The paradoxes of the Sugar Tax, from Meloni's postponement to Schlein's doubling

In yesterday's Council of Ministers, the government kicked the can of the Sugar tax once again: postponed to January 1, 2026. It has been like this for six years now. The tax on sugary drinks was introduced by the Conte II government with the 2020 Budget Law but never came into force: since then it has always been there, but it has never existed. Always postponed, from year to year, now from semester to semester. Therefore, the government, a few days before it came into force on July 1, found 142 million euros to move the Sugar tax to the new year, and already in September it will have to start looking for other resources to postpone it again in the next Budget Law.

These are not large figures. It would take about 300 million structural to get rid of what, more than a tax, has become an accounting fiction in the state budget: Europe and the markets are told that the tax is not there today but will be there next year, in whose budget it is placed as revenue. It is, in short, a microscopic re-edition of the safeguard clauses on VAT. Although it is always complicated to find coverage, it is difficult to think that the budget policy of the Minister of Economy Giancarlo Giorgetti is standing thanks to the Sugar tax: if at a certain point the country managed to get rid of the fiction of the safeguard clauses on VAT, which were worth about 20 billion, there should be no problem in doing without the fake 300 million of the Sugar tax.

More surreal than the tax itself, however, is the position of those who invented it. The Democratic Party, with great political flair, a few days before the government postponed the Sugar tax, proposed doubling it , providing for progressive brackets and rates (a sort of Irpef for sugars ). Thus, the party that has always postponed the tax it invented when it was in government, wants to introduce it now that it is in opposition. Accusing, moreover, the Meloni government of doing exactly what the Democratic Party did when it was in office: postponing. Now, says the Hon. Marco Furfaro , head of Welfare for the Democratic Party, with Elly Schlein at the helm, the Sugar tax has become “a flag of the Democratic Party”. The bill was drafted by MP Eleonora Evi (formerly M5S), Nataliya Gera (a popular Instagram-based “Health coach and postural trainer”) and Dr. Franco Berrino (former star of Beppe Grillo’s blog and seller of cooking courses on “La fucina”, an old site of the Casaleggio Associati galaxy). In short, Schlein’s PD took over the entire package of the M5S of ten years ago , from which even the current M5S of Giuseppe Conte has distanced itself, and made it “a flag.”

The abolition of the Sugar tax is not only necessary to provide certainty to businesses, but should have a strategic value for the entire Italian agri-food sector. In September of this year, the United Nations will host the fourth high-level summit on non-communicable diseases (cardiovascular problems, cancer, diabetes, obesity, respiratory diseases, etc.), which Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni could directly participate in, where they will also discuss eating habits and the policies to be adopted until 2050 regarding diets and foods considered "unhealthy".

On the table of discussion are measures such as labeling on packages, reduction of marketing activity, limits on advertising and sponsorships, taxes, bans on sales in certain contexts. In short, it is a question of deciding whether to apply the same approach used against tobacco to food. This perspective, which also has scientific and efficacy limits (food is not like cigarettes), represents a threat to the Italian agri-food industry and tradition , because the evaluations on the healthiness of foods would affect substances such as sugars, salt and fats - regardless of their consumption in a balanced diet - which are fundamental elements of Italian production.

The risk, in short, is that many typical Italian products such as wines, cheeses, cured meats, olive oil, sweets, tomato preserves could be included among the "unhealthy foods". On the other hand, health regulations, as is known, are a formidable pretext in the hands of states to impose protectionist trade policies: barriers are raised (tariffs and otherwise) through those tools - from the Nutriscore , to alarmist labels to taxes - that greatly worry the Minister of Agriculture Francesco Lollobrigida , and against which Italy has always fought, in all venues, regardless of the political color of the governments.

If Italy's line is against alarmist labels and taxes on food because they damage Made in Italy and affect the Mediterranean Diet, eliminating the Sugar tax from its legislation is an element of coherence that helps to be more credible in international forums. Otherwise, if you tax sugar in drinks, you won't be able to complain if others do the same with alcohol in wines, fats in cheeses, salt in ham and red meat in sausages.

More on these topics: