WHO sin tax scheme ‘regressive, unfair’ to consumers, says group

Martin Cullip, international fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center in London

An international consumer group warned that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) suggestion of implementing “sin taxes” on products like sweetened beverages, alcohol and tobacco to cover its budget deficit would negatively impact the working class in developing countries.

In its so-called 3 by 35 initiative, the WHO is urging its member countries to significantly increase the prices of sugary drinks, alcohol and tobacco by 50 percent over the next decade through taxation allegedly to curb consumption and generate revenue at a time when development aid is decreasing and public debt is growing.

Martin Cullip, international fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center in London, said the WHO’s proposal to use these taxes to cover its projected $600-million budget shortfall in 2025 is a “war on the working class” and “regressive social engineering.”

READ: Groups oppose suspension of sin taxes

The International Council of Beverages Associations, in a Reuters newswire report, also expressed concern that the WHO is ignoring more than ten years of evidence, which has consistently shown that taxes on sugary drinks haven’t led to better health or less obesity.

In the same Reuters report, The Distilled Spirits Council said the WHO’s idea to increase taxes as a way to reduce alcohol-related harm was misguided, adding that such a measure wouldn’t actually stop alcohol abuse.

Unfair burden

Cullip said these taxes, proposed by unelected WHO officials, would unfairly burden low-income individuals, especially in developing countries, instead of genuinely improving public health.  He said the WHO aims to extract more money from consumers and taxpayers through extensive “sin taxes” on tobacco and alcohol, and potentially other products it deems unhealthy.

The Federation of Philippine Industries (FPI) said “the WHO proposal would unfairly burden industries and ordinary citizens, especially in the most vulnerable in developing countries.  “This risks further alienating the very public the WHO aims to serve,” said Jess Arranza, Chairman Emeritus of FPI.

Arranza agreed that genuine progress in public health requires accountability, innovative strategies for harm reduction and a real understanding of socioeconomic challenges. “Relying on regressive taxation and an outdated, top-down approach will not achieve these goals. Education, not excessive taxation, is the more sustainable path to long-term behavior change and better health outcomes.” he said.

The WHO suggested more taxes on so-called sin products after the United States moved to withdraw billions from the organization’s global health programs, citing inefficiency and mismanagement.

Cullip said no less than WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus had cited the need for reforms, but the agency seemingly found a way of avoiding its poor spending practices by putting additional burdens on taxpayers.

He said the WHO operates outside democratic accountability, yet wields enormous influence over national health policy, especially in low- and middle-income countries. “And yet, the public foots the bill through national contributions, charitable donations, and now, potentially, through higher prices on products they legally choose to use,” said Cullip.

He said the WHO is pushing a narrow and self-righteous model of public health that has long since been discredited, and its playbook is stuck in a prohibitionist past, where sin taxes are the only weapon it knows how to wield.

“Instead of evolving with science and supporting modern harm reduction strategies, it remains hostile to innovation, particularly in the case of reduced-risk nicotine products,” said Cullip.

“We know who will pay for the WHO’s proposals. Not the corporations. Not the policymakers. And certainly not the NGO elites flying business class to conferences. No, it’s regular people, especially in poorer countries, who will bear the cost,” said Cullip.

“These taxes are regressive by design. They hit low-income populations hardest, many of whom already face enormous barriers to accessing basic healthcare. For someone barely scraping by, a tax on a legal product they enjoy or rely on is not just a health nudge. It’s a slap in the face,” he said.

Cullip said the WHO needs to change its approach to effective public health focusing on practical, evidence-based solutions that genuinely improve people’s lives, rather than on rigid moralistic views.