The Issue Heavier than the Price of a Bottle of Cola: How Should Japan View the Confusion Over Germany's "Sugar Tax"?

The Issue Heavier than the Price of a Bottle of Cola: How Should Japan View the Confusion Over Germany's "Sugar Tax"?

Amid the emergence of a "sugar tax" in Germany, one of the world's largest beverage manufacturers has expressed strong concerns. John Galvin, head of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners' German subsidiary, argued that the classification of taxable beverages, the recording of sales quantities, tax calculation, and response to audits would become overwhelming, placing a heavy burden not only on manufacturers but also on retailers. In mixed cases where different types of bottles can be freely combined, it is anticipated that cashiers might have to handle tax amounts for each bottle, potentially leading to price increases and negative impacts on employment.

At first glance, it may seem that a giant corporation is merely opposing new burdens. However, this counterargument raises questions that cannot be ignored, even for Japan. For health-related taxes, from whom, at what stage, and based on what criteria should they be collected? Will products with reduced sugar content be rewarded? On whom will the burden of price increases concentrate? And how will the collected funds be used? The success or failure of a sugar tax is determined more by its design than by the question of whether to tax or not.


What is happening in Germany

In Germany, a plan to introduce a levy on sugary drinks emerged in the spring of 2026, aimed at combating obesity and reducing the burden on the healthcare system. Initially reported to start in 2028, the tax revenue was to be allocated for disease prevention and health promotion. Subsequently, through discussions within the fiscal authorities, a proposal to advance the start to 2027 surfaced. However, the leaked working document included content that could potentially target fruit juices, milk substitute beverages, non-alcoholic beer mix drinks, and even drinks using sugar-free sweeteners.

This led to a rapid entanglement in the debate. If the original goal is "to reduce sugar intake," it is unclear why even sugar-free zero drinks would be taxed. On August 26, 2026, Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil declared that zero drinks would not be taxed, explaining that the leaked document was not a politically agreed decision. In other words, the details, including the 2027 start, remain fluid, and the system had not been finalized at the time of the original article.

This background is important. Coca-Cola's criticism of a "bureaucratic nightmare" is not an evaluation of a completed law but a warning at a stage where neither the scope of the target nor the collection method has been finalized. At the same time, it also shows that if the government's explanation wavers, health-oriented policies can easily be suspected as a "tax increase that casts a net over the entire beverage sector for revenue purposes."


Approximately 53 grams of sugar in 500 milliliters

In an interview with RND, Mr. Galvin stated that regular Coca-Cola contains 10.6 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters. A simple calculation shows about 53 grams in 500 milliliters. On the other hand, he argued that obesity cannot be explained by beverages alone, and the industry is already voluntarily reducing sugar content, with sales of zero drinks also increasing. He also emphasized the logic of free choice, stating that the state should not dictate what people should eat or drink.

Indeed, obesity and type 2 diabetes involve multiple factors such as exercise, total calorie intake, sleep, income, education, and food environment. The problem cannot be solved by vilifying a single bottle of cola. However, sugar intake from liquids can increase rapidly in a short time, and policies can easily influence prices and formulations. This "targetability" is why sugary drinks have become the first target of health taxes in various countries.

According to Germany's official product monitoring, the average sugar content in soft drinks decreased by about 15% compared to the baseline year of 2018. It cannot be said that voluntary efforts have been ineffective. On the other hand, the figure of "20% reduction in our product lineup" presented by Coca-Cola does not have the same weighting in terms of target products, sales volume, or comparison period. It is dangerous to hastily conclude which is superior, voluntary reduction or taxation, based solely on the size of the numbers.


The purpose of the tax is not just price increases

When it comes to a sugar tax, the focus is often solely on consumers not buying expensive cola. However, the larger effect lies in the manufacturer's reformulation. The UK's Soft Drinks Industry Levy requires manufacturers and importers to bear a graduated burden based on the sugar content of drinks with added sugar above a certain amount. According to the UK government's review, the average sugar content of targeted drinks decreased by 46% between 2015 and 2020 following the announcement of the system.

What is important here is that the UK model does not require calculating tax for each bottle at the store register. Since the tax is levied upstream at the manufacturing, packaging, and import stages, while tax classification for each product is necessary, store clerks do not need to determine sugar content at each checkout. It is still uncertain which method will be adopted in Germany, but the issue of mixed cases raised by Coca-Cola can be significantly influenced by the system design. Administrative costs are not the inevitable fate of the tax itself.

A cautious reading of the health effects is also necessary. In the UK, reductions in sugar intake and product improvements have been confirmed, and some studies show favorable changes in children's dental health and obesity in certain age groups. However, uniform improvements have not been confirmed for all ages and genders, and the national obesity rate has not reversed solely due to the tax. Both "the sugar tax solved obesity" and "the obesity rate increased, so the tax is ineffective" are oversimplifications.

A 2023 academic study targeting Germany suggested that a sugar-sweetened beverage tax could prevent or delay approximately 130,000 to 240,000 cases of type 2 diabetes over 20 years, reducing social costs by approximately 10.8 to 16 billion euros. Among these, the method of changing the tax rate according to the amount of sugar, rather than uniformly raising prices, was estimated to be more effective in encouraging reformulation. However, this is a simulation, and the results are influenced by assumptions such as the direct effects on cardiovascular risk. Policy decisions need to simultaneously show both the "magnitude of potential" and "uncertainty."


On social media, "distrust of the system" burned more than "health"

Reactions on social media to this debate do not neatly divide into support and opposition. Checking German-speaking Reddit and X, four major voices can be seen.

