A global consumer advocacy group has sounded the alarm over a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal that seeks to raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks—warning that the measure would disproportionately impact working-class families in developing countries.
The proposal, part of the WHO’s “3 by 35 Initiative,” urges member states to increase excise taxes on these so-called “sin” products by at least 50% by 2035. The WHO argues that the tax hikes would reduce consumption while helping governments address shrinking aid and rising debt levels. But critics say the plan unfairly shifts the burden onto low-income populations least able to afford 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,” said Martin Cullip, international fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) Consumer Center in London. “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 strategy “regressive social engineering” and a “war on the working class,” noting that it could worsen inequality rather than improve health outcomes.
In a recent Reuters report, the International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA) pushed back against the WHO’s endorsement of sugar taxes, citing “over a decade of clear evidence” that such policies have failed to improve health or reduce obesity rates. The Distilled Spirits Council, also quoted in the report, called the push for higher alcohol taxes “misguided.”
Local industry voices have also weighed in. In the Philippines, business leaders say the WHO’s proposed tax regime could deal a blow to both consumers and domestic industries.
“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).\
While Arranza acknowledged the importance of public health reform, he argued that punitive taxation is not the answer. “Relying on regressive taxation and an outdated, top-down approach will not benefit public health,” he said.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 timing of the WHO’s proposal has drawn further scrutiny, as the organization faces a $600 million funding gap in 2025 and mounting questions about financial transparency. The United States has already moved to reduce its contributions, citing inefficiency and mismanagement within the agency.
According to Cullip, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has acknowledged the need for reform, but instead of tightening oversight, the organization is “sidestepping financial accountability by transferring its budget woes onto consumers.”
“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 criticized the WHO’s refusal to embrace science-based harm reduction policies, particularly in the case of reduced-risk nicotine products. “Instead of evolving with science and supporting modern harm reduction strategies, the WHO remains hostile to innovation,” he said.
“The corporations, the policymakers, the NGO elites flying business class to conferences—they won’t feel this,” Cullip added. “No, it’s regular people, especially in poorer countries, who will bear the cost.”
Calling the proposal “regressive by design,” he warned that these 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,” Cullip said, urging the WHO to abandon its “rigid moralistic views” in favor of practical, evidence-based approaches.
###
