Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs)
High consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has become a major global health concern. Owing to their high sugar content, particularly high-fructose corn syrup, and high caloric density, excessive intake of SSBs is a major contributor to several noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disorders (). Using the Global Burden of Disease Study database, Ge et al. reported that the global prevalence of high SSB consumption among young adults aged 15–39 years rose from 6.58% in 1990 to 11.13% in 2021, with projections indicating further increases through 2050 (). Analyzing the same Global Burden of Disease database, Lara-Castor et al. found that global SSB intake among children and adolescents aged 3–19 years increased by 23% from 1990 to 2018 (). These findings show that SSBs are being consumed more by children, adolescents, and young adults around the world, and that current efforts are not enough to reverse this trend. Because SSBs are a major source of free sugars, drinking too much of them directly causes tooth decay (the most common non-communicable disease globally) and raises the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and related conditions. The fastest growth in SSB consumption is now in low- and middle-income regions, especially sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, where people often have less access to preventive dental and medical care. This makes the problem both a health and an equity issue. Stronger, population-wide measures are therefore needed, such as taxes on sugary drinks, clear warning labels, limits on marketing to children, incentives for companies to reduce sugar, and better access to safe drinking water, to cut SSB intake and reduce the burden of both oral and systemic diseases.
SSBs, oral health, and economic burden
The association between SSB consumption and oral disease is well established. SSBs, including sodas, energy drinks, and flavored beverages, are major dietary sources of free sugars and acidity that promote oral microbial dysbiosis, enamel demineralization, and dental caries (, ). Their sugars are fermented by cariogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans (), producing organic acids that lower the oral pH and gradually dissolve tooth enamel, while their intrinsic acidity further accelerates enamel erosion and tooth decay. Multiple studies have shown a direct association between high added-sugar intake and the development and progression of periodontal disease, likely through local and systemic inflammation (). A 2022 systematic review of 13 observational studies found that 11 reported a significant association between the frequent consumption of free-sugar-containing foods or SSBs and a higher incidence of periodontal disease (). Similarly, an NHANES III analysis of 2,437 young adults aged 18–25 years found that higher added-sugar intake was significantly associated with an increased risk of periodontal disease (). In addition, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that reducing free-sugar intake significantly improved gingival health and reduced gingival inflammation, further supporting the inflammatory role of excessive sugar consumption in periodontal disease progression (). Therefore, SSBs contribute to oral disease through both cariogenic and erosive mechanisms: their fermentable sugars, especially sucrose, promote acid production by dental biofilms, while their intrinsic acidity increases the risk of enamel erosion ().
The global economic burden of oral diseases is estimated to exceed US$710 billion annually, including approximately US$387 billion in direct treatment costs and US$323 billion in productivity losses, highlighting their major public health and socioeconomic impact (). Oral diseases also significantly reduce quality of life and overall well-being. Direct oral healthcare costs vary widely, from about US$0.52 per capita in lower-income countries to roughly US$260 per capita in high-income countries (). Dental caries is among the most common NCDs worldwide; according to the WHO, more than 530 million children have caries in primary teeth, and untreated caries in permanent teeth affect an estimated 2.4 billion people globally (). Although highly preventable, dental caries remains a major public health challenge because of its effects on systemic health, its disproportionate burden on disadvantaged groups, and its substantial treatment costs (). Limited access to oral healthcare also leads to large losses in productivity and human capital, often captured as indirect costs through absenteeism and presenteeism. These effects are reflected in higher DALYs and YLDs, underscoring the broad human and economic costs of oral disease ().
Taxation of SSBs
Increasing fiscal taxation on SSBs constitutes an evidence-based public health intervention. The underlying mechanistic rationale is that price increases at the upper end of the price distribution are likely to induce shifts in consumer dietary behavior, reducing the consumption of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods and SSBs. Consequently, this approach reduces the prevalence of lifestyle- and nutrition-related NCDs, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, while simultaneously generating fiscal resources that can be allocated to public health programs. Cárdenas-Torres et al. reported that policies that substantially increased taxes on SSBs successfully reduced the consumption of SSBs (). However, ideological debates and political opposition, particularly strong industry lobbying, concerns about regressive impacts on low-income populations, and voter resistance to new taxes, have created significant challenges for advancing the taxation of SSBs on policy agendas and securing legislative approval worldwide (). Despite these barriers, several countries have successfully implemented policy strategies to overcome regulatory challenges. For instance, Mexico earmarked tax revenue on SSBs to fund free drinking water in schools and public health programs, while the United Kingdom paired its Soft Drinks Industry Levy with transparency requirements and industry collaboration to encourage reformulation. In Brazil, framing the taxation of SSBs as part of a broader food security and child health agenda helped develop public support and reduce industry pushback. These examples illustrate how strategic framing, revenue earmarking, and multisectoral partnerships can enhance the political feasibility of the taxation of SSBs across diverse contexts. Soft Drinks Industry Levy, introduced in the United Kingdom in 2018, implements a tiered excise tax linked to sugar content. This policy has compelled soft drink manufacturers to reformulate their products by removing added sugar from retail shelves. One year after the implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy, free sugar consumption decreased significantly among both children and adults. Daily free sugar intake from soft drinks decreased by approximately 3 g/day in children and 5 g/day in adults, indicating a beneficial effect on dietary sugar intake (). It has been reported that total sugar sales from drinks decreased by 35.4%, from 135,500 tons in 2015 to 87,600 tons in 2019 (). During the same period, the sales weighed average total sugar content decreased from 5.7 g per 100 mL in 2015 to 2.2 g per 100 mL in 2019, which is a decrease of 43.7% (Figure 1) (). It should be noted that the −43.7% figure is Public Health England's Soft Drinks Industry Levy-specific, modelled reduction metric, not the simple percentage change in the sales-weighted average; of relevance, the arithmetic drop from 5.7 g to 2.2 g per 100 mL corresponds to approximately 61%. In Mexico, an 8% ad valorem tax on nonessential energy-dense foods (NEDFs), including sweetened baked goods, candies, snacks, and foods exceeding 275 kcal per 100 g, is imposed (). Of relevance, SSBs are excluded from the 8% NEDF tax; instead, they are subject to their own excise tax on volume. This policy provides a useful example for other countries, suggesting that taxing high-calorie, low-nutrient ultra-processed foods may support healthier dietary choices and public health (). Taxes on SSBs are typically designed as 1) excise taxes, which are levied on the producer or importer and often passed on to consumers through higher shelf prices, or 2) tiered sugar-content taxes, which impose higher rates on drinks with greater sugar concentrations, or 3) volume-based taxes, in which the tax depends on the quantity of SSBs sold (e.g., per ounce or per liter), meaning that larger-volume drinks are taxed more heavily regardless of their sugar concentration. In 2014, Mexico introduced a 1-peso-per-liter excise tax on SSBs. Relative to pretax trends, purchases of taxed SSBs decreased by approximately 5.5%–6% in 2014, with this reduction further increasing to 9.7%–12% in 2015. This progressive decline suggests the impact of taxes over time and supports their potential effectiveness as a policy intervention for reducing SSB consumption (). South Africa implemented volume-based Health Promotion Levy in 2018. Limited evidence suggests that the tax may have reduced added sugar consumption, and as per the Republic of South Africa, National Treasury, the levy generated approximately R3.2 billion (≈US$228 million) in revenue in the fiscal year (2018/19), while observational studies indicate reductions in purchases of taxed beverages and industry reformulation toward lower-sugar products (). The WHO frequently recommends that revenues from taxes on SSBs be earmarked exclusively for public health initiatives addressing disorders related to the consumption of SSBs; however, national authorities often allocate these additional government revenues to general budgetary purposes instead.
