Sana Ullah Ghumman
Gmail: panah84@gamil.com
In a move that has disappointed health experts and economists alike, the Government of Pakistan decided not to introduce taxes on sugary drinks and ultra-processed food products in the federal budget for 2025–26—despite growing calls from across the political and medical spectrum.
Experts argue this was a rare opportunity to address two major national challenges: the fiscal crunch gripping essential services like health and education, and the unchecked rise in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like diabetes and heart disease.
“There are moments when all signs align—when expert advice, public need, and financial urgency come together. That’s when governments must act decisively,” said Sanaullah Ghumman who is the General Secretary of the Pakistan National Heart Association (PANAH). “Unfortunately, this budget squandered such a moment.”
Pakistan is facing an alarming surge in NCDs. According to public health data, the country records over 1,100 diabetes-related deaths daily, including more than 300 amputations. Broader NCDs—heart disease, strokes, kidney failure, and some cancers—claim over 2,200 lives every day. These diseases are fueled in large part by high consumption of sugary drinks and ultra-processed products that are widely available, aggressively marketed, and often cheaper than healthier options.
Over recent months, a growing coalition of voices—including PANAH, leading health professionals, civil society groups, youth associations, and even religious scholars—have urged the government to impose a higher federal excise duty on these harmful products. The health minister himself proposed on the floor of the National Assembly, a 50% tax on all sugary drinks, warning of a looming public health disaster if decisive action isn’t taken immediately.
Currently, sugary drinks are taxed at just 20%, a figure that has not changed since earlier plans to incrementally increase it were abandoned. PANAH estimates that raising this tax to 50% could generate as much as USD 810 million annually—funds that could strengthen public hospitals, build schools, and support underfunded infrastructure projects.
But powerful food and beverage industry players have lobbied against the move. Industry-aligned officials argue that higher taxes would hurt local businesses, lead to job losses, and unfairly affect low-income consumers. Public health experts disagree. “This is a distraction,” said Munawar Hussain, a senior nutrition expert. “Global evidence shows these taxes reduce harmful consumption without damaging the economy. Mexico, the UK, and South Africa have all seen success.”
Indeed, in countries that have implemented sugary drink taxes, consumption has dropped while healthier alternatives have gained popularity. Revenues have been used to fund public services, especially healthcare. In many cases, these taxes have encouraged companies to reformulate products, reducing sugar content and offering healthier options.
Opponents of the tax claim it would be regressive, affecting the poor most. But studies indicate the opposite: people in low-income brackets are more likely to benefit from such taxes, as they are most vulnerable to NCDs and often spend more of their income on health care. Revenue from the tax can also be redirected to subsidize healthier foods and beverages, making them more accessible.
What makes this inaction particularly frustrating for advocates is how well-positioned the government was to act. The health ministry had submitted clear proposals, parliamentary support was evident, civil society was vocal, and the economic rationale was strong. Yet the budget document remained silent on this critical front—signaling, to many, that corporate lobbying still outweighs evidence-based policymaking.
With NCDs devastating lives and livelihoods, and with Pakistan in urgent need of domestic revenue to fund public development, experts are now calling for a supplementary finance bill that introduces a minimum 50% tax on sugary drinks and ultra-processed foods. This would include sodas, sweetened juices, syrups, energy drinks, and packaged processed snacks.
“There’s no longer any excuse,” said Sanaullah Ghumman. “We must tax products that are making people sick, and use that revenue to make the country strong.”
The government’s failure to act in Budget 2025–26 may have delayed progress, but the window has not fully closed. The demand is clear, the evidence is strong, and the public is watching. A stronger soda and junk food tax is not just sound economics—it is a national necessity.
