Should we tax products that are too sweet to encourage manufacturers to review their recipes? Or does this measure risk penalizing consumers’ purchasing power? As the debate on the financing of Social Security for 2027 approaches, the question divides. In an open letter to parliamentarians, the French Federation of Diabetics, the League Against Cancer and several associations denounce opposition from manufacturers which, according to them, threatens to slow down a prevention policy that is nevertheless essential.
“Tax against consumers“: the associations contest the lawsuit made to measure
The tax on sweet products is not limited to a question of price. For its defenders, it could also encourage manufacturers to reduce the quantity of added sugars in their recipes and change the food supply towards products that are more favorable to health.
The signatories of the open letter therefore refuse to see this measure presented solely as an attack on purchasing power. They recall the consequences associated with excessive sugar consumption: overweight, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, metabolic fatty liver, oral problems and certain cancers.
The issue is particularly important among the youngest. According to the National Food Safety Agency (ANSES), 75% of children aged 4 to 7 exceed the recommended sugar consumption benchmarksindicate the associations.
“The objective of this new tax is not to make consumers feel more guilty.”they write. Rather, it is about creating an environment in which health-promoting choices become more accessible, without placing all the responsibility on individuals.
Why do associations want to act on industrial revenues?
Behind the tax debate lies another question: that of the responsibility of manufacturers in the composition of the foods available on a daily basis.
The associations defend an approach that does not rely solely on individual recommendations. Informing consumers about the risks of eating too much sugar is not enough, according to them, if the products concerned remain ubiquitous and competitive.
They therefore want manufacturers to participate more in prevention, in particular by reformulating their products to reduce the added sugar content.
This orientation would not be new. The fourth National Nutrition and Health Program (PNNS4), which covered the period 2019-2023, already made reducing sugar consumption and improving the food supply priorities. The signatories also recall that the World Health Organization and the High Council for Public Health recommend fiscal policies to act on the food environment.
In their eyes, prevention cannot be reduced to voluntary commitments: it also requires concrete measures capable of modifying the offer.
Public health versus economic interests: who should weigh in on the decision?
The signatories point out what they consider to be a contradiction: representatives of the food industry participate in consultations on food and display their commitment to healthier behaviors, but oppose restrictive measures likely to modify their practices.
“Prevention cannot be a facade commitment.”they write, calling not to confuse the economic interests of companies with those of consumers.
Their letter does not challenge industrialists’ right to defend their interests. Rather, it questions the place they occupy in the definition of health policies, while the consequences of chronic illnesses are borne by patients, caregivers and the entire community. The associations therefore ask that the parliamentary debate be based on available data and on a transparent assessment of the health, economic and social effects of the tax, rather than solely on the influence of economic actors.
Beyond the tax, associations are calling for a more ambitious prevention policy
For the signatories, the sugar tax should only be one lever among others. They also call for the generalization of the Nutri-Score, to better protect children from the marketing of products of low nutritional quality and ultra-processed, and to make a diet favorable to health financially accessible. In particular, they support the proposal for a basket of 100 healthy products sold at cost price.
Behind these requests, the same objective: to act before illnesses occur, rather than letting patients and the healthcare system bear the consequences.
The open letter is signed by Jean-Marc Brouart, president of the French Federation of Diabetics,
Philippe Bergerot, president of the National League Against Cancer, Gérard Raymond, president of France Assos Santé, Anne-Sophie Joly, president of the National Collective of Obese AssociationsAnd
Daniel Nizri, president of the PNNS4 from 2019 to 2023 and of the monitoring committee of the Arcom Food Charter.
At a time when the 2027 PLFSS must be debated, their message is clear: prevention cannot be based solely on individual choices. It also involves the conditions in which food is manufactured, marketed and made accessible. It remains to be seen what place parliamentarians will give to this ambition in the face of economic arguments.