2024-11-05 04:00:00
One step forward, one step back? Difficult to follow the government’s position regarding taxes on sweet products, under debate during the examination of the Social Security financing bill for the year 2025, which continued in the National Assembly on Monday November 4. A sign, undoubtedly, that the subject is sensitive.
“I am in favor of taxes on processed sugars”had argued the Minister of Health, Geneviève Darrieussecq, In La Tribune Sundayon October 27, suggesting that she would support the amendments in favor of the creation of a “contribution” on processed food products with a high content of added sugars, carried by several deputies. Or a new tax on sugar, consumed well beyond nutritional recommendations by a majority of children, in addition to that which exists on sodas. The budget ministry had also indicated that it viewed these amendments favorably. And this, despite the words of their colleague in agriculture, Annie Genevard, who said she was opposed to such “balls on the feet” for businesses.
Read also: Article reserved for our subscribers Baby food: products that are too sweet and too rich in additives
Read later
But Ms. Darrieussecq’s position seems to have fizzled out. Examined on November 4, the amendments in favor of such taxes, including the one adopted in plenary session, which was supported by environmentalists, were not supported by the executive. The decline had begun a few days earlier: “Rather than systematically wanting to tax”the Minister of Health affirmed, on October 29, that she wanted ” convince “ industrialists so that they “are moving towards recipes using much less sugar”. Position that she clarified in the Hemicycle, affirming that she wanted to work with manufacturers on ” goals ” which, if not achieved, could “trigger taxation”. Little chance, therefore, that the environmentalist amendment will survive the expected recourse to article 49.3, to adopt the Social Security budget without a vote.
Tax too complex
There is one subject on which the government has, however, held firm: the revision of the existing tax on sodas, for which the deputies have proposed a tightening, by reviewing its scale. The measure now providing for three tranches, with an increase in excise rates, on the same model as the British tax, was defended by the socialist Jérôme Guedj as well as by the centrist Cyrille Isaac-Sibille (Ensemble), with the support of the rapporteur, Yannick Neuder (Les Républicains). Rejected in a public session in the morning, it was finally adopted during a second deliberation in the evening.
You have 62.61% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
1730781127
#government #backs #idea #tax
**Interview with Geneviève Darrieussecq, Minister of Health, on the Recent Debate Over Sugar Taxes in France**
**Interviewer:** Good morning, Minister Darrieussecq. Thank you for joining us today.
**Geneviève Darrieussecq:** Good morning. Thank you for having me.
**Interviewer:** There’s currently a heated debate in the National Assembly regarding potential new taxes on processed sugars. What motivated your support for such measures?
**Geneviève Darrieussecq:** My support stems from our ongoing efforts to combat the rising rates of obesity and related health issues, especially among children. Taxes on processed sugars can serve as a deterrent to overconsumption and encourage healthier choices.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned in a recent interview your favor for a contribution on processed foods high in added sugars. Could you elaborate on how you envision this working?
**Geneviève Darrieussecq:** Certainly. The aim is to encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products and reduce sugar content. By implementing a tax, we hope to signal to both producers and consumers that excessive sugar consumption has consequences, which can ultimately lead to a healthier population.
**Interviewer:** There are concerns from some sectors, especially in agriculture, about the potential negative impact on businesses. How do you respond to those concerns?
**Geneviève Darrieussecq:** While I understand the apprehensions regarding economic impacts, we must balance this with public health needs. Our focus is on long-term health benefits that can potentially reduce healthcare costs in the future. We also need to explore support mechanisms for businesses to adapt without detrimental effects.
**Interviewer:** This ongoing debate appears rather sensitive. Do you see a potential compromise between promoting public health and supporting local businesses?
**Geneviève Darrieussecq:** Yes, I believe it is possible. Open dialogue is essential. We can work with stakeholders to create solutions that promote healthier food options while considering the practical concerns of producers. Our goal is not to penalize, but to facilitate a transition towards healthier products.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Minister Darrieussecq, for shedding light on this important issue. We appreciate your insights.
**Geneviève Darrieussecq:** Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial discussion that we need to keep having.
