Behind every ice cream, there is a farmer and a cow
Just one day after President Gustavo Petro's inauguration, Colombia found itself at a familiar crossroads: the tension between public health ambition and economic consequence. The proposed tax reform, targeting sugary drinks and ultra-processed foods to raise 25.9 trillion pesos, has drawn fierce opposition from congressman Miguel Polo Polo, who sees in every taxed ice cream cone not a health policy victory but a farmer's livelihood at risk. His critique invites the nation to ask whether a government can simultaneously promise to protect the poor and tax the everyday foods they produce and consume.
- A tax reform unveiled within hours of Petro taking office has already ignited a political firestorm, with opponents framing it as a betrayal of the very communities the president vowed to protect.
- Polo Polo's viral image of 'a farmer and a cow behind every ice cream' has sharpened the debate, turning an abstract fiscal measure into a visceral question about rural survival.
- The reform's simultaneous blow to hotels, oil, coal, and gold exports has exposed what critics call a glaring contradiction: taxing the extractive sectors you claim to be leaving behind while offering no clear alternative.
- Major Colombian food and beverage companies — from Postobón to Colombina — are named as casualties in waiting, raising alarms about mass job losses across the industrial sector.
- As the reform heads into congressional debate, the opposition's argument is gaining traction: that speed and aggression in taxation, without safeguards for employment and agriculture, may cost more than it collects.
Miguel Polo Polo, one of the most vocal opponents of President Gustavo Petro's new administration, wasted no time targeting the tax reform announced just a day after inauguration. The proposal seeks to raise 25.9 trillion pesos in 2023 by levying new taxes on sugary beverages and ultra-processed foods — ice cream, chips, cakes, and snacks — with the Finance Ministry citing public health concerns as justification.
Polo Polo's objections cut deeper than partisan reflex. Through social media, he reframed the ice cream tax not as a health measure but as an assault on rural livelihoods, arguing that behind each taxed product stands a farmer and the agricultural chain that sustains them. For him, taxing everyday foods contradicts Petro's own campaign promises to strengthen domestic production and protect the poor.
The congressman also highlighted what he sees as a structural contradiction in the reform. Petro ran on replacing extractivism with sustainable alternatives like tourism, yet the reform removes tax protections from hotels while imposing new export taxes on oil, coal, and gold — the very industries the government claims to be phasing out. Polo Polo warns this will hollow out Colombia's primary economic engines and leave workers at companies like Ecopetrol and Cerrejón with nowhere to turn.
His critique extended to the food industry, listing major Colombian manufacturers he believes will be ruined, and he sharpened his moral argument by questioning how a government promoting drug legalization can credibly claim to tax ice cream in the name of public health.
As the reform moves through Congress, Polo Polo's voice represents a broader unease: that the government is moving too fast, too hard, and without sufficient regard for the jobs, farms, and industries it risks dismantling in the process.
Miguel Polo Polo, a congressman who has positioned himself in opposition to President Gustavo Petro's administration, has emerged as one of the loudest critics of the tax reform unveiled just one day after Petro's inauguration. The proposal aims to collect 25.9 trillion pesos in 2023 through new levies on sugary beverages and ultra-processed foods—items like potato chips, ice cream, cakes, and snacks—justified by the Finance Ministry as measures to address public health externalities among Colombians.
Polo Polo's objections go beyond the usual partisan sparring. In a series of social media posts, he has framed the tax as an attack on rural livelihoods and small producers. His most pointed criticism centers on the ice cream tax: "Behind every ice cream," he wrote, "there is a farmer and a cow." The statement encapsulates his broader argument that taxing everyday food products will devastate agricultural workers and the poor, despite Petro's campaign promises to strengthen domestic production and move away from extractive industries.
The congressman has also seized on what he sees as a fundamental contradiction in the government's economic vision. Petro campaigned on replacing extractivism with tourism, yet the reform strips tax benefits from hotels that had sheltered under a previous decree while simultaneously raising income taxes on them. Meanwhile, the government proposes new export taxes on oil, coal, and gold—the very sectors it claims to be moving beyond. Polo Polo argues this will cripple Colombia's primary economic engines and force workers at major companies like Ecopetrol and Cerrejón to seek employment elsewhere.
His critique extends to major Colombian food and beverage manufacturers. Polo Polo contends that companies like Postobón, Colombina, Nacional de Chocolates, Trululu, and Comestibles Aldor will be ruined by the reform. He has sarcastically invited their employees to abandon the industrial sector and move to farming—a pointed jab at a government he accuses of destroying the very industries it promised to support.
The congressman has also drawn a sharp moral line, arguing that if the government truly cared about public health, it would not be simultaneously promoting drug legalization while taxing ice cream. This rhetorical move attempts to expose what he sees as hypocrisy at the heart of the reform's stated health rationale.
Polo Polo's opposition reflects a broader political fault line. While some sectors view the tax reform as necessary fiscal policy, the congressman represents a vocal contingent that sees it as economically destructive and politically dishonest. His arguments—that the reform punishes rural producers, contradicts campaign promises, and will eliminate jobs across multiple sectors—have resonated with critics who worry the government is moving too quickly and too aggressively on taxation without adequate consideration for employment and agricultural stability. The debate over these levies will likely intensify as the reform moves through Congress.
Notable Quotes
Behind every ice cream there is a farmer and a cow. This reform will ruin the countryside and the poor.— Congressman Miguel Polo Polo
The government promised to promote national production but will hammer it with export taxes on oil, coal, and gold—punishing our main economic branches.— Congressman Miguel Polo Polo
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why focus on ice cream specifically? It seems like an odd symbol for a tax fight.
Because it's not really about ice cream. It's about the supply chain behind it—the dairy farmers, the small producers, the rural economy that depends on selling milk and cream to processors. When you tax the final product, you're taxing the whole chain.
But the government says these taxes are about public health, not about harming farmers.
That's the contradiction Polo Polo is pointing out. If you care about health, why are you simultaneously legalizing drugs? And if you care about farmers, why are you taxing the products they depend on selling?
What about the bigger picture—the export taxes on oil and coal? Aren't those the real threat to employment?
Yes, and that's where the hypocrisy becomes clearest. Petro ran on moving away from extractivism, but then he taxes it. Workers at Ecopetrol and Cerrejón lose jobs either way—whether the industry shrinks or the tax burden forces layoffs.
So Polo Polo sees this as a broken promise?
Exactly. The government promised to strengthen domestic production and move toward tourism and manufacturing. Instead, it's taxing both the old extractive sectors and the new industries it claims to be building. It's hard to see how that strengthens anything.
What happens next?
The reform goes to Congress. Polo Polo and others will fight it there. The question is whether enough lawmakers agree that the contradictions are too deep to ignore.