The World Health Organization (WHO) has launched a new global tax campaign called “3 by 35.” By 2035, countries are calling for increased taxes on drinks like cigarettes, alcohol and sugar. It is being marketed as a clever way to reduce illness and increase public health.
In reality, this is a global money hand disguised as a moral crusade, targeting consumers straight up by bureaucrats rushing to fill the budget hole. As the US has already withdrawn large sums of funds from the WHO due to repeated policy failures and lack of accountability, it is turning its eyes to what organizations consider to be national health officials currently under political pressure to provide services without the necessary funds.
The WHO pitch is difficult for a desperate government to ignore. They claim that raising these “sin taxes” will not only disappoint unhealthy behavior, but will also generate billions of new revenue.
Americans should look at this scheme as to what it really is. This is a deeply regressive and anti-consumer agenda driven by unelected institutions that do not have the legal or moral authority to teach citizens how to tax them.
The US cut funds in the first place as WHO handles the questionable bond between handling major global health crises and authoritarian regimes. Repeated failures by agencies on transparency, responsiveness and scientific integrity have led to the US continuing its politically unacceptable support.
Facing a massive $600 million shortfall, WHO is currently looking for other ways to float its business and has chosen to pass the burden on consumers around the world, rather than tightening its own belt.
Don’t make any mistakes. This isn’t about health, it’s about packing the budget hole.
And while it claims that who is acting in the public interest, its own financial records tell a very different story. In 2020, it was revealed that the organization is spending more than $200 million a year on luxury travel, including top flights and five-star hotel stays for top executives. This goes beyond the combined agency of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and hepatitis. In fact, WHO travel spending is more than 20 times more than frontline health NGOs like doctors with no borders.
Now those same glovetlotting bureaucrats want to fund their businesses by urging the government to raise prices for soda, beer, tobacco and products, and encourage millions of working-class people to rely on for a simple, affordable pleasure.
This is not a progressive policy. This is the case of a regressive tax textbook.
The tax on crime will not hurt businesses. They hurt consumers. Especially low-income Americans. These taxes are the most hit among rural areas, black and Latino communities, and blue-collar workers who are already struggling to achieve their goals. In an age of inflation and economic instability, not only does it make everyday life more expensive, it is deaf and cruel.
These taxes are passed under the guise of public health and little discussion. It is at best ambiguous about how making soda more expensive actually prevents chronic diseases. What’s not vague is the fact that by raising these taxes, billions of people will be sent to government funding. The income that the health department wants to accept, under pressure from bureaucrats.
That’s dangerous. No one needs to persuade Congress or the American people. This requires convincing enough medium-level health authorities around the world that this is a palatable revenue scheme. This is a backdoor attempt to impose economic policies that will never survive direct democratic scrutiny in the United States and elsewhere.
The US government was justified to withholding funds from the WHO to demonstrate that it could be operated transparently and responsibly. However, we need to resist the indirect effects of the WHO. The proposal still affects international discourse, grant requirements, impacts low-income countries, and pressures them to embrace policy templates written in Geneva rather than their own capital.
The “3 by 35” campaign is a one-size-fits-all policy that insists on health prioritizing while overlooking true costs for economic dignity and consumer freedom. It’s easier for staff to raise the price of six packs than addressing mismanagement and waste in public budgets. But it’s not an easy meaning.
If the WHO was serious about public health, it would embrace harm reduction strategies such as low alcohol and reduced sugar drinks, steam and nicotine alternatives. Instead, they are still fighting the 20th century war on actions, trying to raise it with 21st century dollars pulled from the pockets of the poor.
If Washington wants to help Americans live healthier lives, it should invest in access, innovation and education. Health policy should be shaped by the respect for science, transparency and economic equity, rather than by Geneva’s bureaucrats balancing their budgets.
Martin Cullip is an international fellow at the Taxpayer Protection Alliance’s Consumer Centre and is based in South London, UK.
