Nine Union ministers oppose sugar tax
The ministers are asking Chancellor Friedrich Merz to scrap the government’s plan.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Nine agriculture and consumer-protection ministers from federal states governed by the CDU or CSU have spoken out against the planned German sugar tax. In a letter to Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they argue for information campaigns and voluntary measures instead of a new levy.
The letter is dated Sunday 11 October and is addressed to Merz, Head of the Chancellery Nina Warken and parliamentary group leader Thorsten Frei. The ministers write that, in their view, a consumption tax on sugary products is not the right way to promote healthier eating. They cite nutrition education, personal responsibility, consumer information and innovation as alternatives.
The letter adds fresh pressure on an issue that has long been debated within Germany’s coalition. The government previously set out that a levy on sugary drinks should be introduced as part of its budget plans. According to information from the Bundestag, introduction from 2028 is the working assumption, but the precise design has not yet been determined.
The ministers also warn of consequences for farms and the food chain. In their view, higher charges could affect demand for certain products and thereby hit producers’ revenues. They point out that companies are already facing higher costs for diesel, fertilisers and other inputs.
Supporters of a sugar tax see it as a means of encouraging producers to use less sugar in drinks. A levy could also affect consumer prices and generate revenue for the federal budget. The precise health effects, however, depend on the final rates, the products covered by the scheme and how consumers and manufacturers respond.
The German government has previously stressed that the plans are still under discussion. At a government press conference in early October, it was said that the proposal had not been taken off the table, but that the coalition was still negotiating its details. The new letter makes clear that opposition is coming not only from the opposition or business community, but also from state governments led by the governing parties.
The letter does not mean that the tax has been rejected. That would require a decision by the federal government and ultimately parliamentary consideration. The letter does, however, increase political uncertainty around the measure, precisely because the federal states are responsible for agriculture and consumer policy and the letter was signed by ministers from the CDU and CSU.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Nine agriculture and consumer-protection ministers from federal states governed by the CDU and CSU sent a letter opposing the planned sugar tax on 11 October.
- Bundestag information identifies a federal levy on sugary drinks from 2028 as part of the budget plans.
- The precise product groups, rates and implementation date have not yet been finalised.
Left
Arguments A levy can support public health if producers use less sugar and consumers buy fewer sugary drinks. The revenue could also be used for healthcare or prevention.
Values Health, prevention and the protection of children carry considerable weight, as does a government that uses market incentives to limit social costs.
Consequences Without action, an important public-health problem would, in this view, persist. A well-designed tax could accelerate reformulation by manufacturers, but should spare low-income households and staple products.
Centre
Arguments The institutional approach is first to establish which products demonstrably contribute to excessive sugar consumption and then carefully develop rates, exemptions and the use of the revenue.
Values Effectiveness, enforceability and predictability for consumers and businesses are central.
Consequences A compromise could consist of a limited levy on clearly defined soft drinks, combined with monitoring, evaluation and nutrition education. That would reduce both health and implementation risks.
Right
Arguments A new consumption tax increases the burden on consumers and businesses and gives the state too much influence over individual choices about eating and drinking. In this view, information, innovation and voluntary product improvements are more suitable.
Values Personal responsibility, affordability, freedom to do business and restrained government intervention.
Consequences Scrapping the levy would prevent additional administration and price rises, but would leave the government with less financial and regulatory influence over the sugar content of products.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The letter and the political context have been confirmed by several public German sources. The article clearly distinguishes between the government’s intention and a bill that has not yet been finalised.
- confirmed Nine CDU and CSU ministers sent a letter opposing the sugar tax on 11 October. — Deutschlandfunk and n-tv report the letter and the number of signatories. source
- confirmed The ministers are calling for nutrition education, personal responsibility, information and innovation as alternatives. — Deutschlandfunk summarises these arguments from the letter. source
- confirmed Bundestag information refers to the introduction of a levy from 2028. — The parliamentary information refers to the budget plans and the GKV bill. source
- confirmed In early October, the government said that the details in particular were still under discussion. — This is stated in the report of the government press conference on 2 October. source
Editor's note
The letter from nine ministers and the government’s existing intention to introduce a levy are certain. The rate, product groups and final introduction date have not yet been determined.Sources
- Kritik aus den Bundesländern: Landwirtschaftsminister der Union gegen eine Zuckersteuer — Deutschlandfunk
- Unmut über Zuckersteuer: Neun Unions-Agrarminister schreiben Protestbrief an Merz — n-tv
- Bundesregierung nennt Details zu Plänen einer Zuckersteuer — Deutscher Bundestag
- Regierungspressekonferenz vom 2. Oktober 2026 — Bundesregierung
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „duitsland suikerbelasting”
- De Telegraaf — „duitsland suikerbelasting”
- AD — „duitsland suikerbelasting”