As a scientist and health advocate, it is probably something that would surprise many when they hear or read me say I don’t support a sugar tax. After all, I’ve spent my career fighting chronic inflammation, metabolic disease, and poor health outcomes.
I’ve conducted research, developed supplements, and formulated skincare all rooted in one principle: support the body, don’t punish it.
And that’s exactly why I believe the sugar tax misses the mark.
Sugar Is Not the Enemy — Oversimplification Is
Yes, excessive sugar consumption contributes to obesity, diabetes, and poor metabolic health. But isolating sugar as the sole culprit oversimplifies what is a deeply complex issue. Chronic disease isn’t caused by one nutrient. It’s driven by a storm of factors: inflammation, nutrient deficiencies, ultra-processed foods, poor sleep, chronic stress, sedentary behaviour, and gut dysbiosis.
We don’t need a war on sugar. We need a plan to restore balance in all fronts, physiologically, culturally, and economically.
Taxing Doesn’t Teach
A sugar tax penalises products, not behaviours. It doesn’t address why people overconsume sugar — whether it’s emotional eating, food addiction, or a lack of access to better options. It doesn’t teach what insulin resistance is. It doesn’t explain how inflammation undermines your health, or why your gut might be dictating your cravings.
In short, it doesn’t educate. It restricts.
And in restricting without educating, it risks deepening the divide, particularly for low-income families.
Who Does It Hurt?
Studies show that sugar taxes are regressive. That means they disproportionately affect people who are already struggling — those living in food deserts, those working multiple jobs, those who may be buying soft drinks not out of excess, but because healthier options are unavailable or unaffordable.
Making these families pay more at the checkout doesn’t solve the problem. It compounds it. And the science shows that the impact on long-term health outcomes is minimal at best. In countries like Mexico and the UK, sales of sugary drinks dropped after the tax, however, obesity rates remained largely unchanged.
The tax may look good on paper, but it doesn’t translate into meaningful public health progress.
What Actually Works?
If we genuinely want to improve population health, we need to shift from restriction to restoration. The focus should be on systemic change, not shame-based policy. Here’s where I believe our efforts should go:
Nutrition education from a young age, focused on food literacy, metabolic health, and inflammation.
Subsidies or incentives for healthier options, rather than taxes on "bad" foods.
Investment in innovation — reformulating foods with functional, natural ingredients that support cellular health (like antioxidant-rich compounds such as activated phenolics).
Community-based health interventions, tailored to cultural and economic contexts, rather than blanket policies.
Research and policy that focus on outcomes, not optics.
Real Change Is Built on Knowledge, Not Guilt
I’ve dedicated my work to making science accessible — from the lab to the kitchen, from skin to gut. And what I’ve seen, time and again, is that when people understand their biology, they make better choices. They want to feel good. They want to be well. But they need support NOT punishment.
Let’s stop pretending that a sugar tax is a silver bullet. It’s not. It’s a distraction.
If we’re serious about health, let’s focus on solutions that empower, educate, and heal. That’s how we create lasting change; not through fear or fees, but through science, support, and smarter systems.
What do you think? Let me know!