Hubbry Logo
Soft drinkSoft drinkMain
Open search
Soft drink
Community hub
Soft drink
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Soft drink
Soft drink
Soft drink
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A tumbler of cola served with ice cubes
Soft drink vending machine in Japan

A soft drink (see § Terminology for other names) is a class of drink containing no alcohol, usually (but not necessarily) carbonated, and typically including added sweetener. Flavors can be natural, artificial or a mixture of the two. The sweetener may be a sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice, a sugar substitute (in the case of diet sodas), or some combination of these. Soft drinks may also contain caffeine, colorings, preservatives and other ingredients. Coffee, tea, milk, cocoa, and unaltered fruit and vegetable juices are not considered soft drinks.[1]

Soft drinks are called "soft" in contrast with "hard" alcoholic drinks and their counterparts: non-alcoholic drinks. Small amounts of alcohol may be present in a soft drink, but the alcohol content must be less than 0.5% of the total volume of the drink (ABV) in many countries and localities[2][3] if the drink is to not be considered alcoholic.[4] Examples of soft drinks include lemon-lime drinks, orange soda, cola, grape soda, cream soda, ginger ale and root beer.

Soft drinks may be served cold, over ice cubes, or at room temperature. They are available in many container formats, including cans, glass bottles, and plastic bottles. Containers come in a variety of sizes, ranging from small bottles to large multi-liter containers. Soft drinks are widely available at fast food restaurants, movie theaters, convenience stores, casual-dining restaurants, dedicated soda stores, vending machines and bars from soda fountain machines.

Within a decade of the invention of carbonated water by Joseph Priestley in 1767, inventors in Europe had used his concept to produce the drink in greater quantities. One such inventor, J. J. Schweppe, formed Schweppes in 1783 and began selling the world's first bottled soft drink.[5][6] Soft drink brands founded in the 19th century include R. White's Lemonade in 1845, Moxie in 1876, Dr Pepper in 1885 and Coca-Cola in 1886. Subsequent brands include Pepsi, Irn-Bru, Sprite, Fanta, 7 Up and RC Cola.

Terminology

[edit]
See also: Names for soft drinks in the United States

The term "soft drink" is a category in the beverage industry, and is broadly used in product labeling and on restaurant menus, generally a euphemistic term meaning non-alcoholic. However, in many countries such drinks are more commonly referred to by regional names, including pop, cool drink, fizzy drink, cola, soda, or soda pop.[7][8] Other less-used terms include carbonated drink, fizzy juice, lolly water, seltzer, coke, tonic, and mineral.[9] Due to the high sugar content in typical soft drinks, they may also be called sugary drinks.[10]

In the United States, the 2003 Harvard Dialect Survey[7] tracked the usage of the nine most common names. Over half of the survey respondents preferred the term "soda", which was dominant in the Northeastern United States, California, and the areas surrounding Milwaukee and St. Louis. The term "pop", which was preferred by 25% of the respondents, was most popular in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, while the genericized trademark "coke", used by 12% of the respondents, was most popular in the Southern United States.[7] The term "tonic" is distinctive to eastern Massachusetts, although its use is declining.[11]

In the English-speaking parts of Canada, the term "pop" is prevalent, but "soft drink" is the most common English term used in Montreal.[12]

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, the term "fizzy drink" is common. "Pop" and "fizzy pop" are used in Northern England, South Wales, and the Midlands[13] while "mineral"[8] is used in Ireland. In Scotland, "fizzy juice" or even simply "juice" is colloquially encountered, as is "ginger".[14] In Australia and New Zealand, "soft drink"[15] or "fizzy drink" is typically used.[16] In South African English, "cool drink" is any soft drink.[17]

In other languages, various names are used: descriptive names as "non-alcoholic beverages", equivalents of "soda water", or generalized names. For example, the Bohemian variant of the Czech language (but not Moravian dialects) uses "limonáda" for all such beverages, not only those made from lemons.[18] Similarly, the Slovak language uses "malinovka" ("raspberry water") for all such beverages, not only for raspberry ones.[19]

History

[edit]

The origins of soft drinks lie in the development of fruit-flavored drinks. In the medieval Middle East, a variety of fruit-flavored soft drinks were widely drunk, such as sharbat, and were often sweetened with ingredients such as sugar, syrup and honey. Other common ingredients included lemon, apple, pomegranate, tamarind, jujube, sumac, musk, mint and ice. Middle Eastern drinks later became popular in medieval Europe, where the word "syrup" was derived from Arabic.[20] In Tudor England, 'water imperial' was widely drunk; it was a sweetened drink with lemon flavor and containing cream of tartar. 'Manays Cryste' was a sweetened cordial flavored with rosewater, violets or cinnamon.[21]

Another early type of soft drink was lemonade, made of water and lemon juice sweetened with honey, but without carbonated water. The Compagnie des Limonadiers of Paris was granted a monopoly for the sale of lemonade soft drinks in 1676. Vendors carried tanks of lemonade on their backs and dispensed cups of the soft drink to Parisians.[19]

Carbonated drinks

[edit]
Bubbles of carbon dioxide float to the surface of a carbonated soft drink.
Carbonation moving through a drink, disturbing the ice in a glass

Carbonated drinks or fizzy drinks are beverages that consist mainly of carbonated water. The dissolution of carbon dioxide (CO2) in a liquid, gives rise to effervescence or fizz. Carbon dioxide is only weakly soluble in water; therefore, it separates into a gas when the pressure is released. The process usually involves injecting carbon dioxide under high pressure. When the pressure is removed, the carbon dioxide is released from the solution as small bubbles, which causes the solution to become effervescent, or fizzy.

Carbonated beverages are prepared by mixing flavored syrup with carbonated water. Carbonation levels range up to 5 volumes of CO2 per liquid volume. Ginger ale, colas, and related drinks are carbonated with 3.5 volumes. Other drinks, often fruity ones, are carbonated less.[22]

Engraving of assorted scientific equipment, such as a pneumatic trough. A dead mouse rests under one glass canister.
Equipment used by Joseph Priestley in his experiments on gases and the carbonation of water

In the late 18th century, scientists made important progress in replicating naturally carbonated mineral waters. In 1767, Englishman Joseph Priestley first discovered a method of infusing water with carbon dioxide to make carbonated water[23] when he suspended a bowl of distilled water above a beer vat at a local brewery in Leeds, England. His invention of carbonated water (later known as soda water, for the use of soda powders in its commercial manufacture) is the major and defining component of most soft drinks.[24]

Priestley found that water treated in this manner had a pleasant taste, and he offered it to his friends as a refreshing drink. In 1772, Priestley published a paper entitled Impregnating Water with Fixed Air in which he describes dripping oil of vitriol (or sulfuric acid as it is now called) onto chalk to produce carbon dioxide gas and encouraging the gas to dissolve into an agitated bowl of water.[24]

"Within a decade, inventors in Britain and in Europe had taken Priestley's basic idea—get some "fixed air," mix it with water, shake—and created contraptions that could make carbonated water more quickly, in greater quantities. One of those inventors was named Johann Jacob Schweppe, who sold bottled soda water and whose business is still around today."

"The great soda-water shake up" (October 2014) The Atlantic.[6]

Another Englishman, John Mervin Nooth, improved Priestley's design and sold his apparatus for commercial use in pharmacies. Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman invented a generating apparatus that made carbonated water from chalk by the use of sulfuric acid. Bergman's apparatus allowed imitation mineral water to be produced in large amounts. Thomas Henry, an apothecary from Manchester, was the first to sell artificial mineral water to the general public for medicinal purposes, beginning in the 1770s. His recipe for 'Bewley's Mephitic Julep' consisted of 3 drachms of fossil alkali to a quart of water, and the manufacture had to 'throw in streams of fixed air until all the alkaline taste is destroyed'.[21]

Johann Jacob Schweppe developed a process to manufacture bottled carbonated mineral water.[6] He founded the Schweppes Company in Geneva in 1783 to sell carbonated water,[25] and relocated his business to London in 1792. His drink soon gained in popularity; among his newfound patrons was Erasmus Darwin. In 1843, the Schweppes company commercialized Malvern Water at the Holywell Spring in the Malvern Hills, and received a royal warrant from King William IV.[26]

It was not long before flavoring was combined with carbonated water. The earliest reference to carbonated ginger beer is in a Practical Treatise on Brewing. published in 1809. The drinking of either natural or artificial mineral water was considered at the time to be a healthy practice, and was promoted by advocates of temperance. Pharmacists selling mineral waters began to add herbs and chemicals to unflavored mineral water. They used birch bark (see birch beer), dandelion, sarsaparilla root, fruit extracts, and other substances.