Figure 1
Limited oral health focus in SSB taxation
Research on the taxation of SSBs has focused predominantly on multisystemic health outcomes, including obesity, heart failure, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, minimal attention has been given to the effects of the taxation of SSBs on general oral and dental health, particularly among children, adolescents, and individuals from low-income communities. Key oral health conditions such as dental caries (tooth decay) and dental erosion (enamel demineralization) remain critically under investigation in the literature on the taxation of SSBs. A recent review revealed only five eligible studies assessing oral health-related outcomes, and all five were modeling studies, not real-world evaluations (). In a modeling study in Australia, Sowa et al. projected that an SSB tax could improve oral health by reducing dental caries and dental treatment costs, with the greatest benefits expected in younger age groups (). In a simulation study, Urwannachotima et al. projected that an SSB tax alone would have only a modest effect on dental caries in Thailand, with a reduction in prevalence of approximately 1% by 2040, whereas a more aggressive policy could reduce it by about 21% (). Available studies suggest that oral health evidence remains sparse, with only a small number of reviews and a limited direct evidence base for dental endpoints (, ). The results of the Berkeley evaluation suggest that oral health was acknowledged in the debate on the taxation of SSBs but was not a central or strongly mobilized theme. Although oral health was identified as an important public health issue, it remained underused in campaign messaging, and dental professionals were not prominently involved in the advocacy effort. In the communication materials analyzed, oral health and tooth decay appeared only rarely, indicating that the debate was shaped more strongly by broader concerns such as obesity, diabetes, and general public health than by dental outcomes (). Of relevance, three years after the implementation of Berkeley's SSB tax, residents were consuming substantially fewer sugary beverages (21% reduced in Berkeley) and more water (63% increase in Berkeley), with these changes sustained relative to nearby cities without such a tax (, ). Again, Berkeley SSB tax evaluations have largely focused on prices, sales, consumption, and obesity-related outcomes, and have not reported dental endpoints as measured outcomes (). In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Andreyeva et al. reported that implemented SSB taxes were associated with higher prices of taxed beverages and lower sales, with an estimated 82% pass-through and a 15% decline in SSB sales. This review examined consumption, diet, body weight, product changes, unintended consequences, health, and pregnancy outcomes but did not evaluate oral health outcomes (). In a similar line of study, Falbe et al. summarized the population-health effects of SSB taxes, emphasizing reductions in beverage consumption and potential improvements in weight-related outcomes rather than oral health endpoints (). Wang et al. modeled a penny-per-ounce excise (POE) tax and estimated effects on SSB consumption and chronic disease outcomes, including diabetes and cardiovascular events, as well as health spending; oral health outcomes were not included in the model (). This represents a substantial gap not only in dental care research but also in population health and social health economics, given that dental caries is the most prevalent NCD globally and that oral diseases impose over $710 billion in annual economic burden worldwide (). Furthermore, there is a substantial lack of public awareness regarding both the harmful health effects of SSBs and the active efforts aimed at reducing their consumption. Although societal awareness of the harm that added sugar causes to oral health is generally high, strategies for the taxation of SSBs frequently encounter implementation and behavioral challenges (). Addressing this knowledge gap regarding the harmful health impacts of SSBs and the rationale for taxation policies requires stronger, targeted educational campaigns to alleviate these obstacles. Both volumetric and tiered sugar taxes have been identified as effective models for reducing oral and dental diseases by discouraging the consumption of SSBs through additional taxation. A 20% volumetric tax on SSBs was estimated to reduce free sugar intake by approximately 4.4 g/day in high-income countries and 4.0 g/day in low- and middle-income countries; reduced sugar intake was associated with modest but measurable improvements in oral health, including a lower prevalence of dental caries in children and slight reductions in caries severity among adults over a 10-year period (). Using a tooth-level Markov model, Jevdjevic et al. evaluated the potential impact of a 20% tax on sales of SSBs in the Netherlands; the model projected a gain of 2.13 caries-free tooth-years per individual, with boys aged 6–12 years experiencing the greatest benefit (). Although the taxation of SSBs has been associated with a reduction in dental caries and dental care costs, most existing evidence is derived from modeling and simulation studies, highlighting the need for more real-world observational and longitudinal studies (). The minimal evidence linking policies on the taxation of SSBs to oral health outcomes limits the ability of policymakers to fully appreciate the comprehensive public health benefits of fiscal interventions, particularly for vulnerable low-income people who face a disproportionate burden of both oral disease and related health risks with the consumption of SSBs.
