Gangnam Perspective: The Truth About the Sugar Levy

A single remark by the president has opened up yet another policy front: the debate over introducing a sugar tax or sugar levy. People are asking why eating sugar has suddenly become such a big deal that one presidential comment can set politicians, industry, and civil society all abuzz. Let’s first sort through the flood of counterarguments.
The opposition party has framed it as a "stealth tax hike to plug a revenue shortfall." They argue that, after ramping up fiscal spending, the government is now worried about a tax revenue gap and is trying to make up for it by taxing sugar.
Some civic groups say the government has its policy priorities wrong. They argue that while major tax reforms directly tied to people’s livelihoods are being ignored, the very act of pushing a sugar tax debate shows a lack of political judgment. Suspicion also follows that the government is front-loading a symbolic issue purely for political effect.
Others dismiss the issue itself as marginal. A sugar tax, they note, would account for only a tiny share of national finances, and no single tax item of this kind is going to make or break the entire economy.
Both suppliers and consumers are voicing discontent. Companies complain that, in already difficult times, this will further increase their cost burden. If businesses pass those costs on, food prices at the table could be pushed up, and there are concerns that taxpayers’ resistance could intensify.
Taken together, these objections converge on a single question: "Why elevate an issue that is not an urgent national crisis into a core agenda item now?" Yet the controversy over regulating sugar did not appear out of nowhere. The debate began in earnest in 2021, when a bill to tax products by sugar content was formally introduced in the National Assembly. In 2023, a sharp spike in global sugar prices ignited a debate over so-called "sugarflation." At that time as well, many argued that health policy and price policy should be linked through the introduction of a sugar tax. More recently, the rapid expansion of the market for zero-sugar drinks and low-sugar products has heightened public awareness of the risks of excessive sugar intake. Politics simply had not yet translated this awareness into institutional form. In that sense, the president’s latest remark did not create a new agenda; it served as a trigger to bring a long-postponed debate onto center stage.
Attention now turns to whether this trial balloon of a sugar tax can actually land as policy. For any new measure to take root, both justification and timing have to line up. Let’s look at the justification first. In terms of average sugar intake, Korea still ranks below many Western countries. But the underlying structure is changing fast. Sugar-heavy delivery meals and convenience foods are spreading, and processed foods are taking up a larger share of diets.
Teenagers’ consumption of sweetened beverages has long since set off health alarms. The rise in diabetes patients and obesity rates is unmistakable. If left unchecked, the medical bill could snowball. From the standpoint of public health and social costs, the case for reducing excessive sugar consumption is clear. At the same time, it is hard to claim that we are in such an acute crisis that emergency, wartime-style measures must be taken right now. Policies that are well justified but not urgent are always tricky to handle.
In situations like this, people often invoke Stephen Covey’s decision-making framework. He divided decisions into four categories: matters that are both important and urgent; important but not urgent; urgent but not important; and neither. Covey argued that failing organizations and individuals get dragged around by urgent tasks and keep postponing what truly matters. By contrast, those who deliver results invest time and resources in prevention and management before a crisis erupts. That is why he singled out "important but not urgent" tasks as the area where we should invest first.
The sugar tax debate fits squarely into this category. It is not a crisis exploding before our eyes, but if neglected, it will come back as a deferred bill in the form of higher medical and social costs. We can choose to respond only after the crisis hits, or we can choose to manage a foreseeable future in advance. Which path we take will ultimately depend on social consensus and how carefully the policy is designed.
jjack3@fnnews.com Cho Chang-won, Editorial Writer Reporter