Phosphate soda

[edit]

A variant of soda in the United States called "phosphate soda" appeared in the late 1870s. It became one of the most popular soda fountain drinks from 1900 until the 1930s, with the lemon or orange phosphate being the most basic. The drink consists of 1 US fl oz (30 ml) fruit syrup, 1/2 teaspoon of phosphoric acid, and enough carbonated water and ice to fill a glass. This drink was commonly served in pharmacies.[27]

Mass market and industrialization

[edit]
An 1883 advertisement for Schweppes Mineral-Waters

Soft drinks soon outgrew their origins in the medical world and became a widely consumed product, available cheaply for the masses. By the 1840s, there were more than fifty soft drink manufacturers in London, an increase from just ten in the 1820s.[28] Carbonated lemonade was widely available in British refreshment stalls in 1833,[28] and in 1845, R. White's Lemonade went on sale in the UK.[29] For the Great Exhibition of 1851 held at Hyde Park in London, Schweppes was designated the official drink supplier and sold over a million bottles of lemonade, ginger beer, Seltzer water and soda-water.[28] There was a Schweppes soda water fountain, situated directly at the entrance to the exhibition.[21]

Mixer drinks became popular in the second half of the century. Tonic water was originally quinine added to water as a prophylactic against malaria and was consumed by British officials stationed in the tropical areas of South Asia and Africa. As the quinine powder was so bitter people began mixing the powder with soda and sugar, and a basic tonic water was created. The first commercial tonic water was produced in 1858.[30] The mixed drink gin and tonic also originated in British colonial India, when the British population would mix their medicinal quinine tonic with gin.[21]

The Codd-neck bottle invented in 1872 provided an effective seal, preventing the soft drinks from going 'flat'.

A persistent problem in the soft drinks industry was the lack of an effective sealing of the bottles. Carbonated drink bottles are under great pressure from the gas, so inventors tried to find the best way to prevent the carbon dioxide or bubbles from escaping. The bottles could also explode if the pressure was too great. Hiram Codd devised a patented bottling machine while working at a small mineral water works in the Caledonian Road, Islington, in London in 1870. His Codd-neck bottle was designed to enclose a marble and a rubber washer in the neck. The bottles were filled upside down, and pressure of the gas in the bottle forced the marble against the washer, sealing in the carbonation. The bottle was pinched into a special shape to provide a chamber into which the marble was pushed to open the bottle. This prevented the marble from blocking the neck as the drink was poured.[21] R. White's, by now the biggest soft drinks company in London and south-east England, featured a wide range of drinks on their price list in 1887, all of which were sold in Codd's glass bottles, with choices including strawberry soda, raspberry soda, cherryade and cream soda.[31]

New York in 1890. A street sign "SODA" is visible at the bottom left part of the image.

In 1892, the "Crown Cork Bottle Seal" was patented by William Painter, a Baltimore, Maryland machine shop operator. It was the first bottle top to successfully keep the bubbles in the bottle. In 1899, the first patent was issued for a glass-blowing machine for the automatic production of glass bottles. Earlier glass bottles had all been hand-blown. Four years later, the new bottle-blowing machine was in operation. It was first operated by Michael Owens, an employee of Libby Glass Company. Within a few years, glass bottle production increased from 1,400 bottles a day to about 58,000 bottles a day.

In America, soda fountains were initially more popular, and many Americans would frequent the soda fountain daily. Beginning in 1806, Yale University chemistry professor Benjamin Silliman sold soda waters in New Haven, Connecticut. He used a Nooth apparatus to produce his waters. Businessmen in Philadelphia and New York City also began selling soda water in the early 19th century. In the 1830s, John Matthews of New York City and John Lippincott of Philadelphia began manufacturing soda fountains. Both men were successful and built large factories for fabricating fountains. Due to problems in the U.S. glass industry, bottled drinks remained a small portion of the market throughout much of the 19th century. (However, they were known in England. In The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, published in 1848, the caddish Huntingdon, recovering from months of debauchery, wakes at noon and gulps a bottle of soda-water.[32])

In the early 20th century, sales of bottled soda increased greatly around the world, and in the second half of the 20th century, canned soft drinks became an important share of the market. During the 1920s, "Home-Paks" were invented. "Home-Paks" are the familiar six-pack cartons made from cardboard. Vending machines also began to appear in the 1920s. Since then, soft drink vending machines have become increasingly popular. Both hot and cold drinks are sold in these self-service machines throughout the world.

Consumption

[edit]

Per capita consumption of soda varies considerably around the world. As of 2014, the top consuming countries per capita were Argentina, the United States, Chile, and Mexico. Developed countries in Europe and elsewhere in the Americas had considerably lower consumption. Annual average consumption in the United States, at 153.5 liters, was about twice that in the United Kingdom (77.7) or Canada (85.3).[33]

In recent years, soda consumption has generally declined in the West. According to one estimate, per capita consumption in the United States reached its peak in 1998 and has continually fallen since.[34] A study in the journal Obesity found that from 2003 to 2014 the proportion of Americans who drank a sugary beverage on a given day fell from approximately 62% to 50% for adults, and from 80% to 61% for children.[35] The decrease has been attributed to, among other factors, an increased awareness of the dangers of obesity, and government efforts to improve diets.

At the same time, soda consumption has increased in some low- or middle-income countries such as Cameroon, Georgia, India and Vietnam as soda manufacturers increasingly target these markets and consumers have increasing discretionary income.[33]

Production

[edit]
A large green jug
A mid-20th century jug of bottler's flavor for 7-Up. The syrup-like concentrate lacked sugar and was sold to franchisees in such glass containers to produce the soft drink for retail sale.

Soft drinks are made by mixing dry or fresh ingredients with water. Production of soft drinks can be done at factories or at home. Soft drinks can be made at home by mixing a syrup or dry ingredients with carbonated water, or by Lacto-fermentation. Syrups are commercially sold by companies such as Soda-Club; dry ingredients are often sold in pouches, in a style of the popular U.S. drink mix Kool-Aid. Carbonated water is made using a soda siphon or a home carbonation system or by dropping dry ice into water. Food-grade carbon dioxide, used for carbonating drinks, often comes from ammonia plants.[36]

Drinks like ginger ale and root beer are often brewed using yeast to cause carbonation.

Of most importance is that the ingredient meets the agreed specification on all major parameters. This is not only the functional parameter (in other words, the level of the major constituent), but the level of impurities, the microbiological status, and physical parameters such as color, particle size, etc.[37]

Some soft drinks contain measurable amounts of alcohol. In some older preparations, this resulted from natural fermentation used to build the carbonation. In the United States, soft drinks (as well as other products such as non-alcoholic beer) are allowed by law to contain up to 0.5% alcohol by volume. Modern drinks introduce carbon dioxide for carbonation, but there is some speculation that alcohol might result from fermentation of sugars in a non-sterile environment. A small amount of alcohol is introduced in some soft drinks where alcohol is used in the preparation of the flavoring extracts such as vanilla extract.[38]

Producers

[edit]
Further information: List of soft drink producers
Hartwall Jaffa soft drinks

Market control of the soft drink industry varies on a country-by-country basis. However, PepsiCo and the Coca-Cola Company remain the two largest producers of soft drinks in most regions of the world. In North America, Keurig Dr Pepper and Jones Soda also hold a significant amount of market share.

Health concerns

[edit]

The over-consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks is associated with obesity,[39][40][41][42] hypertension,[43] type 2 diabetes,[44] dental caries, and low nutrient levels.[41] A few experimental studies reported the role sugar-sweetened soft drinks potentially contribute to these ailments,[40][41] though other studies show conflicting information.[45][46][47] According to a 2013 systematic review of systematic reviews, 83.3% of the systematic reviews without reported conflict of interest concluded that sugar-sweetened soft drinks consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain.[48]

[edit]

From 1977 to 2002, Americans doubled their consumption of sweetened beverages[49]—a trend that was paralleled by doubling the prevalence of obesity.[50] The consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight and obesity, and changes in consumption can help predict changes in weight.[51]

The consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks can also be associated with many weight-related diseases, including diabetes,[44] metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular risk factors.[52]

Dental decay

[edit]
Chilled soft drinks in a cooler in Brazil

Most soft drinks contain high concentrations of simple carbohydrates: glucose, fructose, sucrose and other simple sugars. If oral bacteria ferment carbohydrates and produce acids that may dissolve tooth enamel and induce dental decay, then sweetened drinks may increase the risk of dental caries. The risk would be greater if the frequency of consumption is high.[53]

A large number of soda pops are acidic as are many fruits, sauces, and other foods. Drinking acidic drinks over a long period and continuous sipping may erode the tooth enamel. A 2007 study determined that some flavored sparkling waters are as erosive or more so than orange juice.[54]

Using a drinking straw is often advised by dentists as the drink does not come into as much contact with the teeth. It has also been suggested that brushing teeth right after drinking soft drinks should be avoided as this can result in additional erosion to the teeth due to mechanical action of the toothbrush on weakened enamel.[55]

Bone density and bone loss

[edit]

A 2006 study of several thousand men and women, found that women who regularly drank cola-based sodas (three or more a day) had significantly lower bone mineral density (BMD) of about 4% in the hip compared to women who did not consume colas.[56] The study found that the effect of regular consumption of cola sodas was not significant on men's BMD.[56]

Benzene

[edit]
Main article: Benzene in soft drinks

In 2006, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency published the results of its survey of benzene levels in soft drinks,[57] which tested 150 products and found that four contained benzene levels above the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for drinking water.

