South Korean President Lee Jae-myung’s proposal of a sugar levy to fund public healthcare is facing scrutiny, even as polls indicate strong public support. The initiative, first floated in late January , aims to curb sugar consumption and generate revenue for bolstering regional and public healthcare systems, mirroring a similar approach taken with tobacco taxes.
According to surveys cited by President Lee, over 80% of Koreans support the tax. Respondents prioritized the use of revenue for improvements to school sports and meal quality (87%), elderly health support (85%), funding for public healthcare personnel and facilities (82%) and aid for low-income health support (81%). The proposal builds on discussions dating back to .
However, the plan is not without its critics. Lee Kyung-soo, a professor of preventive medicine at Yeungnam University, questioned the logic of directly linking the levy’s revenue to regional public healthcare. He argued that the connection is weak and lacks a clear policy rationale. Professor Lee suggested that targeting health issues directly, such as childhood and adolescent obesity, would be a more persuasive approach. He stated that the current focus on regional public healthcare feels like a “political message” rather than a sound policy decision.
The debate centers on the optimal use of funds generated by the tax. Professor Lee emphasized the need for “precise targeting” of both the tax itself and the allocation of revenue. He suggested that a broad-based sugar tax might be less effective than a more focused approach, and that the long-term health benefits would take time to materialize. He also pointed out that the proposed annual revenue of approximately 200 billion Korean won may be insufficient to significantly impact nationwide education and health programs.
The President’s proposal comes as more than 120 countries already implement sugar taxes or similar measures, based on recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO). These taxes take various forms, including flat excise taxes, as seen in Mexico, and tiered systems based on sugar content, like in the United Kingdom. The WHO identifies overconsumption of sugar as a major contributor to lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.
Despite the international precedent and public support, concerns remain within South Korea regarding potential inflationary pressures and the burden on consumers. Industry representatives and some experts have voiced opposition, arguing that sugar is a staple consumer item and a levy could lead to price increases. The ruling party is currently reviewing potential legislative amendments, but faces resistance from the opposition, citing increased tax burdens.
Professor Lee also suggested a shift in framing the issue, advocating for a public health perspective that views sugar and fructose not merely as matters of “choice,” but as potential “food safety” concerns. He drew a parallel to foodborne illnesses, arguing that long-term health risks associated with excessive sugar intake should also fall under the umbrella of food safety regulations. He further proposed incentivizing manufacturers to reduce sugar content through certification programs, potentially fostering voluntary improvements within the industry.
The success of the sugar levy, Professor Lee concluded, hinges on its integration into a broader, long-term strategy for future generations’ health. He argued that funds should be prioritized for health promotion and disease prevention, rather than solely focusing on treatment-oriented regional public healthcare. He believes this approach would garner greater public support and ensure the policy’s effectiveness. The debate is expected to continue, with the fate of the levy dependent on political negotiations.
