Home > National > Social Affairs

Is a sugar tax good public health care policy or just a government cash grab?

Published: 31 Jan. 2026, 13:13 Updated: 01 Feb. 2026, 15:34

LEE TAE-HEE
[email protected]

Packs of sugar are on display at a supermarket in Seoul on Jan. 28. [NEWS1]

The debate over a levy on sugar has resurfaced after President Lee Jae Myung asked the public for its views on imposing such charges.

Those for the sugar levy argue it could help prevent chronic diseases and reduce medical spending, while critics warn that it would increase the burden on consumers and businesses.

The discussion started after President Lee shared a local report in an X post on Wednesday stating 80 percent of respondents supported the introduction of a sugar tax. The survey used in the article was conducted by a health research team at Seoul National University that has advocated the introduction of a sugar levy.

According to the survey, 80.1 percent of 1,030 survey respondents supported imposing charges on companies that excessively use added sugars.

The research group released a statement on Friday outlining key issues surrounding the proposal and explaining why it believes a sugar levy is necessary. The following summarizes its arguments in a question-and-answer format.

Q. Why introduce a sugar levy?

A. The proposed measure is more accurately described as a charge on products that use excessive amounts of sugar. It would function as a health-related surcharge aimed at reducing sugar consumption by raising prices. The World Health Organization has recommended that governments consider such levies.

Is this a tax increase in disguise to boost government tax revenue?

The levy is not designed as a new revenue stream, as collection would fall if sugar consumption declines. The closer tax revenue comes to zero, the more successful the policy would be. If the government’s goal were simply to raise tax income, a most sustainable approach would be to target essential goods with inelastic demand rather than discretionary products.

Wouldn't higher prices hurt low-income households the most?

If companies reduce sugar content to avoid the levy, consumers would be able to purchase healthier products without paying higher prices, meaning the sugar levy would not disproportionately burden low-income households. With chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure relatively more prevalent among low-income groups, a reduction in a major contributor to the conditions would be beneficial.

Could it trigger across-the-board food price hikes?

The levy would apply only to final products with excessive added sugar, not to sugar itself. If manufacturers keep sugar levels below a designated threshold, no charge would be imposed.

Are there concerns about consumption shifting to alternative sweeteners?

Whether alternative sweeteners are safe hasn't been fully verified, and there are side effects to strengthening dependence on sweet flavors. In fact, 75 percent of countries that have introduced sugar levies also impose charges on artificial sweeteners. If sugar levies were to be introduced, decisions on alternative sweeteners must also be made.

President Lee suggested that the tax revenue be used for regional and public health care.

There is an ongoing concern about the standard of care outside of Seoul. Revenue from the levy could be used to raise regional national university hospitals to the level of Seoul National University Hospital.

Is a sugar levy something that Korea needs to urgently introduce?

Sugar is a major contributor to chronic illnesses such as obesity and diabetes. A sugar levy could help individuals avoid those diseases while reducing overall health care spending. Recent studies have also linked excessive sugar intake to depression and dementia. As Korea enters a super-aged society, protecting mental health and preventing dementia among older adults has become an increasingly pressing task.

BY CHAE HYE-SEON, LEE TAE-HEE [[email protected]]