Martin Cullip, international fellow of The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) Consumer Center
A global consumer advocacy group is speaking out against a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal to implement “sin taxes” on sugary drinks, alcohol and tobacco. The group said these taxes would disproportionately burden the working class in developing nations.
The WHO, through its “3 by 35 Initiative,” is reportedly pushing member countries to significantly raise prices on these products—by at least 50 percent through tax hikes—by 2035. The stated goals are to curb consumption and generate revenue, especially as development aid declines and public debt rises. However, critics contend that this approach places an unfair financial strain on those least able to afford it.
The WHO’S proposal to use these taxes to cover its projected $600-million budget shortfall in 2025 is a “war on the working class” and “regressive social engineering”, said Martin Cullip, international fellow of The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) Consumer Center in London.
In a Reuters report, the International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA) also expressed concern that the WHO continues to disregard over a decade of clear evidence showing that taxing sugary drinks has never improved health outcomes or reduced obesity in any country.
In the same Reuters report, the Distilled Spirits Council described the WHO’s idea to increase taxes as a way to reduce alcohol-related harm as “misguided”, adding that it would not prevent alcohol abuse.
Instead of genuinely improving public health, these taxes proposed by unelected WHO officials would unfairly burden low-income individuals, especially in developing countries, Cullip said. He contended that the WHO aims to draw more money from consumers and taxpayers through extensive “sin taxes” on tobacco and alcohol and potentially other products it deems unhealthy.
“The WHO proposal would impose an unfair burden on industries and ordinary citizens, especially the most vulnerable in developing countries, and risks further alienating the very public the WHO aims to serve,” said Jess Arranza, chairman emeritus of the Federation of Philippine Industries (FPI).
Arranza agreed that genuine progress in public health requires accountability, innovative strategies for harm reduction and a real understanding of socioeconomic challenges, but stressed that “relying on regressive taxation and an outdated, top-down approach” will not benefit public health.
“Education, not excessive taxation, is the more sustainable path to long-term behavior change and better health outcomes,” Arranza said.
The WHO’s “sin tax” suggestion comes after the United States moved to withdraw billions from the organization’s global health programs, citing inefficiency and mismanagement.
Cullip noted that after WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cited the need for reforms, the agency seemingly found a way to skirt the issue of poor spending practices by putting additional burdens on taxpayers.
The WHO operates outside democratic accountability, yet wields enormous influence over national health policies, especially in low- and middle-income countries, said Cullip. “And yet, the public foots the bill through national contributions, charitable donations, and now, potentially, through higher prices on products they legally choose to use.”
He criticized the WHO for advocating for a narrow and self-righteous model of public health that has long been discredited and using a playbook stuck in a prohibitionist past, where imposing sin taxes is its only weapon.
“Instead of evolving with science and supporting modern harm reduction strategies, the WHO remains hostile to innovation, particularly in the case of reduced-risk nicotine products,” said Cullip.
He said those who would pay the price for the WHO’s proposals are not “the corporations, the policymakers, the NGO elites flying business class to conferences. No, it’s regular people, especially in poorer countries, who will bear the cost.”
Calling the WHO-proposed sin taxes “regressive by design”, Cullip warned that such a measure would “hit low-income populations the hardest, many of whom already face enormous barriers to accessing basic healthcare. For someone barely scraping by, a tax on a legal product they enjoy or rely on is not just a health nudge. It’s a slap in the face.”
Cullip urged the WHO to abandon its public health approach guided by rigid moralistic views and instead focus on practical, evidence-based solutions that genuinely improve people’s lives.
