The industry engineered the problem; policy can reshape the choice.
Ultraprocessed food addiction affects 14% of population, doubling to 32% among obese individuals, with sugar-fat-salt combinations triggering brain reward systems similar to alcohol and tobacco. Portugal's 2017 sugar beverage tax succeeded in reducing consumption by 6 tons annually and pressured industry to reformulate products, cutting sugar in soft drinks by 16.1% versus 5.4% in untaxed categories.
- Ultraprocessed food addiction affects 14% of population, 32% among obese individuals
- Portugal's 2017 sugar tax reduced consumption by 6 tons annually and cut soft drink sugar by 16.1% in five years
- Portugal ranks 19th in Europe's Nanny State Index for health-focused taxation
Portuguese opinion piece argues government must regulate ultraprocessed foods through taxation and market restrictions, citing obesity epidemic and food addiction science, while acknowledging industry's legitimate business interests.
Portugal has an obesity problem, and it is not going away on its own. The numbers are stark enough that they demand a response from government—not because individuals lack willpower, but because the science of food addiction has moved beyond the realm of personal choice. When sugar, fat, and salt combine in processed foods, they trigger the brain's reward systems in ways that pure ingredients cannot. A person is unlikely to become addicted to table sugar alone or olive oil alone, but add them together in bread, chocolate, pastries, or chips, and the effect becomes synergistic. The food industry knows this. It has known it for decades. It uses additives, sensory panels, and careful formulation to ensure products hit exactly the right notes of flavor, color, and texture to keep people reaching for more.
The prevalence of ultraprocessed food addiction sits at 14 percent across the general population—a figure that mirrors addiction rates for alcohol and tobacco. Among people living with obesity, that number doubles to 32 percent. These are not character flaws. They are measurable patterns of diminished control, cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and continued consumption despite known harm. The science is clear, and it raises a legitimate question: if the food industry has the right to engineer products for maximum appeal and profit, does government not have an equal right to regulate them in the name of public health?
Portugal already has a working model. In 2017, the country introduced a tax on sugary beverages. The results vindicated the approach. Tax revenue flowed back into the national health service. Consumption of these drinks fell measurably. In the first year alone, the tax prevented six tons of sugar from entering the population's bodies. More tellingly, the tax forced the industry's hand. Manufacturers began reformulating their products, cutting sugar content not because they suddenly cared about health, but because the financial incentive shifted. Between 2019 and 2023, sugar in soft drinks dropped by 16.1 percent—a reduction far steeper than the 5.4 percent achieved in untaxed food categories over the same period. Self-regulation, the industry's preferred narrative, has never moved the needle this fast or this far.
Critics have argued that childhood obesity numbers did not fall, therefore the tax failed. This reasoning ignores a basic truth: without the tax, those numbers would likely have climbed higher. The tax did not solve obesity alone because obesity is not caused by sugary drinks alone. It is caused by an entire food environment engineered to make ultraprocessed products cheaper, more convenient, and more appealing than whole foods. A comprehensive response would extend taxation to products combining high levels of sugar, salt, and fat. A proposal to tax salt faced rejection in 2018, but the case for it has only strengthened.
Beyond taxation, market design matters. Supermarket checkouts are engineered impulse-purchase zones, stocked with ultraprocessed foods precisely because they exploit a moment of vulnerability—especially for parents shopping with children. Removing these products from checkout areas, while preserving space for convenience items like batteries and gum, would reduce friction without banning anything outright. Prohibition is neither feasible nor necessary. Making access harder, and more expensive, is enough.
Portugal ranks 19th in Europe's Nanny State Index, a measure of health-focused taxation on sugary drinks, alcohol, and tobacco. Countries ahead of it—Norway, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Denmark—have not collapsed into tyranny. They have simply decided that the cost to the health system of preventable disease outweighs the cost of regulation. The burden on Portugal's national health service is already gigantic. Every policy choice is a choice about who bears that burden.
But regulation alone will not work without consumer participation. The food industry will continue to launch healthier products, and many will fail because sales are weak and the market does not support them. It is easier to blame the industry than to change what goes into your shopping cart. The next time you are at a supermarket, the choice is yours—and that choice sends a signal back through the entire system about what the market will bear.
Citas Notables
Self-regulation by the food industry has never achieved reductions in sugar content as significant or as rapid as those driven by taxation.— The author, on the effectiveness of the 2017 sugar tax versus industry self-regulation
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the author keep saying this isn't about blaming people for being overweight?
Because the science shows that ultraprocessed foods trigger addiction pathways in the brain—the same ones activated by alcohol and tobacco. If we accept that addiction is real, then willpower alone becomes an unfair standard. The author is trying to separate the moral question from the medical one.
But doesn't the food industry have a right to make profitable products?
Absolutely. The author agrees with that. The point is that government has an equal right to tax those products and make them less accessible. It's not about shutting down the industry; it's about shifting the incentives.
The sugar tax worked, but childhood obesity didn't fall. Doesn't that mean it failed?
No, because you can't measure what would have happened without the tax. Obesity might have gotten worse. The tax also forced manufacturers to reformulate—sugar in soft drinks dropped 16 percent in five years, compared to 5 percent in untaxed foods. That's a real change in the food environment.
What about people who can't afford to pay more for food?
That's exactly why the author calls vulnerable populations the focus. When ultraprocessed foods are cheap and everywhere, they're the only option for people with tight budgets. Taxation plus regulation—like removing junk food from checkout aisles—makes the healthier choice easier, not harder.
Is the author saying we should ban these foods?
No. The author explicitly rejects prohibition. The goal is to make access harder and more expensive, not impossible. It's the same logic as tobacco regulation—you can still buy it, but there are barriers and costs.
Why does Portugal's ranking on the Nanny State Index matter?
It shows that other wealthy democracies have already done this. Portugal is 19th in Europe for health-focused taxation. Countries ahead of it haven't become authoritarian. They've just decided the health burden justifies regulation.