A PROPOSAL by the World Health Organization (WHO) to raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks is drawing strong criticism from consumer advocates and industry groups, who say the plan would unfairly hurt low-income families, particularly in developing nations.
Through its “3 by 35 Initiative,” the WHO is urging countries to increase so-called “sin taxes” on these products by at least 50 percent by 2035.
The organization argues that higher taxes will curb harmful consumption and help governments fill budget gaps.
But opponents warn the plan is regressive and will worsen inequality without delivering real public health benefits.
Martin Cullip, international fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) Consumer Center in London, said the WHO is placing an undue financial burden on those least able to bear it.
“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,” he said. “Instead of genuinely improving public health, these taxes proposed by unelected WHO officials would unfairly burden low-income individuals, especially in developing countries.”
Cullip called the initiative “regressive social engineering” and a “war on the working class.”
Industry groups share similar concerns. In a recent Reuters report, the International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA) criticized the WHO’s ongoing push for sugar taxes, arguing that “over a decade of clear evidence” shows they have not improved health outcomes or reduced obesity rates.
The Distilled Spirits Council, also cited in the report, described the WHO’s push for alcohol tax hikes as “misguided.”
In the Philippines, local business leaders echoed the warning.
“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 acknowledged the importance of public health reform, but said solutions must be context-driven and rooted in education rather than punishment.
“Relying on regressive taxation and an outdated, top-down approach will not benefit public health,” he said. “Education, not excessive taxation, is the more sustainable path to long-term behavior change and better health outcomes.”
The proposal comes as the WHO faces a projected $600 million budget gap in 2025. Some critics say the organization is using tax policies to deflect from deeper issues around financial transparency and governance.
The United States recently announced it would cut billions in funding to the WHO, citing mismanagement and inefficiency.
According to Cullip, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has acknowledged the need for internal reform. But instead of addressing these challenges, the organization is offloading the consequences onto the public.
“The WHO operates outside democratic accountability, yet wields enormous influence over national health policies, especially in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “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.”
Cullip also accused the WHO of ignoring modern science in favor of outdated policy approaches, particularly when it comes to less harmful alternatives to cigarettes.
“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,” he said.
He warned that the brunt of the policy won’t be felt by the powerful, but by ordinary people trying to get by.
“The corporations, the policymakers, the NGO elites flying business class to conferences -- they won’t feel this,” Cullip said. “No, it’s regular people, especially in poorer countries, who will bear the cost.”
Calling the plan “regressive by design,” Cullip added that the taxes 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.”
“We need public health policies that genuinely improve people’s lives—not punish them,” he said. (PR)