The United States Food and Drug Administration released its own test results of several soft drinks containing benzoates and ascorbic or erythorbic acid. Five tested drinks contained benzene levels above the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended standard of 5 ppb. As of 2006, the FDA stated its belief that "the levels of benzene found in soft drinks and other beverages to date do not pose a safety concern for consumers".[58]

Kidney stones

[edit]

A study published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology in 2013 concluded that consumption of soft drinks was associated with a 23% higher risk of developing kidney stones.[59]

Mortality, circulatory and digestive diseases

[edit]

In a 2019 study of 451,743 Europeans, those who had a consumption of soft drinks of two or more a day,[60] had a greater chance of all-cause mortality than those who drank less than one per month. People who drank artificially sweetened drinks had a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, and people who drank sugar-sweetened drinks with digestive diseases.[61][62]

Government regulation

[edit]

Schools

[edit]

Since at least 2006, debate on whether high-calorie soft drink vending machines should be allowed in schools has been on the rise. Opponents of the soft drink vending machines believe that soft drinks are a significant contributor to childhood obesity and tooth decay, and that allowing soft drink sales in schools encourages children to believe they are safe to consume in moderate to large quantities.[63] Opponents also argue that schools have a responsibility to look after the health of the children in their care, and that allowing children easy access to soft drinks violates that responsibility.[64] Vending machine proponents believe that obesity is a complex issue and soft drinks are not the only cause.[65] A 2011 bill to tax soft drinks in California failed, with some opposing lawmakers arguing that parents—not the government—should be responsible for children's drink choices.[66]

On May 3, 2006, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation,[67] Cadbury Schweppes, the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association announced new guidelines[68] that will voluntarily remove high-calorie soft drinks from all U.S. schools.

On May 19, 2006, the British education secretary, Alan Johnson, announced new minimum nutrition standards for school food. Among a wide range of measures, from September 2006, school lunches will be free from carbonated drinks. Schools will also end the sale of junk food (including carbonated drinks) in vending machines and tuck shops.

In 2008, Samantha K Graff published an article in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science regarding the "First Amendment Implications of Restricting Food and Beverages Marketing in Schools". The article examines a school district's policy regarding limiting the sale and marketing of soda in public schools, and how certain policies can invoke a violation of the First Amendment. Due to district budget cuts and loss in state funding, many school districts allow commercial businesses to market and advertise their product (including junk food and soda) to public school students for additional revenue. Junk food and soda companies have acquired exclusive rights to vending machines throughout many public school campuses. Opponents of corporate marketing and advertising on school grounds urge school officials to restrict or limit a corporation's power to promote, market, and sell their product to school students. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled that advertising was not a form of free expression, but a form of business practices which should be regulated by the government. In the 1976 case of Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,[69] the Supreme Court ruled that advertising, or "commercial speech", to some degree is protected under the First Amendment. To avoid a First Amendment challenge by corporations, public schools could create contracts that restrict the sale of certain product and advertising. Public schools can also ban the selling of all food and drink products on campus, while not infringing on a corporation's right to free speech.[70]

On December 13, 2010, President Obama signed the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010[71] (effective in 2014) that mandates schools that receive federal funding must offer healthy snacks and drinks to students. The act bans the selling of soft drinks to students and requires schools to provide healthier options such as water, unflavored low-fat milk, 100% fruit and vegetable drinks or sugar-free carbonated drinks. The portion sizes available to students will be based on age: eight ounces for elementary schools, twelve ounces for middle and high schools. Proponents of the act predict the new mandate it will make it easier for students to make healthy drink choices while at school.[71]

In 2015, Terry-McElarth and colleagues published a study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine on regular soda policies and their effect on school drink availability and student consumption. The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of a program beginning in the 2014–2015 school year that requires schools participating in federally reimbursable meal programs to remove all competitive venues (a la carte cafeteria sales, vending machines, and stores/snack bars/carts), on the availability of unhealthy drinks at schools and student consumption. The study analyzed state- and school district-level policies mandating soda bans and found that state bans were associated with significantly lower school soda availability but district bans showed no significant associations. In addition, no significant correlation was observed between state policies and student consumption. Among student populations, state policy was directly associated with significantly lower school soda availability and indirectly associated with lower student consumption. The same was not observed for other student populations.[72]

Taxation

[edit]
Main article: Sugary drink tax

In the United States, legislators, health experts and consumer advocates are considering levying higher taxes on the sale of soft drinks and other sweetened products to help curb the epidemic of obesity among Americans, and its harmful impact on overall health. Some speculate that higher taxes could help reduce soda consumption.[73] Others say that taxes should help fund education to increase consumer awareness of the unhealthy effects of excessive soft drink consumption, and also help cover costs of caring for conditions resulting from overconsumption.[74] The food and drink industry holds considerable clout in Washington, DC, as it has contributed more than $50 million to legislators since 2000.[75]

In January 2013, a British lobby group called for the price of sugary fizzy drinks to be increased, with the money raised (an estimated £1 billion at 20p per litre) to be put towards a "Children's Future Fund", overseen by an independent body, which would encourage children to eat healthily in school.[76]

In 2017, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain imposed a 50% tax on soft drinks and a 100% tax on energy drinks to curb excess consumption of the commodity and for additional revenue.[77]

Attempted ban

[edit]

In March 2013, New York City's mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed to ban the sale of non-diet soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, except in convenience stores and supermarkets. A lawsuit against the ban was upheld by a state judge, who voiced concerns that the ban was "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences". Bloomberg announced that he would be appealing the verdict.[78] The state appellate courts upheld the trial court decision, and the ban remains unenforceable as of 2021.[79][80]

In 2022, amidst soaring rates of obesity and diabetes, the Mexican state of Oaxaca enacted a ban on sugary drinks, including notably Coca-Cola, but it was poorly enforced.[81]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Soft drink

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A soft drink is a non-alcoholic beverage, often carbonated, containing as the primary ingredient along with sweeteners such as sugars or artificial substitutes, acidulants, flavorings, colorants, and preservatives. These drinks derive their from dissolved , which forms bubbles upon release of , providing a sensory appeal through fizz and refreshment. The origins of soft drinks trace to the late , when English chemist developed a method to carbonate water in 1767 by infusing it with over fermenting , mimicking natural mineral springs believed to have therapeutic effects. This innovation enabled commercial production, evolving from medicinal tonics to flavored beverages with the addition of syrups and extracts in the 19th century, alongside advancements in bottling like the to retain . Soft drinks constitute a massive global industry, with the market valued at approximately USD 629 billion in 2024 and consumption averaging around 43 liters annually in many regions. Dominant brands like and have shaped consumer culture through aggressive marketing and distribution, though the sector faces challenges from shifting preferences toward healthier alternatives amid stagnant or declining sales of traditional sugary variants in developed markets. Empirical studies link regular soft drink consumption, particularly of sugar-sweetened varieties, to increased caloric intake, , reduced nutrient-dense food consumption, and elevated risks of , , and , with associations persisting even for diet versions in some analyses of metabolic outcomes. These health concerns, substantiated by large-scale cohort and meta-analytic data, underscore causal pathways involving excessive energy from liquid s bypassing satiety signals and phosphoric acid's potential role in reduction, prompting regulatory scrutiny and reformulation efforts like sugar taxes and reduced-calorie options.

Definition and Terminology

Scope and Characteristics

Soft drinks constitute a category of non-alcoholic beverages formulated primarily for refreshment, distinguished by the inclusion of sweeteners and flavorings to enhance , with present in many but not all varieties. This scope encompasses carbonated options such as s and lemon-lime sodas, alongside non-carbonated counterparts like sweetened -flavored drinks, but excludes unsweetened beverages like plain or pure fruit juices. The U.S. regulates carbonated soft drinks under standards ensuring safety, sanitation, and accurate labeling, while broader formulations fall under general food beverage guidelines. Key characteristics include a high , typically comprising 90% of regular formulations and up to 99% in low-calorie versions, serving as the base for dissolving other components. Sweeteners, such as , high-fructose corn syrup, or non-nutritive alternatives like , provide the primary taste profile, often balanced by acidulants including phosphoric, citric, or malic acid to impart tartness and stability. Flavorings—derived from essences, extracts, or synthetic compounds—replicate tastes of fruits, spices, or botanicals, while colorants enhance visual appeal. gas, dissolved under pressure in carbonated types, generates and a sensory "bite" upon release, contributing to and refreshment perception. Preservatives like or may be added to inhibit microbial growth, particularly in formulations susceptible to spoilage, and some variants incorporate for stimulatory effects, as in beverages. These beverages are generally served chilled to optimize retention and sensory enjoyment, packaged in bottles, cans, or fountain dispensers for convenience and portability. Overall, soft drinks prioritize sensory attributes over , with compositions engineered for consistent flavor delivery across production scales.

Etymology and Regional Terms

The term "soft drink" originated in the 19th century to distinguish non-alcoholic beverages from "hard" liquor, which contained distilled alcohol, during a period when temperance advocates promoted such drinks as safer alternatives amid rising concerns over alcohol consumption. This nomenclature reflected the beverages' milder effects, lacking the intoxicating potency of spirits, and initially encompassed a broad range of non-alcoholic options beyond just carbonated varieties. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, the term narrowed in common usage to primarily denote sweetened, carbonated drinks due to their commercial proliferation following innovations in bottling and flavoring. In the United States, regional dialects for soft drinks exhibit distinct patterns tied to historical production and marketing. "Soda" prevails in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, , and , deriving from "soda water"—early carbonated beverages effervesced with or similar salts for stability and fizz. "Pop," dominant in the Midwest (including , , , , and ) and , traces to the audible pop of uncorking pressurized bottles in the mid-19th century, with records indicating the term's first use around 1861 alongside the rise of mass-produced seltzer-based drinks. In Southern states like Georgia, , and , "Coke" functions as a generic synonym for any soft drink, stemming from Coca-Cola's early 20th-century market saturation after its 1886 debut in , which conditioned consumers to associate carbonated beverages with the brand irrespective of flavor. Internationally, equivalents vary by linguistic and cultural influences. In the and , "fizzy drink" or "fizzy pop" emphasizes , while "pop" alone persists in ; and standardize "soft drink" akin to American formal usage. In , "juice" colloquially denotes carbonated soft drinks despite minimal fruit content, a holdover from post-World War II of artificially flavored varieties as economical alternatives to fresh juices. These variations underscore how local bottling industries and colonial trade routes shaped terminology, often prioritizing descriptive sounds or dominant brands over uniform global standards.