Effects of the taxation of SSBs on NCDs
As previously discussed, fiscal policies are key instruments used by governments to generate revenue, allocate resources, and regulate economic activity to curb the rising incidence of NCDs, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, while also helping to offset increasing healthcare expenditures. Meta-analytic evidence from 33 high-quality studies across 16 jurisdictions demonstrates that taxes on SSBs are associated with an average 15% reduction in sugary drink sales (95% CI: −20% to −9%) (, ). The price elasticity of demand for SSBs is approximately −1.59 (95% CI: −2.11 to −1.08), indicating that a 10% price increase would reduce consumption by approximately 16%. In separate analyses, a 10% tax on SSBs has been associated with an average decrease in purchases and dietary intake of approximately 10% (95% CI: −5.0% to −14.7%), although the observed effect depends on the tax pass-through and the study setting (). Additionally, the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy was associated with an 8% relative reduction in obesity among girls aged 10–11 years (equivalent to preventing 5,234 cases annually in this group) (), and tax in Mexico was linked to a 1.3% reduction in overweight/obesity prevalence among adolescent girls (). These taxes also drive product reformulation toward lower sugar content. Studies have shown that children, adolescents, and young adults are particularly responsive to increases in the price of SSBs, leading to marked reductions in purchases and sustained declines in the prevalence of obesity among children (). U.S.-based modeling studies suggest that a nationwide POE tax on SSBs could substantially reduce incident type 2 diabetes and may outperform the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in population-level cost-effectiveness and impact. In a head-to-head comparison, compared with the National DPP, the POE tax was projected to prevent more diabetes and generate greater cost savings per case (). Wang et al. estimated that a POE tax would reduce SSB consumption by 15% among adults aged 25–64 and would reduce new diabetes cases by 2.6% overall over 10 years (). The investigators recommend that implementing the POE tax alongside the DPP may provide complementary benefits and could enhance diabetes prevention and cost savings over time. These substantial systemic benefits provide a useful precedent for oral health modeling, in which similar tax-related reductions in sugar intake may yield meaningful gains in caries prevention and other oral health outcomes.
Challenges and unintended consequences of taxation on SSBs
Taxation of SSBs may be regressive, as low-income households can share a larger proportion of their income with the tax despite paying relatively small absolute amounts. This concern is especially salient because sugary drinks are often more affordable and more frequently consumed in disadvantaged populations, even though these groups also carry a greater burden of diet-related disease. As a result, the equity implications are complex: the financial burden may fall disproportionately on low-income households, while the potential health benefits may also be greater in the same groups (, ).
Another unintended consequence is substitution, where consumers reduce taxed beverage intake but shift toward untaxed sugary foods or other caloric products. This weakens the intended health effect because lower consumption of SSBs does not necessarily translate into lower overall sugar or calorie intake. Evidence from local tax evaluations has been mixed: some settings show little substitution, while others show increases in sweets or other untaxed items. Therefore, the tax may successfully change beverage purchases but still fail to produce a large net improvement in diet quality if people simply move their sugar intake elsewhere. Industry responses to the taxation of SSBs often include product reformulation through the substitution of sugar with nonnutritive sweeteners. Although this may lower the added sugar content, it may also limit the public health impact of the policy if reformulated products continue to reinforce sweet taste preferences or if the long-term health implications of increased non-nutritive sweetener exposure remain uncertain.
