The debate surrounding healthy taxes and front-of-package nutritional warning labels in Colombia sparked heated social and political discussions when they were decided upon. What was anticipated as a blow to the economy ended up showing results contrary to the most vehement warnings from business associations.
Between 2022 and 2024, these measures — designed to discourage the consumption of sugary beverages and ultra-processed foods — were the subject of strong criticism from organizations such as Fenalco and ANDI, which warned of a possible collapse in sales, business closures, and job losses.
However, recent analyses suggest that those predictions did not materialize to the extent announced, calling into question the economic arguments used to oppose the regulation and forcing a closer review of the real impact of these policies.
Since their approval under Law 2277 of 2022, which gradually introduced an additional tax on sugary beverages and ultra-processed foods, and the front-of-package labeling resolution that requires warning seals indicating high contents of sugars, sodium, trans fats, or saturated fats, some claimed that the measure would jeopardize the dynamics of traditional points of sale and the food industry as a whole.
These fears became headlines and resonated among merchants and producers concerned about their margins and survival. Nonetheless, recent evidence indicates that, at least in terms of employment and overall sales, those negative effects did not occur in a significant way, inviting a more nuanced debate about the interaction between public health and the economy.
Healthy taxes and front-of-package labels did not affect jobs in Colombia
When the tax reform was debated in 2022, Fenalco and ANDI voiced their opposition to the so-called healthy taxes, arguing that taxing sugary beverages and ultra-processed foods would directly affect sales in neighborhood shops — very common in Colombia’s microeconomy — and other businesses, with the consequent threat to the continuity of small enterprises and job stability.
According to data presented by those associations at the time, a considerable share of the products sold in neighborhood shops were subject to the tax, which they claimed could translate into revenue declines and eventually store closures. The warnings were strong: Fenalco even suggested that more than 250,000 shops, many of them microenterprises, could be affected and that around 300,000 jobs were at risk if the measure were implemented as proposed.
In addition, some industry reports spoke of sales reductions of between 10% and 15% in retail establishments after the taxes took effect, which, in the view of merchants, represented a tangible threat to their businesses.
These figures raised alarms and fueled the perception that any change in taxes on widely consumed products could harm the local economy. Even so, these projections were made in a highly polarized context and amid mixed signals about what was actually happening in neighborhood shops.
However, the aggregated results presented by a study that evaluated the effects of these policies between 2022 and 2024 indicate that the economic hecatomb that was feared did not occur.
That analysis found that neither healthy taxes nor front-of-package labeling triggered mass layoffs or significant declines in overall company revenues. Job losses and business closures did not materialize in a statistically significant way, at least not in the manner predicted by opponents of the measure.
The regulations accompanying the taxes provided a gradual increase in rates, starting at 10% in 2023, rising to 15% in 2024, and with projections of reaching 20% in 2025, which led to fears of higher costs being passed on to consumers and possible inflationary effects on certain products.
Nevertheless, although prices of some taxed goods did rise — and in some cases with inflation higher than the overall average — this did not translate into a sustained collapse in sales or massive job losses.
Front-of-package labeling: awareness without collapse
Alongside the tax changes, front-of-package nutritional warning labeling began to be implemented with the logic of better informing consumers about the risks associated with excessive consumption of certain ingredients. This tool, defended by health authorities and partly backed by international standards, was based on the idea that greater transparency on packaging would help people make healthier decisions.
The food industry and some commercial sectors anticipated that warning seals could sharply discourage the purchase of ultra-processed products, causing a drop in consumption and sales of these goods.
However, beyond certain changes in preferences or consumption patterns—such as a possible reduction in the frequency of purchasing taxed products or a shift toward more natural or unlabeled options—there was no dramatic, systematic decline in demand that would trigger a collapse in sales.
This evidence suggests that, while front-of-package labeling and healthy taxes can influence purchasing decisions and contribute to greater nutritional awareness, those effects have not been sufficient to generate a severe drop in consumption that would dramatically affect the economy of businesses or employment.
The absence of a decisive negative impact in these areas has led some analysts to consider that the measure has worked in a more “soft” manner, targeting consumption behavior rather than imposing strict economic punishment.
A new balance between public health and the economy
The Colombian case of healthy taxes and front-of-package labeling underscores the complexity of designing public policies that balance health objectives with economic concerns. The initial warnings from Fenalco and ANDI, based on scenarios of deep negative impact, have not been confirmed by the aggregated evidence available through 2025.
This does not mean that there are no tensions or costs associated with these policies, nor that some sectors are not more affected than others, but rather that the aggregate effect on sales and employment appears to have been far less dramatic than anticipated.
Beyond the controversies, the reality is that this type of measure continues to be valued by international health organizations as a tool to address noncommunicable diseases, although its implementation requires constant monitoring and adjustments that take local contexts into account.
The debate continues, but for now the most apocalyptic predictions about the economy have not come to pass, leaving room for new reflections on how health policies can coexist with business stability and the labor market in Colombia.