Historical Development

Pre-Industrial Origins

The precursors to modern soft drinks consisted primarily of non-alcoholic infusions, fruit-based mixtures, and naturally effervescent waters consumed for refreshment or medicinal purposes across ancient and medieval societies. In and , boiled or herbal decoctions served as basic non-alcoholic beverages, often flavored with dates or spices to mask impurities in plain water, though these lacked the sweetness and standardization of later formulations. Similarly, Roman and Greek cultures utilized naturally carbonated mineral springs, such as those at or Selters, where the inherent effervescence from dissolved was prized for purported digestive benefits, with waters bottled and transported as early as the CE for elite consumption. By the medieval period, Islamic scholars and physicians in Persia and the developed sharbat, concentrated syrups of fruits like , , or petals boiled with and diluted with or for cooling drinks, as documented in texts from around 1000 CE; these non-alcoholic elixirs influenced trade routes and spread to via the and Moorish . In 10th-century , qatarmizat—a blend of lemon juice, , and —emerged as an early citrus-based refreshment, valued for its tartness and preservative qualities in hot climates, predating widespread European adoption. European medieval recipes included possets (spiced curds) and flower waters like or lavender infusions soaked in sweetened liquid, consumed by to avoid the alcohol-heavy diets of small beers and ales. In the early leading to industrialization, lemonade solidified as a proto-soft drink in . Parisian vendors formed the Compagnie de Limonadiers in 1676 to sell diluted juice sweetened with from portable tanks, targeting urban markets for a non-intoxicating alternative to wine or . The earliest English reference to lemonade appears in a 1663 publication, describing it as a flavored drink amid growing imports of from colonial trade. These beverages remained artisanal, reliant on seasonal fruits, manual squeezing, and natural preservatives like , without mechanical or , distinguishing them from post-1760s innovations.

Carbonation and Early Commercialization

The process of artificially carbonating originated with English chemist , who in 1767 devised a method to dissolve —then termed "fixed air"—into water by suspending a vessel of water over a fermenting vat in , allowing the gas to infuse the liquid under pressure. Priestley detailed this technique in his 1772 publication Impregnating Water with Fixed Air in Order to Explore the Supposed Virtues of Pyrmont Water, promoting as a healthful alternative mimicking natural mineral springs believed to aid digestion and treat ailments like . Swedish chemist independently advanced similar experiments in the 1770s, using and to generate CO2 for infusion, further establishing the scientific basis for artificial . Commercial production of carbonated water began in the late , driven by demand for therapeutic beverages. In 1783, German-born watchmaker and amateur chemist in developed an improved apparatus—a compression —for manufacturing aerated water on a viable scale, founding the precursor to the company to bottle and sell it as "Soda Water." Schweppe's product gained traction among Europe's elite for its purported medicinal properties, often flavored with fruit essences or herbs to mask the initial metallic taste from imperfect CO2 sources, marking the shift from laboratory curiosity to marketable good. By 1790, Schweppe relocated operations to , where he established a producing up to 60 bottles daily, expanding distribution through pharmacies and apothecaries who mixed the effervescent base with syrups for flavored tonics. Early commercialization faced technical hurdles, including inconsistent carbonation retention and risks during bottling, yet it spurred in . Corked glass bottles, sealed with wire, were standard but prone to explosion from pressure buildup, limiting scalability until later patents like Hiram Codd's 1872 glass marble-stopper design—though postdating initial efforts, it addressed persistent leakage issues rooted in these nascent ventures. In the United States, carbonated beverages emerged around 1807 with pharmacist adding flavors to Priestley-inspired soda water, while the first commercial appeared in 1819, invented by Fahnestock to dispense flavored versions at drugstores. These developments positioned carbonated soft drinks as accessible refreshments, transitioning from elite health elixirs to broader consumer staples by the early 19th century.

Industrial Expansion and Branding

The industrial expansion of soft drinks accelerated in the mid-to-late , driven by advancements in bottling and distribution that enabled beyond soda fountains. In the United States, the number of bottling plants increased from 123 in 1860 to 387 by 1870, reflecting growing consumer demand and improved manufacturing capabilities. This proliferation coincided with the commercialization of flavored carbonated beverages, shifting from artisanal concoctions to scalable factory outputs. Key innovations facilitated this growth, including the crown cork bottle cap patented by William Painter in 1892, which provided a reliable seal for retaining during transport and storage. Simultaneously, models emerged to decentralize production; for instance, , founded in 1886 by John Pemberton as a sold at soda fountains, adopted a bottling franchise system in 1899 under Asa Candler's ownership, allowing independent operators to produce and distribute the product nationwide. This approach reduced capital intensity for the parent company while expanding market reach, with Coca-Cola's output scaling from initial handwritten tickets to millions of servings by the early 1900s through such licensing. Branding became integral to differentiation amid rising competition, with early leaders leveraging distinctive logos and marketing. Coca-Cola's Spencerian script logo, introduced in 1886, and Candler's campaigns—distributing free coupons, branded merchandise, and signage—established it as a by the , emphasizing refreshment over medicinal origins. Pepsi-Cola, formulated in 1893 by as a digestive aid and renamed in 1898, adopted iterative logos and slogans like "The Original Pure Food Drink" by 1906 to compete, though it faced early bankruptcies before stabilizing. To combat imitation, Coca-Cola commissioned the patented contour bottle in 1915, designed for tactile recognition even in the dark, further solidifying . Mass marketing innovations, including newspaper ads and painted advertisements on buildings, propelled industry leaders; by the , automated bottling lines enhanced efficiency, supporting exponential volume growth as soft drinks transitioned from local novelties to everyday consumer staples.

Post-1945

Following the conclusion of in 1945, American soft drink manufacturers, particularly , capitalized on wartime infrastructure to accelerate international expansion. During the conflict, had deployed 64 portable bottling plants to supply U.S. troops in , , and , fulfilling a pledge by company president Robert Woodruff to provide every service member with a five-cent . These facilities transitioned to permanent civilian operations postwar, enabling the company to establish bottling networks in newly accessible markets and convert military demand into local consumer bases. Exposure through Allied forces introduced the beverage to civilian populations, fostering initial demand amid reconstruction and American cultural influence. Pepsi-Cola, reorganized as post-1945, pursued similar globalization by relocating its headquarters to and targeting emerging markets in , the , and the . This era marked the onset of franchised bottling models worldwide, allowing localized production while maintaining brand consistency through syrup exports from the U.S. By the , both and had entrenched positions in and , often navigating trade barriers; for instance, imposed an import ban on from 1945 to 1953 to shield domestic producers, delaying but not preventing entry. Such expansions symbolized broader postwar economic liberalization, with U.S. firms leveraging aid corridors and military bases to distribute products. Global soft drink consumption proliferated through the late , driven by , advancements, and adaptations to local tastes, such as region-specific flavors. In developing economies, intake rose sharply; for example, U.S. consumption climbed from approximately 10 gallons per person in to over 50 gallons by , with analogous patterns in international markets as multinational brands dominated shelf space. By the 2000s, the industry had evolved into a $300 billion-plus annual market, with and controlling over 50% of global volume through acquisitions and joint ventures in , , and post-Cold War. This dominance reflected efficient supply chains and aggressive advertising, though local competitors persisted in regions like and the .

Adaptations to Health and Regulatory Pressures

In response to growing evidence linking excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks to , , and related conditions, major producers introduced low- and no-calorie variants using artificial sweeteners as early as the 1950s. The first commercial diet soft drink, No-Cal Ginger Ale, was developed in 1952 by Kirsch Beverages specifically for diabetic patients in a hospital. This was followed by Royal Crown Cola's in 1958, Coca-Cola's Tab in 1963, and the landmark launch of in 1982, which quickly became one of the best-selling diet beverages globally due to its use of and broad marketing appeal. These formulations addressed for calorie reduction amid rising awareness of intake's role in , with diet sodas comprising a significant by the 1980s—Tab alone peaked at over 20% of Coca-Cola's U.S. sales in the 1970s. Regulatory pressures intensified from the 2000s onward, particularly through on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) aimed at curbing consumption. , implemented the first U.S. city-level soda of 1 cent per in 2014, resulting in a 33.1% average retail price increase for SSBs over two years and a corresponding decline in purchases. Similar taxes in (1.5 cents per , 2017) and other U.S. cities like Oakland and led to a 33% drop in sugary drink purchases post-implementation, though substitution toward untaxed alternatives like water or diet options occurred. Internationally, the UK's 2018 Soft Drinks Industry Levy (8 pence per liter for drinks with over 5 grams sugar per 100ml) prompted widespread reformulations, with producers reducing sugar content in over 50% of affected products to avoid the tier. Industry lobbying often opposed such measures, arguing they are regressive—disproportionately burdening lower-income households without proven long-term health benefits, as evidenced by limited impacts on overall rates despite consumption drops. To counter these pressures and align with public health guidelines like the World Health Organization's recommendation to limit free sugars to under 10% of daily energy intake, companies pursued voluntary sugar reduction and portfolio diversification. Coca-Cola committed to reducing average sugar across its portfolio by 10% globally between 2015 and 2020 through smaller packaging, low-sugar variants, and sweetener blends, achieving partial success via initiatives like Coca-Cola Life (stevia-sweetened, launched 2014). PepsiCo similarly reformulated brands like Pepsi Max and expanded zero-sugar lines, while the BalanceUS coalition—formed by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper in 2021—publicly tracks progress toward low- or no-sugar beverages, reporting that nearly 60% of U.S. beverage sales in 2023 were sugar-free. These efforts also included self-regulation, such as removing full-sugar sodas from U.S. school vending machines following 2000s advocacy, though critics note industry-funded research has sometimes emphasized exercise over dietary limits to mitigate blame for health epidemics. Despite adaptations, challenges persist, including consumer resistance to altered tastes and emerging scrutiny over artificial sweeteners' long-term safety.

