Sweet drinks are about to face a bitter surprise. Starting in 2028, the UK government plans to expand its sugar tax beyond fizzy sodas to include milkshakes, lattes, and other milk-based drinks that pack in high amounts of sugar. Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced the move as part of a broader campaign to tackle childhood obesity—a problem he says the country can no longer afford to ignore.
Under the new policy, the sugar threshold for taxed beverages will drop from 5g to 4.5g per 100ml. That small numerical change could have big consequences. Popular drinks such as Yazoo, Müller’s Frijj, and Starbucks Caffè Latte may soon find themselves taxed more heavily. Even trendy “high-protein” shakes like Ufit and Shaken Udder won’t escape scrutiny. But here’s where it gets controversial: supporters see it as a health win, while critics call it overreach into personal lifestyle choices.
The original levy, introduced by the Conservative government in 2018, was designed to push manufacturers to cut sugar content instead of punishing consumers directly. It successfully targeted fizzy drinks in cans and bottles—but milk-based beverages were initially given a pass because of their calcium benefits. That exemption ends in 2028 when plant-based alternatives such as soy, oat, and almond drinks also become part of the taxable category.
To keep the policy fair, the government plans to introduce a “lactose allowance.” This adjustment will ensure that natural milk sugars won’t count toward the taxable sugar amount. In short, companies won’t be penalized for the kind of sugar that naturally occurs in dairy. Meanwhile, fruit juices, alcohol-free beer and wine, and meal replacement shakes will remain exempt.
The lower sugar threshold will also bring several fizzy favorites—like Pepsi, Lucozade, Irn-Bru, Fanta, and San Pellegrino Limonata—under the tax net for the first time. For reference, many of these beverages previously slipped under the 5g-per-100ml limit but exceed the newly set 4.5g mark.
Critics, including a number of politicians, argue that the policy reeks of "nanny state" control and limits consumer freedom. They question whether the government should decide what people can drink. But Streeting stands firm, saying the aim is to protect public health and reduce pressure on the NHS. "We will not look away as children become unhealthier," he told Parliament. He pointed out that obesity harms children’s futures, disproportionately affects lower-income families, and drains billions from national health resources.
The dairy industry, however, isn’t celebrating. Judith Bryans, chief executive of Dairy UK, called the decision “disappointing,” noting that milk and yogurt drinks deliver valuable nutrients like calcium, iodine, B vitamins, and protein. Still, she praised the lactose allowance for acknowledging the unique nature of dairy products, ensuring that natural milk sugar isn’t mistakenly taxed as an unhealthy additive.
Whether this means milkshakes and lattes will soon cost more at the counter remains uncertain. Manufacturers might absorb the tax themselves, tweak product recipes, or shrink serving sizes—just as many soft drink companies did after the 2018 levy. In fact, government data credits the original sugary drink tax with cutting sugar content in fizzy drinks by 46%, leading to healthier options on supermarket shelves and, arguably, healthier consumers.
The big question now: will this expanded tax push companies to innovate healthier milk-based alternatives, or simply frustrate consumers who feel patronized? And here’s the part most people miss: every tax like this changes not just prices, but public habits and corporate priorities. What do you think—should the government step in to shape our diets, or is this crossing a line into personal choice?
