Six in ten Brazilians (59%) are in favor of higher taxes on soft drinks and other sweetened beverages (e.g., boxed juices, soft drink powders, and energy drinks), as well as ultra-processed foods (e.g., sausages, sandwich cookies, instant noodles).

Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo reported that the survey was commissioned by the non-governmental organization ACT Promo??o da Saúde and conducted by Datafolha. The survey showed that Brazilians agree with products that are harmful to their health. The survey was conducted nationwide, interviewing 2009 Brazilians over the age of 16, and was conducted between October 7th and 11th.

Indeed, the appeal of ultra-processed foods is declining. A similar survey released by the agency at the end of 2023 showed that 46% of people supported a tax on ultra-processed foods. And today, that percentage has risen to 59 percent.

"All ultra-processed foods should be taxed more due to their negative health impacts. Eighty-one countries tax sugary drinks, and 25 of them already impose some type of tax on ultra-processed foods." Marília Albiero, Innovation and Strategy Coordinator at ACT Promo??o da Saúde, said.

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulas based on substances extracted from food, with preservatives, colors and flavors added to increase their durability and flavor, but with little or no nutritional value. In recent years, there has been growing evidence that they are harmful to the body and that their consumption increases the risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension, as well as cancer, depression and other effects.

Albiero explained that the current situation is particularly critical due to the discussions on tax reform, especially regarding which items are subject to selective taxes. “The vote will take place soon. The text will probably return to the Senate Committee on the Constitution and Justice, then to the plenary and then to the Chamber of Deputies. This is all in an effort to get it done by December 20 (the last Friday before Christmas).”

The survey shows that labels with magnifying glasses on the front of packages to warn of high sodium, sugar or fat content, effective from 2022, are already seen as a warning of the risks: 66% said they support stricter taxes on these foods because they are less healthy choices. And there's also a good consensus (69%) that ultra-processed foods in school cafeterias are bad.

Regarding risk signals, 90% think warnings (such as those on cigarette packages) should also appear on alcoholic beverage packages. Seven in ten agree that advertising of beer on TV, social media and at sports and cultural events should be restricted, as well as other alcoholic beverages such as wine and whisky.

Cigarettes and other smoking products also remain on people's negative list. Three-quarters of the population believe that taxes must be increased year after year to discourage consumption. For 80% of the population, companies that produce cigarettes should reimburse the SUS (Unified Healthcare System) for the cost of treating smoking-induced diseases, such as lung cancer and emphysema.

The precedent comes from the United States, where an agreement was signed in 1998 that tobacco companies would pay an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars in financial compensation over several decades for injuries related to tobacco use, as well as health expenditures and the costs of awareness campaigns.

In surveys, people with lower levels of education, as well as D and E incomes, tend to be more sensitive to tax increases and alcohol and tobacco restrictions. Albiero believes that despite the initial burden placed on people, the measures are beneficial to the community. “Taxes are a protective measure for low-income people because they influence consumption and protect health over time, providing more years of healthy living.”