Varieties and Formulations

Carbonated Soft Drinks

Carbonated soft drinks consist of water saturated with carbon dioxide gas under pressure, producing effervescence, combined with sweeteners and flavorings to create non-alcoholic beverages. The carbonation level typically ranges from 2 to 3 volumes of dissolved CO2, measured as the volume of gas released at standard temperature and pressure per volume of liquid, which generates the sensory fizz upon opening. Core formulations include as the base (often 90-95% of the product), nutritive sweeteners like or at concentrations of 10-12% by weight for regular variants, or non-nutritive alternatives such as and in low-calorie versions. Flavor systems derive from natural essences or synthetic compounds, acids like phosphoric (in colas for around 2.5-3.5) or provide tartness and preservation, while optional additives encompass (30-50 mg per 12 oz serving in colas), caramel coloring, and preservatives like . Common varieties include colas, which dominate global sales with formulations emphasizing kola nut-derived , , and spice notes alongside for a distinctive bite; lemon-lime sodas, featuring clear citrus oils and for a lighter profile; and fruit-flavored options like orange or grape, incorporating corresponding essences and often higher levels. Ginger ales and root beers employ herbal extracts such as or sassafras substitutes (due to bans since 1960), typically with milder . In 2023, types held the largest among carbonated soft drinks, reflecting consumer preference for their robust flavor and content, with global industry value exceeding $130 billion.
VarietyKey Formulation ElementsTypical Examples
ColaPhosphoric acid, caffeine, caramel color, vanilla-citrus spices,
Lemon-Lime, lemon/lime oils, clear appearanceSprite, 7 Up
Ginger AleGinger extract, cane sugar, moderate carbonation,
Root BeerSassafras/vanilla flavors, often vanilla creaminessA&W,
Orange SodaOrange essence, , yellow/orange dyes, Sunkist
In 2025, trends in non-cola carbonated soft drinks emphasize functional benefits such as gut health via prebiotics, hydration enhancement, and low or no sugar options, alongside innovative flavors including tropical fruits like mango, strawberry, and kiwi, as well as nostalgic creamy profiles such as orange cream and ice cream sundae. Notable examples include Poppi Punch Pop, Olipop Orange Cream, Sprite Chill Strawberry Kiwi, Mountain Dew Mango Rush, A&W Ice Cream Sundae, and Sunkist Raspberry Blood Orange, highlighting a market shift toward health-conscious, exotic, and nostalgic variants. Diet and zero-sugar formulations replicate these profiles using artificial sweeteners, reducing caloric content to near zero while maintaining perceived through blends like aspartame-sucralose, though sensory differences arise from the absence of sugar's .

Non-Carbonated Options

Non-carbonated soft drinks consist of non-alcoholic beverages sweetened with sugars or alternatives, excluding artificial , and typically include categories such as juices, ready-to-drink (RTD) teas and coffees, sports drinks, and functional beverages like enhanced waters or herbal infusions. These options often emphasize natural bases or botanical extracts, positioning them as digestive alternatives to fizzy drinks and aligning with consumer preferences for perceived milder impacts on gastrointestinal health. Preceding carbonated varieties, non-carbonated soft drinks trace origins to early fruit-flavored concoctions, such as lemonade variants sold by Parisian street vendors as early as 1630, which relied on juices diluted with water and sweetened for refreshment. By the , advancements in preservation and bottling expanded access, though commercialization lagged behind carbonated waters until the when brands began packaging juices and dilutions for mass distribution. This foundation evolved into modern formulations, driven by and technologies post-1900, enabling shelf-stable products without . Key varieties include:
  • Fruit juices and nectars: Predominantly orange, apple, grape, and tropical blends, often pasteurized for longevity; these dominate subsegments with mixtures or smoothies adding pulp for texture.
  • RTD teas and coffees: Iced variants like black, green, or herbal teas, frequently citrus- or fruit-infused, with brands such as Lipton Green Tea Citrus or Nestea Lemon providing low-calorie options.
  • Sports and hydration drinks: Electrolyte-fortified formulas like Gatorade or Powerade, designed for rehydration during physical activity, containing salts, vitamins, and carbohydrates without fizz.
  • Other functional types: Lemonades (e.g., Minute Maid), vitamin-enhanced waters (e.g., Vitamin Water), and emerging low-sugar herbals or kombuchas, catering to wellness trends.
The global market for non-carbonated soft drinks reached approximately USD 335.60 billion in 2024, reflecting a of 7.59% from prior years, fueled by demand for low-sugar and fortified products amid health awareness. Projections indicate expansion to USD 602.99 billion by 2032, outpacing carbonated segments in regions like and due to shifting preferences toward non-gassy, nutrient-enriched alternatives. Major players including (with juices) and (with ) control significant shares, introducing around 5,000 new stock-keeping units annually in the U.S. alone, often emphasizing natural ingredients to counter sugar-related critiques.

Sweeteners, Flavors, and Additives

Soft drinks typically employ caloric sweeteners such as from cane or beet sugar and (HFCS), with HFCS-55—containing approximately 55% and 45% glucose—predominating in carbonated beverages due to its liquid form and cost advantages in processing. In the United States, major producers like and transitioned from sucrose to HFCS in the early , specifically by 1984 for Coca-Cola, driven by subsidized corn prices that made HFCS cheaper than imported sugar amid trade quotas. HFCS usage remains prevalent in U.S. soft drinks, contributing to average sugar contents of 10-12% by weight in full-sugar formulations, though global variations exist with sucrose more common outside . Non-caloric sweeteners, used in "diet" or low-calorie variants, include artificial options like (200 times sweeter than ), (600 times sweeter), (acesulfame-K, 200 times sweeter), and (300-400 times sweeter), often blended for taste masking and stability under carbonation. appears most frequently in analyzed beverages, detected in over 60% of samples in recent , followed by and . Natural low-calorie alternatives like stevia-derived rebaudiosides provide zero calories but can impart bitterness at high concentrations, gaining traction amid consumer demand for "" labels. Regulatory approvals differ, with the U.S. FDA permitting these via (GRAS) status or petitions, while the EU requires stricter pre-market authorization under more precautionary principles, banning certain blends like in some contexts. Flavorings constitute 0.1-0.5% of soft drink formulations, derived from essential oils, fruit extracts, or synthetic compounds to replicate tastes like (a blend of oils, , , and ), lemon-lime, or profiles. flavors, comprising less than 1% of the source material by weight, are extracted from plant, animal, or microbial origins and processed via or enzymatic methods, whereas artificial flavors are chemically synthesized from non-food precursors like derivatives but often identical in molecular structure to natural counterparts, offering cost and consistency benefits without nutritional differences. In practice, many "natural flavor" labels in soft drinks involve heavily processed isolates, with no of superior or effects over artificial equivalents when used within approved limits. Additives enhance stability, acidity, and appearance, including acids like in colas for tartness and to inhibit mold (up to 0.05% by volume), in fruit flavors for brightness, and from CO2 dissolution for effervescence. Preservatives such as (0.03-0.05%) prevent microbial growth in acidic environments, while antioxidants like ascorbic acid () protect against oxidation in packaging. Colors include for colas or synthetic dyes like (E102) in some regions, with emulsifiers like gums ensuring uniformity; EU regulations prohibit certain U.S.-permitted additives like , reflecting divergent risk assessments where the EU prioritizes precaution over U.S. post-market . , at 10-15 mg per 100 ml in colas, functions as a flavor enhancer and but is classified as an additive under FDA oversight.

Production Methods

Sourcing and Ingredients

Water constitutes approximately 90-95% of most soft drink formulations, primarily sourced from municipal supplies, , or , and undergoes rigorous purification processes including , , and disinfection to meet food-grade standards and ensure consistent taste and safety. In production, serves both as the base for beverage mixing and for operational needs like equipment cleaning, with industry benchmarks indicating an average water usage ratio of 1.5-2.5 liters per liter of product after efforts. Sweeteners form the second major component, with (HFCS), particularly HFCS-55 containing 55% and 45% glucose derived from via enzymatic , predominating in many carbonated soft drinks due to its cost-effectiveness from U.S. corn subsidies and liquid form suitability for industrial mixing. , extracted from or sugar beets through milling and crystallization, remains common in some markets or premium variants, providing a 50/50 fructose-glucose ratio chemically akin to HFCS but often more expensive. Intense sweeteners like or , sourced synthetically or from fermented sources, are increasingly used in low-calorie options to replace caloric s amid health concerns over . Acidulants such as , mined from phosphate rock and processed into food-grade form, impart tartness and act as preservatives in beverages, while , produced via of or corn by mold, is prevalent in fruit-flavored drinks for similar pH-lowering effects. Flavors, comprising natural extracts from fruits, spices, or herbs via or solvent extraction, or artificial compounds synthesized chemically, contribute the characteristic profiles, with —sourced from beans, leaves, or synthetic production—added at levels around 34-46 mg per 12-oz serving in colas for bitterness and stimulation. , captured from industrial or natural gas processing, provides effervescence, while colors (e.g., from heated sugars) and preservatives (e.g., from derivatives) are sourced industrially to enhance appearance and .