Cross-border purchasing represents an important limitation of the taxation of SSBs, particularly in adjacent taxed and untaxed jurisdictions. When consumers can easily purchase beverages outside the taxed area, the policy effect may be diluted because consumption is displaced rather than eliminated. Such avoidance may also raise equity concerns, as households with greater mobility are better able to evade the tax. This issue is especially relevant for local and city-level taxes, where geographic leakage can substantially undermine population-level impact (). The impact of the taxation of SSBs is not uniform across countries because consumer behavior, tax design, enforcement capacity, market structure, and baseline diet patterns differ substantially. Consequently, a tax that performs well in one setting may have weaker effects elsewhere if the pass-through is incomplete, substitution is easier, or implementation capacity is limited. This heterogeneity means that findings from one country should not be generalized uncritically to another. It also helps explain why the same policy may appear strongly effective in one evaluation but only modestly effective in another since outcomes are shaped by local purchasing habits, retail environments, and enforcement conditions (Figure 2) (). For instance, in a real-world evaluation of 83,260 dental patients, the Philadelphia beverage tax was not associated with reduced tooth decay in the overall population, but it was associated with lower new decay, missing, and filled teeth among Medicaid patients (generally represent lower-income patients) ().
Figure 2
Conclusion
Globally, SSB consumption is a well-established contributor to childhood obesity and adverse oral health outcomes; nevertheless, SSB intake continues to rise worldwide (). Although SSB taxation is increasingly recognized as a policy with potential oral health benefits, oral outcomes remain insufficiently incorporated into evaluation frameworks. This omission likely limits the apparent value of these interventions, since dental caries and periodontal disease are common, preventable, and unequally distributed. Future assessments should therefore include oral health endpoints alongside systemic and economic outcomes to provide a more complete estimate of policy impact.
Statements
Author contributions
RA: Writing – original draft. MN: Writing – review & editing. MH: Writing – original draft. MR: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
The image was constructed using Illustrae and subsequently modified in PowerPoint. We want to thank Dr. Peace Uwambaye for providing useful suggestions. M. Z. N. is a Doctor of Medicine (MD) student at the School of Medicine, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), Edinburg, Texas, USA.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author MR declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The authors acknowledge the use of publicly available online sources for information gathering and an AI-assisted writing tool (OpenAI's GPT-5.5) for language refinement. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
AlmansouriM. The association between high fructose corn syrup and the development of type-2 diabetes. Front Clin Diabetes Healthc. (2026) 7:1785203. 10.3389/fcdhc.2026.1785203
2.
GeCXiongJZhuRHongZHeY. Global burden of high sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among young adults. Diabetol Metab Syndr. (2025) 17:259. 10.1186/s13098-025-01845-y
3.
Lara-CastorLMichaRCudheaFMillerVShiPZhangJet al. Intake of sugar sweetened beverages among children and adolescents in 185 countries between 1990 and 2018: population based study. Br Med J. (2024) 386:e079234. 10.1136/bmj-2024-079234
4.
MossMELuoHRosingerAYJacobsMMKaurR. High sugar intake from sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with prevalence of untreated decay in US adults: NHANES 2013–2016. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. (2022) 50:579–88. 10.1111/cdoe.12725
5.
TuraliyevaMAkimbekovNSDigelIYerezhepovAYRazzaqueMS. Vitamin D as a candidate host susceptibility factor in sugar-driven oral dysbiosis: a hypothesis-generating narrative-conceptual review. Front Oral Health. (2026) 7:1850800. 10.3389/froh.2026.1850800
6.
ZhangYFangJYangJGaoXDongLZhengXet al. Streptococcus mutans-associated bacteria in dental plaque of severe early childhood caries. J Oral Microbiol. (2022) 14:2046309. 10.1080/20002297.2022.2046309
7.
JeongJKimHSLeeDKimKKimYH. Association between four dietary patterns and the risk of periodontal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. (2022) 14:4362. 10.3390/nu14204362
8.
KusamaTNakazawaNTakeuchiKKiuchiSOsakaK. Free sugar intake and periodontal diseases: a systematic review. Nutrients. (2022) 14:4444. 10.3390/nu14214444
9.
LulaECRibeiroCCHugoFNAlvesCMSilvaAA. Added sugars and periodontal disease in young adults: an analysis of NHANES III data. Am J Clin Nutr. (2014) 100:1182–7. 10.3945/ajcn.114.089656
10.
WadiaR. Impact of free sugars on gingival inflammation. Br Dent J. (2023) 234:923. 10.1038/s41415-023-6013-4
11.
ValenzuelaMJWaterhouseBAggarwalVRBloorKDoranT. Effect of sugar-sweetened beverages on oral health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health. (2021) 31:122–9. 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa147
12.
