third, a sugar tax can increase the tax burden on low-income brackets, resulting in health inequality. It has been a long time since obesity, called ‘the disease of the rich,’ has become a symbol of poverty. Access to health-hazardous foods is much higher for low-income people than for high-income people. This phenomenon comes from a social structural cause of the income gap. Many experts say that low-income people who cannot afford health care costs often eat inexpensive and low-quality processed foods, while those who are more economically stable try to find healthy alternatives. "Obesity among low-income groups, who cannot afford the health care costs, is a common phenomenon in advanced countries," said Kang Jae-heon, director of the obesity center at Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital. Therefore, a sugar tax can directly damage low-income brackets who frequently consume related foods. In addition, the sugar tax is a kind of indirect tax, which has long been criticized for worsening tax equity because of the reversibility that makes people with less income pay relatively more taxes. The tax system is divided into direct and indirect taxes. Unlike direct taxes, which levies more taxes according to income level, indirect taxes are included within the price of goods, so the rich or the poor bear the same amount. A tax burden concentrated on low-income brackets can eventually worsen health equity. "Low-income people whose purchasing power has been greatly reduced due to falling disposable income have no choice but to eat poor foods. In the end, the sugar tax will exacerbate health inequalities," said Kim Sun-taek, chairman of the Korea Taxpayer Association.

          The core of controlling sugar intake is not just to reduce the intake of processed foods and drinks, but to reduce the intake of sugar itself. Also, the method of regulation should be not the compulsory imposition of penalties, such as taxes, but the spread of cultural awareness that allows people to voluntarily reduce their sugar intake. "We need a public discussion process to see if the sugar tax can be effective in promoting public health. But currently, there seems to be no consensus among consumers," said Jung Ji-yeon, secretary-general of the Korea Consumer Federation. At a time when the economy is unstable, tax increases on products consumed by many ordinary people, especially low-income brackets, should be carefully examined. If the sugar tax is implemented in the current situation where a national consensus is not formed and the effect of the tax is not guaranteed, the effect will never be sweet.

So far, the proponents said the sugar tax will contribute to improve the health of the people by reducing consumption and production of sugar-added food. The opponents then said that a sugar tax is ineffective and would threaten the stability of the people's livelihoods, primarily those in low-income brackets. Through both sides' arguments, we were able to predict the benefits and losses of introducing a sugar tax in Korea. We cannot say which is the correct answer. However, the National Assembly, which will decide on the legislation of a sugar tax, should gather information and opinions from many people, including experts, and conduct a thorough review. Meanwhile, the sugar tax debate makes many people in modern society, who are accustomed to excessive sugar intake, reflect on their diet. Let's look at how much sugar has been in the foods that have entertained our mouths so far and be wary of them. In the process, you may be able to find your own answer to whether sugar taxes are needed to reduce sugar intake.