Manufacturing Processes

The manufacturing of soft drinks primarily involves purifying , preparing and mixing flavor concentrates or syrups, carbonating applicable formulations under controlled conditions, and aseptic filling into containers to ensure product stability and safety. , constituting approximately 90-95% of the final product, undergoes rigorous treatment including to remove particulates, activated carbon adsorption for organic compounds, or for minerals, and final sterilization via ultraviolet light or ozonation to meet beverage-grade purity standards exceeding those for potable . Syrup preparation follows, where sweeteners such as , , or artificial alternatives are dissolved in , then blended with flavorings, acids (e.g., citric or phosphoric for tartness and preservation), colorants, and preservatives like at precise ratios—typically 1:5 syrup-to- for dilution into the base beverage. This mixture is often pasteurized at 65-75°C for 20-30 seconds in a or flash system to eliminate microbial risks before cooling, though some formulations rely on inherent acidity ( 2.5-4.0) and later for preservation rather than . For carbonated soft drinks, the cooled beverage base enters a carbonator where food-grade (CO2) is injected under —typically 3-5 volumes (about 5-10 g/L) at 0-4°C—using methods like injecting through porous stones or diffusers to achieve fine bubble and uniform saturation without excessive foaming. Two primary systems predominate: premix, where all ingredients including CO2 are combined centrally before distribution; or postmix, where and mix at dispensing points, though the former is standard for bottled products. Filling occurs in high-speed lines using isobaric (counter-pressure) techniques for carbonated variants, where bottles or cans are pressurized to match the beverage tank (around 2-4 bar) to minimize CO2 escape and foaming during transfer via volumetric , , or fillers capable of 1,000-60,000 units per hour depending on scale. Containers are pre-rinsed with sanitized water or air, filled at chilled temperatures (4-10°C), sealed with crowns, screw caps, or lids under vacuum or to prevent oxidation, then labeled via shrink sleeves or adhesives and secondarily packaged into cases for distribution. Quality controls, including inline , (sugar content), and CO2 level sensors, ensure consistency throughout, with reject rates under 1% in modern facilities adhering to HACCP and ISO standards.

Packaging, Distribution, and Innovations

Soft drinks have traditionally been packaged in s since the late , with innovations like the Codd bottle patented in featuring a marble closure to maintain . Glass remained dominant due to its impermeability but posed challenges in weight and breakage during transport. The shift to metal cans began with steel cans for in 1935, followed by soft drinks shortly thereafter, offering lighter and more durable alternatives. Aluminum cans, introduced commercially for beverages in the and refined for soft drinks by the , further reduced weight and enabled stacking efficiency. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles revolutionized in the 1970s, with the first test markets in 1975-1976 and Pepsi-Cola's launch of PET soft drink bottles in 1978, approved by authorities for carbonated beverages. PET's transparency, shatter resistance, and lower cost compared to facilitated global expansion, though it raised concerns over plastic waste. Innovations in PET include lighter designs and improved recyclability, with bottles now often containing up to 100% recycled PET in some markets. Aseptic , developed in the mid-20th century, has been adapted for non-carbonated soft drinks to extend without . Distribution relies on franchise bottling models, as exemplified by , where the parent supplies concentrate to independent or controlled bottlers responsible for local mixing, packaging, and sales within defined territories since the early . This system enables efficient scaling, with bottlers handling to retailers, convenience stores, and vending machines, which account for significant volume in impulse purchases. Vending machines, automated since the , have evolved with cashless payments and inventory tracking for real-time restocking. Recent innovations emphasize and efficiency: aluminum cans achieve 95% energy savings when , with closed-loop systems recycling cans back into new ones in as little as 60 days. Advances like uni-alloy can ends using up to 99% recycled content reduce carbon footprints, while distribution optimizations, such as automated picking in warehouses, have improved efficiency by 25% in some operations. These developments address environmental pressures, with aluminum outperforming PET in lifecycle assessments for single-use containers.

Industry Players

Dominant Global Corporations

The , founded in 1886 and headquartered in , Georgia, maintains the position of the world's largest soft drink producer by and brand value, with its flagship beverage alone accounting for over 19% of global carbonated soft drink sales volume as of 2023 data extended into 2024 analyses. The company reported net revenues of $45.8 billion in 2024, predominantly from non-alcoholic beverages including carbonated soft drinks like Sprite and , distributed through a network of over 200 bottling partners across more than 200 countries. Its dominance stems from extensive marketing investments exceeding $4 billion annually and a focus on core carbonated products, which comprise about 70% of its beverage portfolio volume. PepsiCo, Inc., established in 1965 through the merger of and , ranks as the second-largest player with a diversified portfolio that includes soft drinks alongside snacks, generating total revenues of $91.9 billion in 2024, of which beverages contributed approximately 42% or $38.5 billion. Key soft drink brands such as , , and hold about 26% of the global carbonated soft drink , bolstered by aggressive innovation in low-calorie variants and partnerships with foodservice giants like . 's global reach spans over 200 countries, with production facilities in more than 100, emphasizing through owned bottling operations to control distribution costs. Keurig Dr Pepper, formed in 2018 from the merger of Keurig Green Mountain and , commands the third position with roughly 22% market share in carbonated soft drinks, driven by brands like —which surpassed in U.S. case sales volume in 2023 at 8.7% share—and 7 Up. The company achieved $15.2 billion in net sales for 2024, focusing on North American dominance while expanding internationally through acquisitions and joint ventures. These three corporations collectively control over 90% of the U.S. carbonated soft drink market and a substantial global portion, leveraging in syrup production, bottling, and to maintain barriers against smaller competitors.
CorporationEst. Global CSD Market Share (2024)Key Soft Drink Brands2024 Revenue (Total, USD Billion)
46%Coca-Cola, Sprite, Fanta45.8
26%Pepsi, Mountain Dew, 7 Up (partial)91.9 (beverages ~42%)
22%Dr Pepper, 7 Up (partial), Sunkist15.2
This oligopolistic structure fosters intense rivalry, evidenced by ongoing "" in pricing and promotion, yet enables high profitability through concentrated R&D in sweeteners and packaging amid regulatory scrutiny on sugar content.

Regional and Niche Producers

, founded in 1882 in , by Dennis M. Crowley as a sparkling operation to support his whiskey business, represents one of the oldest independent soft drink producers in the United States, evolving into the nation's largest family-owned bottler with production exceeding 60 million cases annually and distribution across 18 states. The company, now managed by the fifth generation of the Crowley family, specializes in flavored seltzers, ginger ales, and fruit sodas using recipes refined over 140 years, emphasizing carbonation consistency derived from Crowley's original bubble formula. In the , Carolina Beverage Corporation produces , a cherry-flavored carbonated drink developed in 1917 by L.D. Peeler during sugar rationing, which substituted cherry essence for unavailable vanilla, resulting in its signature burgundy hue and tart profile; the brand remains regionally dominant, with annual sales concentrated in and neighboring states. Other enduring regional U.S. producers include , formulated in 1876 by Dr. Augustin Thompson as a gentian root tonic for tonic claims before transitioning to a soft drink with its bitter, medicinal taste, officially designated Maine's state beverage in 2005 despite limited national reach. Niche producers differentiate through artisanal approaches, such as Jones Soda Co., established in 1995 in Seattle, Washington, which employs pure cane sugar, unconventional flavors like "Dirty S.O.B." (coffee cola), and consumer-submitted labels to create limited-edition batches, achieving cult status with annual revenues supporting a model amid competition from mass producers. Boylan Bottling Company, tracing to 1891 in , focuses on small-batch sodas with natural cane sugar and heritage flavors like , avoiding to appeal to premium markets. Internationally, regional independents persist in localized niches; for instance, in , Oy produces , an orange soda launched in 1944, which captures over 20% of the domestic soft drink market through its distinct, less-sweet formulation tailored to Nordic preferences. These producers collectively represent under 5% of global soft drink volume but sustain cultural ties via authentic ingredients and limited-scale operations resistant to conglomerate consolidation.

Global and Demographic Patterns

Global soft drink consumption reached an estimated value of USD 1.1 trillion in 2024, with accounting for 38.3% of the market share. Per capita volume varies widely by country, with leading at the highest average consumption, followed by the , (154 liters annually), , and . exhibits particularly high intake of specific brands like , averaging 634 8-ounce servings per person per year as of 2023. Regional patterns show elevated consumption in the and parts of , driven by established distribution networks and cultural integration into daily routines, while and lag due to preferences for alternatives like or and uneven . Recent trends indicate overall market expansion through functional variants (e.g., low-sugar or fortified options), but per capita volumes have contracted in mature markets like the by 0.5% annually from 2020 to 2025, reflecting shifts toward healthier beverages amid campaigns. Demographically, consumption peaks among adolescents and young adults globally, with inverse correlations to age as older groups reduce intake due to health awareness or habituation to alternatives. Gender differences are inconsistent across studies, with some showing higher male consumption in certain populations, while income and household size positively associate with frequency in developing contexts, though not universally significant. Declines have been most pronounced among youth and middle-aged adults, males, and certain ethnic groups in analyzed Western datasets, aligning with broader reductions in sugary variants.

