COMMENTARY: Sin tax crusade a money grab aimed at consumers

Summary

Martin Cullip criticises the World Health Organization’s new “3 by 35” campaign, which calls for at least a 50% tax increase on tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks by 2035. He argues the proposal is less about improving public health and more about generating revenue to plug the WHO’s budget shortfalls. Cullip contends the plan is regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income, rural and minority communities, and urges governments to prioritise harm reduction, education and targeted health investment instead of broad tax hikes.

Key Points

The WHO’s “3 by 35” initiative pushes a 50% minimum tax rise on tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks by 2035.
The author claims the move is a revenue-driven response to a reported $600m funding gap at the WHO rather than a primarily health-focused policy.
Sin taxes are characterised as regressive: they hit consumers — especially low-income, rural, Black and Latino communities — harder than corporations.
Cullip cites concerns about WHO accountability and spending (including executive travel) as reasons the US cut funding and as context for scepticism about the campaign.
The piece recommends alternatives: harm-reduction measures, better access, education and targeted public-health spending rather than blanket price increases.

Content Summary

The commentary frames the WHO campaign as an attempt by an unelected global body to influence domestic tax policy under the guise of public health. It outlines the organisation’s fiscal pressures and past criticisms of transparency, then argues that raising prices on everyday goods is an easy — but unfair — way for governments to raise funds. The author warns that these taxes would burden consumers who can least afford them and that the health benefits claimed by proponents are uncertain.

Cullip concludes that national governments should resist adopting Geneva-written templates without local debate, and instead invest in solutions that respect economic fairness and use modern harm-reduction approaches.

Context and relevance

This piece sits at the intersection of global public-health policy and domestic fiscal politics. Debates over “sin taxes” are ongoing worldwide as governments look for ways to reduce harmful behaviour and raise revenue. The article is relevant to readers following public finance, health policy and regulatory influence from international bodies — especially given broader scrutiny of WHO governance and the politics of health funding.

Author style

Punchy — the column is brisk and critical, meant to provoke scepticism about the WHO’s motives and to flag distributive consequences of tax policy. It highlights big-picture fiscal and accountability concerns rather than detailed econometric analysis.

Why should I read this?

Quick and direct: if you care who sets the rules on taxes and public health, this piece saves you time by calling out the WHO plan as more about filling pockets than fixing problems. Good for a fast, contrarian take on a high-profile policy push.