Introduction to Restrictive Measures by the Fourth Transformation Governments
The self-proclaimed governments of the Fourth Transformation are advancing along a path of restriction, allegedly to safeguard the health of Mexicans. On September 30th, a ban was approved on selling and supplying energy drinks to individuals under 18 in commercial and mercantile establishments.
Contextualizing the Restrictive Measures
These restrictions are not sweeping bans but rather limited ones. “Junk food” and sugary drinks are already prohibited in schools, smoking is banned in enclosed spaces, and vaping devices face restrictions from production to consumption. This partial prohibition has become a public policy.
Legislative Background
In January of this year, Mexico’s President signed a decree published on the 16th, elevating the ban on vape devices and similar electronic cigarettes, along with penalizing any activity related to their production, distribution, commerce, and sale, including toxic substances like illicit fentanyl.
Impact on Businesses
Despite these measures, vape devices continue to circulate openly in stores and are still consumed publicly. British American Tobacco (BAT) México suspended the sale of its vaping products in January, citing concerns about fostering an illegal market for unsafe, cheap products without quality standards.
Tax Increases on Sugary Drinks
Starting in 2026, sugary drinks or sodas will face an 87.3% increase in the Special Production and Service Tax (IEPS), equating to an approximate 3.08 pesos per liter increase.
The government aims to reduce consumption and allocate the projected 41 billion pesos for public health by the end of next year. However, this increase in IEPS has been rejected by food companies and other business organizations, including street vendors who claim it will significantly impact their income.
The Paradox of “Prohibido, Prohibir”
Despite President López Obrador’s repeated phrase, “prohibido, prohibir” (forbidden, forbid), the reality shows that both during his tenure and in the early administration of Claudia Sheinbaum, partial prohibitions, tax hikes, and announcements of heavy fines for law-breaking consumers have been chosen.
Arguments For and Against Restrictive Measures
- For: Supporters argue that the application and increase of IEPS on sugary drinks since 2014 have decreased purchases by 6-12% initially and encouraged industrial reformulations (including sugar reduction) as well as the promotion of healthy habits.
- Against: Critics claim that the IEPS on sodas only serves a revenue-generating purpose and has little impact on improving public health. They argue that it’s regressive, affecting the poor disproportionately, and its effect on per capita consumption is limited.
Key Questions and Answers
- Why does the government penalize end consumers instead of directly targeting product producers? Critics argue that health authorities should not authorize the production, sale, and distribution of products deemed harmful. By not acting directly on what they approve for commercialization, it seems the government prioritizes business investments over public health.
Possible Rationale
Perhaps, partial prohibitions and tax collection are prioritized to fund other purposes rather than directly addressing product harmfulness.