Cultural and Social Significance

Soft drinks have long served as staples in social rituals and gatherings across various societies, often symbolizing refreshment, celebration, and communal bonding. At these events, the most common soft drinks served include cola (such as Coca-Cola or Pepsi), diet cola, and lemon-lime sodas (such as Sprite or 7-Up), with other frequently offered options like Dr Pepper, ginger ale, root beer, and sparkling water for health-conscious guests. , they are embedded in traditions such as picnics, sports events, and holiday meals, with consumption dating back over 130 years to enhance leisure activities and family occasions. This role extends to everyday interactions, where carbonated beverages facilitate casual socializing, as evidenced by their prominence in drive-in theaters and backyard barbecues during the mid-20th century. Coca-Cola exemplifies soft drinks' ascent as cultural icons, evolving from a 1886 into a global emblem of American optimism and consumerism through aggressive marketing campaigns. By the 1930s, its advertisements helped standardize the modern image of as a jolly, red-suited figure, embedding the brand in holiday lore and reinforcing associations with joy and festivity. The brand's contour bottle, patented in , became instantly recognizable, symbolizing reliability amid counterfeits and influencing design aesthetics in worldwide. Such branding has positioned soft drinks not merely as thirst quenchers but as markers of modernity and aspiration, particularly in post-World War II export markets where they represented Western prosperity. Regionally, linguistic variations in naming soft drinks—such as "Coke" generically in the American South, "soda" in the Northeast, and "pop" in the Midwest—reflect entrenched cultural habits tied to historical bottling dominance and local preferences. In , high per capita consumption, averaging over 160 liters annually as of 2019, integrates soft drinks into daily meals and social norms, often substituting water and influencing policy amid industry . Globally, soft drinks adapt to local customs, such as pairing colas with spicy cuisines in parts of and , underscoring their versatility in fostering social lubrication without alcohol. In , ubiquitous vending machines—numbering over 2.3 million as of recent counts—facilitate on-the-go consumption, embedding soft drinks into urban mobility and convenience culture.

Economic Dimensions

Market Scale and Growth

The global soft drinks market was valued at approximately USD 629.2 billion in 2024, with projections estimating growth to USD 886.2 billion by 2033 at a (CAGR) of 3.84%. Alternative analyses place the 2025 market size at USD 706.65 billion, expanding to USD 901.73 billion by 2030 at a CAGR of 5.00%, reflecting variances in scope across carbonated, non-carbonated, and functional variants. , the largest , revenues reached USD 285.93 billion in 2023, anticipated to grow at a higher CAGR of 7.5% through 2030, driven by diverse product innovation amid mature consumer bases. Regional disparities underscore uneven expansion, with and exhibiting slower growth due to saturation and health-driven shifts away from high-sugar options, while and propel overall increases through urbanization and rising disposable incomes. For instance, emerging economies in benefit from youthful demographics and expanded distribution, contributing to a projected global CAGR above 4% in the near term, though per capita consumption in developed regions remains flat or declines for traditional carbonated sodas. and low/no-sugar alternatives increasingly offset declines in sugary segments, maintaining aggregate volume growth around 2-3% annually in mature markets. Key growth drivers include premiumization via flavored and functional beverages, e-commerce proliferation, and population booms in developing regions, though restraints such as sugar taxes, obesity awareness, and regulatory scrutiny on additives temper acceleration in high-income countries. Innovations in zero-calorie sweeteners and natural ingredients have sustained demand for diet variants, with their segment growing at 3.8% CAGR globally through 2030, countering broader critiques of metabolic risks associated with regular consumption. Empirical data indicate that while volume growth lags revenue due to price premiums on healthier options, the industry's adaptability to consumer preferences for low-sugar profiles ensures modest but persistent expansion.

Employment, Innovation, and Trade Impacts

The soft drink industry directly employs hundreds of thousands of workers globally in , bottling, distribution, and related operations, with the leading at approximately 298,000 beverage jobs as of 2024, many tied to soft drink production. Indirect through supply chains, including cultivation, , and , extends to millions more, particularly in developing economies where bottling franchises operate. In major firms like and , workforce scales reflect diversified operations but underscore soft drinks' core role, with bottling partners amplifying local job creation amid trends that prioritize efficiency over labor-intensive processes. Innovation in the sector focuses on countering volume declines from concerns, emphasizing low- and no-sugar formulations, functional ingredients for hydration or energy, and to reduce use. Recent examples include bolder flavor profiles in carbonated drinks, such as experimental mashups and collaborations like with seasonal brands, alongside AI-assisted flavor development and protein-enriched variants to align with dietary shifts like GLP-1 medication use. These efforts, driven by competitive pressures, have sustained revenue growth projections to $439 billion in 2025, though on long-term efficacy remains tied to adoption rather than proven benefits. International trade in soft drinks totaled $29.6 billion in exports as of 2023, a 4.4% increase from prior years, primarily involving concentrates, syrups, and ready-to-drink products among key players like the and . While bulky final products limit long-distance shipments, trade supports economic linkages, with imports valued at $14.9 billion for flavored beverages in 2023, bolstering local economies in import-dependent markets. Tariffs, such as those affecting U.S. soda production via ingredient imports, elevate costs and influence pricing, yet localized manufacturing mitigates broader disruptions, contributing to GDP in exporting nations without dominating global flows.

Scientific Assessment of Health Effects

Nutritional Composition and Hydration Role

Soft drinks, primarily composed of , sweeteners, acids, flavors, and preservatives, offer negligible beyond from carbohydrates. A typical 355 ml (12 oz) serving of contains approximately 140 calories, all derived from 39 grams of —equivalent to about 10 teaspoons—predominantly in the form of or , with no significant protein, , , vitamins, or minerals. Other common ingredients include phosphoric or for tartness (contributing to levels around 2.5–3.5), coloring, natural or artificial flavors, and in varieties like (about 34 mg per 355 ml serving). Diet variants replace with non-nutritive sweeteners like or , yielding near-zero calories but retaining acids and .
ComponentTypical Amount in 355 ml ColaNotes
(carbonated)~90–95% by Primary and hydration base.
Carbohydrates (sugars)39 gProvides rapid energy but promotes insulin spikes without .
34 mgMild ; absent in many fruit-flavored soft drinks.
~0.05–0.1%Lowers , may interfere with calcium absorption.
Sodium45 mgMinimal contribution to daily needs.
This profile underscores soft drinks' role as energy-dense, nutrient-poor beverages, displacing more nutritious options like or in diets, leading to lower intakes of calcium and other essentials. Median sugar content across sugary soft drinks is 10.7 g per 100 ml, far exceeding levels in unsweetened alternatives. Regarding hydration, soft drinks supply fluid volume effectively due to their high , with studies indicating comparable retention to plain in euhydrated individuals. In a randomized trial assessing 13 beverages, including full-sugar and diet , urine output and showed no significant differences from over four hours post-ingestion, yielding a Beverage Hydration Index near 1.0 for variants—meaning they maintain hydration status equivalently on a volume-for-volume basis. content in (typically <100 mg per serving) exerts only a minor diuretic effect, insufficient to impair net at moderate intakes. However, the osmotic load from s in regular soft drinks can mildly increase urine production in some contexts, and their lack of electrolytes (unlike sports drinks) limits efficacy during prolonged physical exertion or electrolyte loss. For routine daily hydration, while functional, soft drinks deliver excess calories without the purity of water, potentially contributing to overconsumption and metabolic strain over time. Sparkling variants without additives hydrate equivalently to still , offering a lower-calorie alternative.

Evidence on Metabolic Risks and Causality Debates

Numerous prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses have established associations between habitual consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and elevated risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and metabolic syndrome. For instance, a 2010 systematic review found that higher SSB intake correlates with weight gain due to incomplete caloric compensation from liquid sugars, with prospective data linking one daily serving to a 0.06 kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) over time. Similarly, a 2015 meta-analysis of cohort studies reported a 26% higher T2D incidence per daily serving of SSBs, independent of adiposity measures after adjustment for confounders like physical activity and diet quality. Dose-response analyses reinforce this, showing linear risk gradients for metabolic syndrome components such as dyslipidemia and hypertension. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide stronger evidence for causality by demonstrating that SSB reduction directly impacts metabolic outcomes. A 2012 multicenter RCT involving over 800 overweight adolescents found that replacing SSBs with non-caloric beverages led to less weight gain (mean difference -1.0 kg over 1 year) compared to continued SSB consumption, with effects persisting after 2 years. Meta-analyses of intervention studies confirm modest but significant weight reductions from SSB curtailment; one pooling 15 RCTs reported a mean BMI decrease of 0.07 units in children and a 0.49 kg body weight drop in adults, attributable to decreased energy intake without compensatory overeating. These findings align with short-term feeding trials where SSB provision increases ad libitum energy consumption by 200-300 kcal/day versus solid foods or water. Debates on causality center on whether SSBs independently drive metabolic risks or merely correlate via residual confounding from unhealthy lifestyles. Critics argue observational associations may reflect reverse causation—e.g., obese individuals preferring SSBs—or unmeasured factors like total sugar intake, yet prospective designs and multivariable adjustments (e.g., for smoking, socioeconomic status) attenuate but do not eliminate links. Pro-causality arguments invoke : consistent evidence across populations, biological plausibility (e.g., hepatic fructose metabolism promoting de novo lipogenesis and insulin resistance), and experimental reversibility via interventions. A 2022 umbrella review of meta-analyses affirmed causal contributions to T2D and cardiovascular disease burdens, estimating millions of attributable cases globally, though long-term RCTs remain limited by ethical and adherence challenges. Overall, while not all studies isolate SSBs from broader caloric excess, the convergence of mechanistic, epidemiologic, and trial data supports a causal role in metabolic dysregulation.

