In recent years, the direction of public policy in Europe has been reshaping itself not merely around economic growth or fiscal discipline, but also within the framework of public health, quality of life, and the concept of a sustainable welfare state. Climate policies, energy transitions, digital regulations, and public health interventions, in particular, have made the state’s regulatory role regarding markets and individuals more visible. While these developments signal an expansion in the scope of the social state in Europe, they also give rise to ideological debates concerning the limits of state intervention.
The sugar tax scheduled to take effect in Germany in 2028 stands out as one of the latest examples of these debates. While initially appearing to be a technical fiscal measure aimed at combating chronic conditions such as obesity and diabetes, this initiative quickly transcended the realm of health policy, evolving into a broader political debate regarding the extent to which the state can intervene in individuals’ lifestyles, the means by which the welfare state can be sustained, and the boundaries of liberal freedoms.
It is no coincidence that Germany has brought this regulation to the agenda. As one of Europe’s most advanced welfare states, Germany is moving towards developing new public policies in response to the rapid rise in healthcare spending, an aging population, the prevalence of chronic diseases, and pressures regarding the financing of the social security system in recent years. According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Germany has one of the highest rates of healthcare spending relative to national income in Europe.[i] Furthermore, the annually rising cost to the public budget of largely preventable conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases directly impacts not only the healthcare system but also the sustainability of the welfare state. Consequently, the government is prioritizing preventive health policies aimed at averting the onset of diseases. A sugar tax is also considered one of the fiscal instruments of this approach.
The regulation scheduled for implementation in 2028 envisages an additional tax on non-alcoholic beverages containing added sugar above a certain threshold. Through this measure, the government aims to encourage consumers to opt for healthier products and prompt manufacturers to reformulate their products to reduce sugar content. According to estimates, the regulation is expected to contribute approximately 650 million euros annually to the public budget.[ii] However, government officials emphasize that the primary goal is not to create a new tax item, but rather to reduce healthcare expenditures in the long term.
This approach is, in fact, a reflection of the concept of behavioral public policy that has become increasingly widespread in Europe in recent years. The “Nudge” theory, developed by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, argues that governments can steer individual behavior toward the public interest without resorting to prohibitive measures.[iii] Sugar taxes are also viewed as one of the applications of this theory in the field of fiscal policy. The goal is not to completely eliminate individuals’ freedom of choice, but rather to use the price mechanism to make healthier options more appealing and to encourage producers to develop products with lower sugar content. Indeed, the fact that many beverage manufacturers changed their product formulas following the implementation of the sugar tax in the United Kingdom in 2018 is cited as an important example by policymakers in Germany.
However, in Germany, the debate centers more on political and ideological divisions than on economic grounds. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens, in particular, view the sugar tax as a natural extension of the modern social welfare state concept. According to these parties, the state has a duty not only to treat illnesses but also to establish preventive mechanisms to safeguard public health.[iv] The fact that the public budget covers the treatment costs of chronic diseases caused by sugar consumption demonstrates that individual consumption choices are no longer merely a personal matter. Consequently, the tax is presented not as a tool to punish individuals, but rather as a preventive policy aimed at reducing the collective healthcare costs borne by society.
In contrast, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU/CSU), the Free Democratic Party (FDP), and—in particular—Alternative for Germany (AfD) view the regulation critically for different reasons. While liberal circles regard the state’s steering of consumption habits through tax policies as a restriction on individual freedoms, conservative groups argue that education and awareness-raising policies would be more effective than taxation.[v] The AfD, meanwhile, shifts the debate to a broader ideological plane, interpreting the sugar tax as a continuation of the state interventions regarding environmental regulations, energy policies, and consumption habits that have increased in recent years. According to the party, the government is increasingly interfering in citizens’ daily lives and narrowing the scope for individual choice.
It is precisely at this point that the concept of the “Nanny State” has resurfaced in German public discourse. Liberal circles and the conservative opposition, in particular, argue that the state deciding what citizens eat or drink pushes the boundaries of democracy.[vi] In response, the government, citing the World Health Organization’s warnings regarding sugar consumption and successful practices in Europe, argues that a reasonable balance must be struck between individual freedom and the public interest. Thus, the debate over the sugar tax in Germany—while ostensibly a fiscal measure—has become one of the symbols of a broader political struggle concerning the future of the welfare state, the limits of state intervention, and new directions in liberal democracy.
Another important aspect of the debate over the sugar tax in Germany is the stance taken by economic actors and the food industry. In particular, organizations representing non-alcoholic beverage producers and the food industry argue that the tax will increase production costs rather than change consumption habits, and that this will be reflected in prices. According to industry representatives, consumers should not be expected to simply give up sugary beverages; instead, the possibility that they might turn to higher-calorie alternative products should also be taken into account. For this reason, it is argued that the tax alone will not be sufficient, and that voluntary programs and awareness campaigns carried out in collaboration with producers will yield more lasting results. In response, the government emphasizes that the primary aim of the measure is not to punish consumers, but to use market mechanisms to both encourage producers to develop products with lower sugar content and to promote healthy consumption.
This policy adopted by Germany is also viewed as part of the preventive health strategies that have become increasingly widespread across Europe in recent years. In countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Portugal, similar taxes have led many manufacturers to reformulate their products and reduce added sugar content. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the OECD note that while sugar taxes do not offer a “miracle solution” on their own, they can have a significant impact on public health when implemented alongside nutritional education, advertising regulations, and product labeling systems. In this respect, the step taken by Germany is not merely a fiscal measure developed at the national level; it is part of a broader transformation demonstrating the growing institutionalization of behavioral public policies and preventive health approaches across Europe.
The debates surrounding the sugar tax can be interpreted as a new reflection of the ideological divide regarding the role of the state in Germany. While the scope of state intervention has expanded in recent years across various areas—such as the energy transition, environmental regulations, and climate policies—similar debates have extended to public health policies. Consequently, the sugar tax has become more than just a tool to encourage healthy eating; it has emerged as a symbol of a broader political debate concerning the extent to which the welfare state should steer individuals’ lifestyles. The fact that the populist and liberal opposition criticizes the measure on the grounds of individual freedoms indicates that the balance between public health and the realm of personal choice will remain a key item on the German political agenda in the period ahead.
Ultimately, the sugar tax scheduled for implementation in Germany in 2028 stands out as more than just a technical fiscal measure; it represents a concrete example of broader debates regarding the transformation of the welfare state in Europe. Developed to address rising healthcare costs and combat chronic diseases, this policy aims to reinforce the protective role of the social state while simultaneously pitting differing political perspectives against one another regarding the limits of state intervention and individual freedoms. Consequently, the regulation’s success will be assessed not merely by changes in sugar consumption or the fiscal revenue generated, but also by the public’s response to such behavioral public policies and the legitimacy it lends to similar measures across Europe.
[i] Venya Patel, “Beverage companies bite back at Germany’s 2028 sugar drink tax amid rising diabetes rates”, Nutrition Insight, https://www.nutritioninsight.com/news/germany-sugar-tax-2028-beverages-health.html, (Date Accessed. i. 30.07.2026).
[ii] “Almanya şeker vergisinden 650 milyon euro kazanacak”, DW, https://www.dw.com/tr/almanya-%C5%9Feker-vergisinden-650-milyon-euro-kazanacak/a-78005708, (Date Accessed. 30.07.2026).
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ben Knight, “Germany’s sugar tax sparks ‘nanny state’ debate”, DW, https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-sugar-tax-sparks-nanny-state-debate/a-77083208, (Date Accessed. 30.07.2026).
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