JevdjevicMListlS. Global, regional, and country-level economic impacts of oral conditions in 2019. J Dent Res. (2025) 104:17–21. 10.1177/00220345241281698
13.
KassebaumNJBernabéEDahiyaMBhandariBMurrayCJMarcenesW. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res. (2015) 94:650–8. 10.1177/0022034515573272
14.
LiXLiRWangHYangZLiuYLiXet al. Global burden of dental caries from 1990 to 2021 and future projections. Int Dent J. (2025) 75:100904. 10.1016/j.identj.2025.100904
15.
AbuljadayelLRajehMKabbarahAMeishaDSabbahiDBahananLet al. Oral health and workforce efficiency: analyzing productivity loss using NHANES data. Community Dent Health. (2025). 10.1177/0265539X251400505
16.
Cárdenas-TorresPAOrozco-NuñezEDreser-MansillaACTorres-de la RosaCPPérez-TamayoEM. Challenges to the development of taxation policies for sugar-sweetened beverages in Colombia. BMJ Glob Health. (2024) 8:e012074. 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012074
17.
RogersNTCumminsSJonesCPMyttonORaynerMRutterHet al. Estimated changes in free sugar consumption one year after the UK soft drinks industry levy came into force: controlled interrupted time series analysis of the national diet and nutrition survey (2011–2019). J Epidemiol Community Health. (2024) 78:578–84. 10.1136/jech-2023-221051
18.
GOV.UK. Sugar reduction: Report on progress between 2015 and 2019. In Public Health England (2020). Available online at:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sugar-reduction-report-on-progress-between-2015-and-2019
19.
Junquera-BadillaIBasto-AbreuAReyes-GarcíaAColcheroMABarrientos-GutierrezT. Expected benefits of increasing taxes to nonessential energy-dense foods in Mexico: a modeling study. BMC Public Health. (2025) 25:624. 10.1186/s12889-025-21745-0
20.
ColcheroMAMolinaMGuerrero-LopezCM. After Mexico implemented a tax, purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased and water increased: difference by place of residence, household composition, and income level. J Nutr. (2017) 147:1552–7. 10.3945/jn.117.251892
21.
StaceyNEdokaIHofmanKSwartECPopkinBNgSW. Changes in beverage purchases following the announcement and implementation of South Africa’s health promotion levy: an observational study. Lancet Planet Health. (2021) 5:e200–8. 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30304-1
22.
ShakibaMIranparvarPJadidfardMP. The impact of sugar-sweetened beverages tax on oral health-related outcomes: a systematic review of the current evidence. Evid Based Dent. (2022). 10.1038/s41432-022-0830-1
23.
SowaPMKellerEStormonNLallooRFordPJ. The impact of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax on oral health and costs of dental care in Australia. Eur J Public Health. (2019) 29:173–7. 10.1093/eurpub/cky087
24.
UrwannachotimaNHanvoravongchaiPAnsahJPPrasertsomPKohVRY. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage tax on dental caries: a simulation analysis. BMC Oral Health. (2020) 20:76. 10.1186/s12903-020-1061-5
25.
HajishafieeMKapellasKListlSPattamattaMGkekasAMoynihanP. Effect of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation on sugars intake and dental caries: an umbrella review of a global perspective. BMC Public Health. (2023) 23:986. 10.1186/s12889-023-15884-5
26.
Sokal-GutierrezKMadsenKFalbeJCrawfordPMejiaPDorfmanL. The Berkeley Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Evaluating the Impact. Berkeley: Berkeley Food Institute (2017).
27.
LeeMMFalbeJSchillingerDBasuSMcCullochCEMadsenKA. Sugar-Sweetened beverage consumption 3 years after the Berkeley, California, sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Public Health. (2019) 109:637–9. 10.2105/AJPH.2019.304971
28.
FalbeJThompsonHRBeckerCMRojasNMcCullochCEMadsenKA. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am J Public Health. (2016) 106:1865–71. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362
29.