 

The first is opposition to creating another new tax amid rising living costs. There is strong distrust that health is just an excuse and the real purpose is securing financial resources. Coca-Cola's claims of price increases and employment concerns resonate easily with this group.

The second is criticism of the proposal to include zero drinks. On social media, there were numerous comments pointing out that "if zero sugar is taxed and drinks with a small amount of sugar and sweeteners are exempt, it might actually incentivize adding sugar." This is not just an emotional argument but a systemic issue raising concerns that the tax boundary could distort corporate behavior. The finance minister's clear statement to exclude zero drinks was likely influenced by such criticism of the lack of clarity.

The third is support for the sugar tax. Opinions include "it can change the motivation of companies to produce high-sugar products cheaply," "reformulation progressed in the UK," and "since future medical costs are borne by society as a whole, a preventive price signal is necessary." The idea is not to raise prices but to encourage manufacturers to reduce sugar to avoid price increases.

The fourth is dissatisfaction with taste and alternative sweeteners. Based on experiences in the UK where the taste of regular products changed, there are voices that simply replacing sugar with sweeteners is not welcome. Even if zero drinks are excluded from taxation, how far the transition to artificial sweeteners is considered a health success remains a separate issue.

It should be noted that social media posts are not public opinion surveys. Anger at the tax and contradictions in the system are likely to be motivations for posting, and it is not guaranteed that supporters will write with the same intensity. A representative survey reported in the spring of 2026 showed that about 60% of people in Germany supported the levy on sugary drinks. The impression from timelines should be distinguished from the opinion of society as a whole.


In Japan, the challenge is "definition" rather than "tax rate"

In Japan, a nationwide uniform tax based on the sugar content of beverages has not been introduced. Health policies have been centered on "Health Japan 21," health checkups, awareness campaigns, and collaboration with companies. However, the 2023 National Health and Nutrition Survey showed that the percentage of people with a BMI of 25 or higher was 31.5% for men and 21.1% for women, and "people strongly suspected of having diabetes" were 16.8% for men and 8.9% for women. Japan is not immune to this issue.

If the discussion were to take place in Japan, the first hurdle would be defining the taxable targets. Should it be limited to carbonated drinks, or include sweetened coffee, tea beverages, lactic acid drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit juice drinks, milk drinks, soy milk, and oat drinks? How should concentrated syrups and powders, as well as server-style beverages in restaurants, be accounted for? Should functional foods and foods for specified health uses be exceptions? The more boundaries there are, the more room companies have to innovate formulations, but the burden on administration and businesses increases.

There is also a discrepancy with the labeling system. In Japan, the main items required to be displayed on general processed foods are calories, protein, fat, carbohydrates, and salt equivalent, with "sugars" being optional. If taxation is based on sugar content, it will be necessary to establish analytical values, calculation methods, declaration data, and audit rules for taxation, separate from consumer labeling. The administrative burden feared by German companies could become a reality in Japan as well.

Furthermore, vending machines and convenience stores are important sales points for beverages in Japan. How to reflect taxes of a few yen in prices, how to update machine settings and promotional displays with price revisions, and how much of the same reporting to require from small importers and regional manufacturers. Even if the system creators think "large companies can handle it," the burden on the ground may feel heavier at the ends of the distribution network.


Six conditions Japan should learn

If Japan considers a sugar tax, at least the following conditions are necessary.

First, clearly state the purpose as "sugar reduction" rather than "revenue." If the purpose is vague, trust will be lost the moment the target expands to zero or sugar-free drinks.

Second, collect at the manufacturer/importer stage, creating a system where retailers do not have to determine each drink individually. Standardizing product masters and declaration data can help reduce the burden of mixed cases.

Third, set a few graduated tax rates based on sugar content to encourage reformulation towards sugar reduction. If too many fine divisions are created, management becomes complicated, and improvements targeting just below the boundary increase.

Fourth, publicly disclose the rationale for including zero drinks, fruit juices, milk drinks, alternative milk, concentrates, and foodservice offerings. If the purpose is health, explanations aligned with those components and risks are necessary.

Fifth, make the use of tax revenue visible. Allocating it to water supply environments in schools and public facilities, children's dental measures, nutrition education, and health support for low-income households can mitigate opposition to the tax as merely imposing a burden.

Sixth, continuously disclose sugar content, prices, sales volumes, use of alternative sweeteners, health indicators, and corporate administrative costs before and after introduction. If success is measured by tax revenue, a paradox arises where the more drinks are sold, the more successful it is. The goal should be for the target products to be reduced in sugar and no longer taxed, not for tax revenue to increase.


"Bureaucratic nightmare" is a warning, not a conclusion

Coca-Cola's counterargument involves the interests of a company protecting the price and market of its products. Nevertheless, warnings about product classification and distribution practices should not be dismissed. Complex taxes may weigh more heavily on small and medium-sized manufacturers and retail sites than on giant corporations.

At the same time, there is no need to abandon health policies solely due to administrative burdens. The UK's experience shows that if collection is done upstream and stages are set according to sugar content, reformulation can be encouraged while avoiding checkout confusion. The essence of the confusion in Germany is not that a sugar tax will inevitably become a nightmare, but that a system with wavering purposes and targets is prone to becoming a nightmare.

What Japan should learn from this discussion is not a binary choice of whether to deprive or protect the freedom to drink cola. It is about leaving consumers with product choices, giving manufacturers a clear incentive to reduce sugar, minimizing the burden on administration and distribution, and returning the obtained revenue to reducing health disparities. If these conditions cannot be met, it should not be hastily introduced. Conversely, if conditions can be disclosed and verified, a sugar tax could become a policy that quietly changes the content of products, rather than merely raising prices.


Source URL

Related Articles