WHO wants to raise taxes on alcohol and sugary drinks: will it really work?

WHO wants to raise taxes on alcohol and sugary drinks: an analysis of the measure's effectiveness.

This week, the World Health Organization (WHO) reinforced a request that has been made for years: governments around the world need to increase taxes on alcoholic and sugary drinks to curb their consumption and reduce the burden of preventable diseases on health systems. The agency warned that these products are becoming increasingly accessible , largely because the taxes currently applied are low, poorly designed, and do not keep pace with inflation and income growth.

Why is this measure on the WHO's agenda?

The WHO has published two global reports showing that, although many countries already tax sugary and alcoholic beverages, current taxes are insufficient to significantly influence consumption behavior . On average, the tax portion on soft drinks represents only a fraction of the final price and does not cover many products with high sugar content, such as 100% natural juices and ready-to-drink coffees.

In the case of alcohol, 167 countries apply some kind of tax, but the global median for the tax portion of the price is low (for example, around 14% for beer). Few countries adjust these rates according to inflation, which causes these drinks to become cheaper over time.

The WHO Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, stated that health taxes are powerful tools to protect the population , reduce the consumption of harmful products, and generate revenue that can be invested in essential services such as health, education, and social protection. This proposal is not entirely new—since 2025, the WHO has been working with the so-called "3 for 35" initiative , which aims to increase the real prices of alcohol, tobacco, and sugary drinks by at least 50% by 2035 through tax policies.

---

An effective measure? Evidence from international experiences.

The proposal to tax alcohol and sugary drinks is not just a theory: several countries have already implemented similar taxes, with visible effects, renewing the discussion about their effectiveness.

The case of the United Kingdom

The UK's sugar tax , implemented in 2018 and focused on drinks high in sugar, has shown concrete results:

• Manufacturers reformulated products to reduce sugar even before the law came into effect;

• There has been a significant reduction in the sugar content of commercially available beverages ;

• Studies have reported decreased sugar consumption and improvements in public health indicators, such as fewer cases of childhood obesity and tooth decay in children.

This example is important because it demonstrates that the mere threat of taxes can change the behavior of industry and consumers , even before collection begins.

General evidence regarding "sin taxes"

Several academic analyses and reports from international organizations suggest that heavily taxing products harmful to health can reduce consumption and generate positive impacts on public health. For example, studies on the taxation of sugary drinks show that taxes that raise the consumer price tend to reduce sales and consumption of these products , leading to fewer calories consumed and reducing risk factors for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic diseases.

Similarly, public health literature indicates that higher rates of alcohol consumption are associated with reductions in harmful consumption and related consequences , such as traffic accidents, violence, and chronic conditions associated with excessive alcohol use.

---

Limits and challenges

While there is evidence that higher taxes help reduce consumption, there are important nuances that influence the success of the policy:

1. Fiscal policy design matters

It's not enough to simply raise taxes: they need to be well-designed , adjusted for inflation, and clearly explained to society—otherwise, the measure may be perceived as mere "taxation for revenue collection" and not as a public health policy.

Furthermore, taxes that only consider a portion of products (such as only soft drinks or only some alcoholic beverages) can be circumvented by consumers and the industry, reducing the expected effect.

2. Political and economic resistance

The beverage and alcohol industries typically fight against tax increases, citing a negative impact on jobs, consumer prices, and the informal economy. This resistance can weaken proposals and delay their implementation.

3. Social impact and regressivity

Consumption taxes can be regressive, meaning they disproportionately burden the poorest. Without compensatory mechanisms (such as using revenue for social programs), this measure can exacerbate inequalities. This point is frequently raised by economists and tax policy experts.

4. Isolated effect vs. policy package

It is important to emphasize that taxes alone do not solve the problem . The strongest impact occurs when combined with other public health actions—such as nutritional education, restrictions on marketing to children, and the promotion of healthy alternatives—forming a comprehensive policy package.

---

How does this translate to countries like Brazil?

In Brazil, public health policies already recognize the need to reduce the consumption of alcohol and products high in sugar to achieve goals for reducing chronic non-communicable diseases and improving population health indicators. For example, national plans indicate specific targets for reducing alcohol use and establishing healthier environments.

However, the tax burden on alcoholic beverages in the country is still relatively low compared to other regions, and selective taxation measures for sugary drinks have room for expansion and better targeting. A tax policy well aligned with health objectives can not only reduce preventable diseases, but also generate revenue that could be applied to prevention and treatment , strengthening health systems already strained by chronic diseases and associated costs.

---

Conclusion: Will it be effective?

The WHO's proposal to raise taxes on alcoholic and sugary drinks is based on robust public health evidence, international experience, and economic analyses that show that higher prices tend to reduce consumption and improve health indicators.

However, its effectiveness depends heavily on factors such as policy design, regular adjustments, effective public communication, and combination with other public health measures . Tax increases alone are not a miracle cure—but, if well implemented and supported by a set of integrated policies, they can be a powerful tool for moving towards healthier societies and more sustainable health systems.