10/10/2026
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ | Sugarcoating Reality
A cold soft drink on a hot afternoon. A sweetened coffee before class. A flavored milk drink on the way home. For many Filipinos, these are ordinary choices, small comforts woven into the rhythm of everyday life. They are bought on the way to school, shared during meals, or picked up after a long day. But when these choices are repeated across millions of people, their nutritional consequences become larger than any single bottle. This is why sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) have become a public-health concern. But the question facing the Philippines is no longer simply whether sugary drinks should be taxed. They already are. The more difficult question is this: if we want Filipinos to make healthier choices, is making one choice more expensive enough?
Under the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law, the Philippines introduced an excise tax on SSBs in 2018, implemented through Revenue Regulation No. 20-2018. The regulation placed a tax on beverages containing added caloric or non-caloric sweeteners, with different rates depending on the sweetener used. Since then, the SSB tax has served two purposes: generating government revenue and using price as a tool to discourage excessive consumption. The logic behind this is simple. When a product becomes more expensive, consumers may purchase it less frequently, or switch to another option. Evidence from the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (n.d.) found that the policy initially increased beverage prices. However, sustained inflation and changing market conditions diminished the initial effect of the tax over time, suggesting adjustments on tax rates to maintain its effectiveness. However, if the tax becomes less effective as prices change, simply increasing it may not be enough. A worldwide analysis by Wendorf and Rogon (2025) found no significant difference in prevalence of linked diseases between countries with and without beverage taxes. While this does not prove that SSB taxes are ineffective, it raises a crucial question; is making sugary drinks more expensive enough to create a healthier diet outcome?
Sugar itself should not be portrayed as the enemy. The concern is excessive consumption of free sugars, particularly when sugar-sweetened beverages become a regular part of the diet. The World Health Organization (2026) advises that free sugars should make up no more than one-tenth of the daily energy consumption, noting that a target below 5% offers even greater health benefits. The concern becomes more serious when an occasional drink becomes a habit. In their systematic review, Haque et al. (2020) reported evidence linking the frequent consumption of SBB with various negative health outcomes. While these findings describe associations rather than proving that a single sugary drink directly causes disease, they highlight how repeated small choices can become a dietary pattern with long-term consequences. The concern, then, is not that every bottle of soft drink is dangerous, but when a convenient product becomes a regular source of free sugars in the diet.
And yet, telling people simply to choose something healthier ignores an uncomfortable reality: people do not make food choices in a vacuum. The Food and Agriculture Organization (2026) emphasizes that affordability of a healthy diet depends not only on food prices, but also on people's income and the broader system that produces, distributes, and markets nutritious food. A student may know that water is a healthier beverage but still buy a sweetened drink, a worker may know the importance of a balanced diet but choose the cheaper, more filling option after a long shift, a parent may want to serve healthier food at home but have to stretch a limited budget across an entire family. These choices are shaped by more than knowledge or discipline; they reflect affordability, availability, convenience, income, marketing, and habit. Nutrition, therefore, cannot be treated as individual responsibility alone. Thus, If the government chooses to increase the SSB tax, then the discussion should go beyond the tax itself. It should also consider whether the resulting revenue can help make healthier choices more affordable and accessible. Making one product more expensive does not automatically create healthier choices.
This is where an SSB tax should not be viewed as the entire solution. If an unhealthy beverage becomes more expensive while healthier alternatives remain inaccessible, the government may succeed in changing the price of one choice without adequately changing the environment in which people make that choice. Taxation may discourage consumption, but it cannot by itself put clean drinking water in every school, make nutritious food affordable in every community, or guarantee that healthier options are available to families working within a limited budget.
This is why the debate should not be reduced to whether Filipinos should be allowed to enjoy their favorite sweetened drinks. Nor should it portray sugar as an inherently evil ingredient. The deeper question is whether public policy is changing people's choices or merely changing the price of those choices. Are we simply making unhealthy choices more expensive, or are we actually making healthy choices more possible? That distinction matters.
The responsibility for a healthier population cannot rest entirely on the person standing in front of a refrigerator deciding what to buy. It also rests on the systems that determine what is inside that refrigerator, what is affordable in the market, what is sold outside school gates, what is advertised, and what options are available when people are trying to make ends meet. Public health should not ask people to climb a staircase while continuing to remove the steps beneath them.
If the government wants Filipinos to live healthier lives, then it must do more than put a price on bottles. It must listen to the people it intends to protect. It must understand the realities behind their choices and ensure that health-related policies help create an environment where healthier decisions are realistically possible. Ultimately, it is about whether people have a fair opportunity to care for their health. A bottle of soda may be small. But the choices surrounding that bottle are not. We cannot simply tax the symptoms and walk away from the root.
๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ:
CPBRD policy brief an EmpiricAl EvAluAtion of thE SugAr-SwEEtEnEd BEvErAgE tAx and itS implicAtionS on hEAlth policy and tAx rEvEnuES congressional policy and Budget Research Department House of Representatives. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2026, fromhttps://cpbrd.congress.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PB2024-04-An-Empirical-Evaluation-of-the-Sugar-Sweetened-Beverage-Tax-and-its-Implications-on-Health-Policy-and-Tax-Revenues.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO. (2026, July 21). Why affordability matters. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Why Affordability Matters. https://www.fao.org/interactive/2026/cost-healthy-diet/en/
Haque, M., McKimm, J., Sartelli, M., Samad, N., Haque, S. Z., & Bakar, M. A. (2020). A narrative review of the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages on human health: A key global health issue. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology = Journal De La Therapeutique Des Populations Et De La Pharmacologie Clinique, 27(1), e76โe103. https://doi.org/10.15586/jptcp.v27i1.666
RA 10963 (TRAIN law) | department of finance. (2024). Department of Finance. https://www.dof.gov.ph/download/ra-10963-train-law/
Wendorf, A., & Rogoล, I. (2025). Is a beverage tax really a healthy start? Worldwide analysis. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-025-02528-8
World Health Organization: WHO. (2020, April 29). Healthy diet. World Health Organization: WHO. Who.Int. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet
โ๐ผ: A.M. Angco
๐: J.V. De Claro
๐ผ๏ธ: C.Y. Francisco & S.N. Fiรฑones