Denmark’s Sugar Tax Repeal: Making Life Easier—or Widening the Health Gap?
Hello Everyone!
This week, let’s talk about a decision out of Denmark that’s raising eyebrows: the government has scrapped its long-standing taxes on sugar-laden products like candy, chocolate, soft drinks, and even coffee.
The stated reason? To “make life easier” for everyday Danes. But who exactly benefits from cheaper sugar—and at what cost?
Why Did Denmark Repeal the Sugar Tax?
In August 2025, the Danish government announced the repeal of excise duties on sugary snacks, chocolate, soft drinks, and coffee. According to reports, the goal is to relieve cost-of-living pressures amid inflation—particularly for staples like coffee (up 32%) and chocolate (up 20%)—saving Danish consumers an estimated 2.4 billion kroner annually.
Supporters of the repeal argue that this will help low-income families and small businesses, especially in border towns where shoppers often cross into Germany for cheaper goods. But while removing taxes on sugar may bring short-term financial relief, it raises serious long-term public health concerns.
A Missed Opportunity for Real Relief
If the government truly wanted to support vulnerable populations, why not reduce taxes on healthy food like fruits and vegetables?
We already know that unhealthy, processed foods are often the cheapest and most heavily marketed. By making them even more affordable, this policy doesn’t empower low-income families—it locks them into a system where the easiest choice is often the worst one nutritionally. Meanwhile, the cost of fresh, whole foods remains high.
This approach may unintentionally widen the health gap between the wealthy and the poor. While higher-income groups have the resources and education to make healthy food choices, lower-income groups are now being incentivized to consume even more high-sugar, low-nutrient foods.
The Public Health Backlash
From a health prevention standpoint, the evidence is clear: food taxes and subsidies work—when used wisely.
Hungary’s 2011 tax on high-sugar foods led to a 25% drop in consumption of taxed items (source).
In Mexico, a 10% soda tax resulted in a 12% reduction in purchases after just one year (source).
Conversely, subsidizing healthy food—especially fruits and vegetables—has shown to significantly increase consumption, particularly among low-income populations (source).
The most effective approach? Combine taxes on unhealthy foods with subsidies for healthy ones—a conclusion supported by multiple studies and meta-analyses (source, source).
And yet, Denmark has gone in the opposite direction—once again prioritizing economic simplicity over public health.
This isn’t new. Back in 2011, Denmark introduced a “fat tax” targeting saturated fats. It was repealed just a year later due to political and economic pressures—including fears of job losses and increased cross-border shopping (source).
What Kind of “Easier Life” Are We Building?
If “making life easier” is the goal, it should mean:
Making healthy foods more affordable and accessible.
Reducing exposure to preventable chronic illnesses.
Ensuring public policy addresses long-term health equity, not just short-term consumer costs.
But this repeal does the opposite. It lowers the price of unhealthy foods without doing anything to make healthy choices more attainable. The long-term result could be rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, especially in low-income communities.
We’re not just talking about health—we’re talking about equity. A sugar tax repeal that lacks a companion subsidy for healthy foods is not just shortsighted, it’s structurally regressive.
What Do You Think?
Do you believe Denmark missed an opportunity to address public health and food inequality in a more balanced way?
If affordability is the issue, why aren’t we making healthy food cheaper instead of flooding the market with even more affordable sugar?
Let’s keep the conversation going—because we all deserve better from public health policy.
Susanna Søberg, PhD