From our other sites
The story
Reports say Germany’s federal government has largely agreed on a “two-tier model” for its sugar tax. Starting July 1, 2027, sweetened beverages with 5g or more of sugar per 100ml would be taxed at 26 cents per liter, rising to 32 cents per liter for drinks with 8g or more. On the overseas forum Lemmy’s c/dach community, the news sparked discussion from multiple angles — confusion over the taxable unit (per liter vs. per container), concerns that manufacturers might engineer products to just dodge the threshold, and worries about the impact on small local breweries.
Federal government reportedly agrees on two-tier model for sugar tax
Source: tagesschau.de / Original article here
What people said
Per liter.
"Starting next July, sweetened drinks with 5g or more of sugar per 100ml will be taxed at 26 cents per liter, rising to 32 cents for 8g or more."
(from the ZDF article)
Why are you comparing apples to pears — heck, even to gloves at this point (lol)
From the TAZ article
As it stands, I don't see any real "path toward zero sugar" here.
The usual result of lobbying.
I think the 5g-per-100ml threshold is set there because milk's natural sugar content falls just below that line.
Do you seriously think sugar should be eliminated from our diets entirely? 🫠
Also, is there any sense in which sweetened drinks from small manufacturers are actually less unhealthy?
They're not any healthier, but I get the point. Small breweries rely mainly on local sourcing and sales, so a price hike hits their sales far harder than it would a big, established company with deep advertising budgets.
That doesn't actually answer the question (and it's literally the same passage I quoted). So in the end, how much tax is on a 2-liter bottle of cola? 32 cents? Or 64 cents?
And for a case of twelve 0.5-liter bottles? One lump sum of 32 cents? Twelve times 32 cents? Or 12 × 0.5 × 32 cents?
So does that mean a drink maker with 4.9g of sugar per 100ml doesn't have to pay the tax at all!?
Right — if you taxed every amount of sugar uniformly regardless of how little, it would completely defeat the tax's whole "behavioral nudge" purpose.
Can a sugar tax even "go too far" in the first place?
Originally it was supposed to apply to juice too. And part of why it'll miss the mark is that the revenue isn't being used to subsidize healthy food. Next thing you know cucumbers will cost 5 euros. Hard to believe, but if people who used to drink cola start getting their sugar from apples instead… apples will just go up in price too.
What's this tax revenue even going to be used for? Feeding bureaucrats?
Yeah, I'm generally in favor of provisions like this. Coca-Cola isn't going under over a small tax increase, but if a small local lemonade brewery goes under, we lose culture, diversity, and jobs along with it.
Personally I think local breweries are the better choice. More ethical, better for the environment, and honestly they just taste way better.
Brands I like: Alaska, Tiroler Cola, Spezi (the original from Riegele), Leikheim, and Fritz-Cola. If only that last one weren't so expensive…!!
Reading this, it sounds like the tax is applied flat per container. So a 2-liter bottle and a 250ml bottle get taxed the same amount? What even counts as a "container"? For case sales, I'd at least hope it's taxed per bottle rather than per case… but I guess that's exactly what might happen.
Taxing per container sounds absurd, but it's exactly the kind of thing that could actually happen — scary.
Introducing the new Red Bull! Now in an easy-to-handle 5-liter can!! Cylindrical, practical, perfect! Red Bull gives you wiiings!!
Guess we won't actually know until the bill passes. That's just how German bureaucracy works.
Great news for everyone 16 and up: introducing new Pepsi Schorle (a German-style drink cut with sparkling water) — half Pepsi, half soda water, for the discerning palate.
I just can't stand artificial sweeteners. At that point I feel like I'd rather try making my own cola from scratch.
For a second I panicked thinking it said "per 100ml."
Wouldn't surprise me. Club-Mate, for instance, already sits right at 5g of sugar, so it'd barely change anything.
Agreed. After this, I'd like to see it extended to solid food too — frozen and microwave meals especially.
Honestly, when it comes to drinks, I think that's probably right. From an evolutionary standpoint, there's basically no naturally occurring sugary drink besides milk.
Still, progress is progress. And at least it doesn't have some convoluted rule lumping artificial sweeteners in with sugar in some weird way.
"Tax fruit too!"
What does everyone think about earmarked taxes (where the revenue is tied to a specific use)? On one hand it seems like a good thing, but on the other it really strips the government of fiscal flexibility.
Background and Key Points of Debate
Sugar taxes are a policy being rolled out across European countries, and tiered taxation based on sugar content is said to encourage beverage makers to reformulate their products. Germany’s new proposal similarly sets two thresholds — 5g and 8g of sugar per 100ml — with different tax rates for each, but in the thread, commenters found the original reporting unclear on whether the tax applied “per liter” or “per container,” and had to cross-check against ZDF and TAZ articles to confirm. Other points raised included concerns about a “threshold effect,” where more products get engineered to land just under the cutoff (e.g., at 4.9g of sugar), and specific examples like Club-Mate, an existing drink that already sits right at the 5g boundary. Notably, much of the discussion focused on fine details of the policy’s design, including the pros and cons of making it an “earmarked tax” tied to a specific use for the revenue.
*This article is translated and adapted by our editorial team from the Lemmy c/dach thread “Bundesregierung einigt sich bei Zuckersteuer offenbar auf Zwei-Stufen-Modell.” Our team is responsible for the translation.
Leave a Reply