AndreyevaTMarpleKMarinelloSMooreTEPowellLM. Outcomes following taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. (2022) 5:e2215276. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15276
30.
FalbeJGrummonAHKriegerJW. Sugar-Sweetened beverage taxes and population health outcomes. JAMA Pediatr. (2022) 176:129–31. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5051
31.
WangYCCoxsonPShenYMGoldmanLBibbins-DomingoK. A penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would cut health and cost burdens of diabetes. Health Aff (Millwood). (2012) 31:199–207. 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0410
32.
JevdjevicMTrescherALRoversMListlS. The caries-related cost and effects of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Public Health. (2019) 169:125–32. 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.02.010
33.
AlharekyM. Taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages and its impact on dental caries: a narrative review. Saudi J Med Med Sci. (2021) 9:113–7. 10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_54_21
34.
TengAMJonesACMizdrakASignalLGençMWilsonN. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. (2019) 20:1187–204. 10.1111/obr.12868
35.
RogersNTCumminsSFordeHJonesCPMyttonORutterHet al. Associations between trajectories of obesity prevalence in English primary school children and the UK soft drinks industry levy: an interrupted time series analysis of surveillance data. PLoS Med. (2023) 20:e1004160. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004160
36.
GracnerTMarquez-PadillaFHernandez-CortesD. Changes in weight-related outcomes among adolescents following consumer price increases of taxed sugar-sweetened beverages. JAMA Pediatr. (2022) 176:150–8. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5044
37.
CalcaterraVCenaHMagenesVCVincentiAComolaGBerettaAet al. Sugar-Sweetened beverages and metabolic risk in children and adolescents with obesity: a narrative review. Nutrients. (2023) 15:702. 10.3390/nu15030702
38.
BandaruPNana Sede MbakopRRondaVPGokturkSForlemuAN. Nationwide effectiveness and efficiency of the national diabetes prevention policy versus the penny-per-ounce excise tax policy on sugar-sweetened beverages. Cureus. (2024) 16:e55866. 10.7759/cureus.55866
39.
BackholerKSarinkDBeauchampAKeatingCLohVBallKet al. The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages according to socio-economic position: a systematic review of the evidence. Public Health Nutr. (2016) 19:3070–84. 10.1017/S136898001600104X
40.
ValizadehPNgSW. Would A national sugar-sweetened beverage tax in the United States be well targeted?Am J Agric Econ. (2021) 103:961–86. 10.1111/ajae.12190
41.
ZhangQMcCluskeyJJGallardoRKBradyMP. Avoidance behaviors circumventing the sugar-sweetened beverages tax. Food Policy. (2021) 105:102166. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102166
42.
PhonsukPPhulkerdSJankhotkaewJThowAMFarrellP. Understanding research approaches to assess sugar-sweetened beverage taxation policy implementation and response in low- and middle-income countries: Results from a scoping review. Nutr Rev. (2026) 84:1290–304. 10.1093/nutrit/nuaf122
43.
PetimarJGibsonLAWolffMSMitraNCorbyPHettingerGet al. Changes in dental outcomes after implementation of the Philadelphia beverage tax. Am J Prev Med. (2023) 65:221–9. 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.02.009
44.
Razzaque MS. Overconsumption of sugar–sweetened beverages: Why is it difficult to control? J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. (2020) 27:e51–e57.10.15586/jptcp.v27i2.678
Summary
Keywords
dental caries, oral health, public health policy, sugar-sweetened beverages, taxation
Citation
Ahmad R, Noorani MZ, Haque M and Razzaque MS (2026) Potential effects of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation on oral and systemic health outcomes. Front. Oral Health 7:1906968. doi: 10.3389/froh.2026.1906968
Received
11 June 2026
Revised
26 July 2026
Accepted
29 July 2026
Published
12 August 2026
Volume
7 - 2026
Edited by
Ahmed Ali Alhassani, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, United States
Reviewed by
Chengetai Dare, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Ahmad, Noorani, Haque and Razzaque.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mohammed S. Razzaque mohammed.razzaque@utrgv.edu; msr.nagasaki@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.