Dental, Bone, and Other Specific Concerns

Consumption of soft drinks, particularly carbonated varieties, contributes to dental erosion through their low pH levels, typically ranging from 2.5 to 3.5, which demineralizes enamel surfaces. A 2012 meta-analysis indicated that soft drink intake more than doubles the risk of dental erosion compared to non-consumers, with effects exacerbated by frequent exposure and the presence of citric or phosphoric acids. In vitro studies confirm that beverages like cola and citrus-flavored sodas cause significant enamel softening and surface loss after repeated contact, independent of sugar content in some cases. These erosive effects are distinct from caries, as they involve chemical dissolution rather than bacterial fermentation, though sugar-sweetened variants compound risks via plaque formation. Regarding bone health, observational studies link regular cola consumption—specifically those containing —to reduced bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in women. A 2006 cross-sectional analysis of over 2,500 adults found cola intake associated with 3-5% lower BMD at the hip and spine in women, attributing this to phosphoric acid's potential interference with calcium absorption and homeostasis, unlike non-cola carbonated drinks. A 2021 meta-analysis of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) corroborated an inverse relationship with adult BMD, with higher intake correlating to greater density deficits, though causality remains unestablished due to confounding factors like overall poor diet and sedentary behavior among frequent consumers. In postmenopausal women, excessive from soft drinks has been identified as a risk for hypocalcemia, potentially elevating osteoporosis susceptibility, but prospective trials are limited and show mixed results in children and adolescents. Other concerns include heightened risk of nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), where a 2025 meta-analysis of observational studies reported a dose-dependent increase in stone formation with carbonated beverage consumption, possibly due to fructose-induced hyperoxaluria and altered urinary pH in SSBs. Additionally, Korean cohort data from 2016 associated frequent carbonated drink intake with elevated periodontal disease odds (OR 1.28 per serving increase), linking acidity and sugars to gingival inflammation and attachment loss, though adjustment for oral hygiene mitigated some effects. These associations underscore soft drinks' role in targeted pathologies beyond general metabolic risks, with phosphoric acid and acidity as key mechanistic drivers in multiple tissues.

Artificial Sweeteners in Diet Variants

Diet variants of soft drinks employ artificial sweeteners to replicate the taste of sugar-sweetened beverages while substantially reducing caloric content, typically to near zero per serving. These high-intensity sweeteners, approved by regulatory agencies for use in food and beverages, provide sweetness hundreds of times greater than sucrose without contributing fermentable carbohydrates or significant energy. Common examples include aspartame, which is approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar and widely used in diet colas; sucralose, 600 times sweeter and heat-stable for various formulations; acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), about 200 times sweeter and often blended with others for balanced flavor; and saccharin, the oldest artificial sweetener at 300-400 times sweeter, historically prominent but less common today due to aftertaste concerns. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has affirmed the safety of these sweeteners for general population use under established acceptable daily intake (ADI) levels, derived from extensive toxicological data including animal studies and human trials. For instance, aspartame's ADI is 50 mg/kg body weight per day, equating to about 18-19 cans of diet soda for a 150-pound adult; sucralose's is 5 mg/kg; Ace-K's is 15 mg/kg; and saccharin's is 5 mg/kg. These limits incorporate safety margins exceeding typical consumption, with no substantiated adverse effects observed in compliant human exposures. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) similarly upholds these ADIs, emphasizing that aspartame does not pose a carcinogenic risk at approved doses despite the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s 2023 classification of it as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B) based on limited evidence from observational data linking high intake to hepatocellular carcinoma. The FDA contested IARC's hazard-focused assessment, noting its divergence from risk-based evaluations and lack of causal proof, as meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies generally find no consistent cancer associations across sweeteners. Regarding metabolic outcomes, RCTs indicate artificial sweeteners in diet soft drinks can support modest weight reduction when substituting for sugar-sweetened versions, with systematic reviews reporting average losses of 0.8 kg in body weight and reductions in BMI and fat mass over 6-12 months, though effects are small and context-dependent on overall diet. A 2023 WHO review of non-sugar sweeteners found short-term benefits for body weight under energy restriction but no long-term advantages for reducing obesity or type 2 diabetes risk, attributing inconsistencies to observational biases where diet drink consumers often exhibit confounding health behaviors. Claims of paradoxical weight gain stem largely from animal models or correlational human data, potentially via cephalic phase insulin response or altered reward signaling, yet human RCTs like those comparing sucralose or aspartame to sucrose show no such gain and sometimes superior weight control. Emerging research on gut microbiota highlights potential disruptions, with preclinical and small human studies reporting shifts in microbial composition—such as reduced beneficial bacteria or increased pathobionts—from sweeteners like , , or Ace-K, possibly impairing glucose tolerance via bile acid or short-chain fatty acid alterations. However, a 2023 Cedars-Sinai study in healthy volunteers detected microbiome changes in the small bowel but no metabolic harm, and larger RCTs fail to consistently link these shifts to clinical outcomes like insulin resistance. Overall, while regulatory affirmations prioritize rigorous safety data over preliminary microbiome associations, ongoing post-approval surveillance addresses gaps, underscoring that typical intakes remain below thresholds for concern in causal terms.

Recent Empirical Studies (Post-2020)

A 2024 umbrella review synthesizing meta-analyses of observational studies reported convincing evidence (Class I) linking high sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake to elevated risks of type 2 diabetes (relative risk [RR] 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37) and cardiovascular disease (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.23) compared to low intake, based on prospective cohorts and adjusted for confounders like age, sex, and adiposity; however, the exclusively observational data preclude definitive causal claims, with recommendations for more interventional research to address residual confounding from clustered unhealthy behaviors. In a 2024 Swedish population-based prospective cohort study of 69,705 adults followed for a median of 11.6 years, sweetened beverage consumption exceeding moderate levels (e.g., >8 servings/week) was associated with higher incidence of ischemic stroke ( [HR] 1.30, 95% CI 1.04-1.63) and heart failure (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77) after multivariable adjustment for , , total energy intake, and other dietary factors, while moderate treats (≤2 servings/week) showed no increased risk, highlighting source-specific effects of added sugars. Global comparative risk assessment modeling published in January 2025 estimated that SSB consumption caused 2.0 million cases and 1.1 million events annually as of 2019 data extrapolated forward, with the highest attributable burdens in and due to rising intake trends and , deriving relative risks from prior meta-analyses and integrating consumption surveys while acknowledging uncertainties in dose-response assumptions and potential unmeasured confounders. A cross-sectional of 8,391 Brazilian adults in 2025 revealed that sugary soda intake of ≥0.4 cups/day correlated with elevated cardiovascular risk scores ( 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.88) versus non-consumers, after controlling for demographics, , and comorbidities, though the design limits temporality inferences and may reflect bidirectional influences. Studies on artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) post-2020 yield inconsistent results; a 2025 of randomized controlled trials found no significant effects on metabolic markers like glucose or profiles (standardized mean difference near zero), contrasting with observational data linking ASBs to incident cardiovascular events (HR 1.20-1.32 in cohorts), potentially due to reverse causation where individuals at risk substitute ASBs for SSBs.

Policy and Regulation

Labeling and Safety Standards

, the (FDA) mandates that carbonated soft drinks bear a detailing , calories, total sugars (including added sugars), and other nutrients per serving, with requirements updated in 2020 to emphasize added sugars for consumer awareness of potential metabolic impacts. Ingredients must be listed in descending order of predominance, including any color additives, preservatives, and sweeteners, while net quantity of contents is expressed in both metric and U.S. customary units. declarations are required if applicable, though rare in standard soft drinks, and labels must avoid misleading claims about health benefits without substantiation. Safety standards under FDA oversight classify soft drink ingredients as either approved food additives, subject to pre-market review demonstrating safety through toxicological data, or (GRAS) based on from peer-reviewed studies. Additives like for acidity or (up to levels deemed safe, typically below 0.02% in beverages) undergo evaluation for acute and chronic exposure risks, with maximum permitted levels enforced to prevent . In July 2024, the FDA revoked the GRAS status and banned (BVO) in soft drinks after from and human exposure data indicated potential and neurological effects at cumulative doses. Manufacturing facilities must adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) to minimize contaminants like or microbial pathogens, with routine inspections verifying compliance. In the , Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 requires soft drink labels to include the product name, quantitative ingredient listing, net quantity, nutritional information per 100 ml (energy, fat, carbohydrates including sugars, protein, salt), and allergen highlights if present. Sweeteners such as must be denoted by name or E-number (E951), with a warning if applicable, and origin labeling if omission could mislead consumers on composition. The (EFSA) assesses additive safety through re-evaluations incorporating recent toxicological and epidemiological data, approving uses only if acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) are not exceeded; for instance, limits on benzoates (E210-E213) cap at 150 mg/l to mitigate formation risks under certain conditions. Codex Alimentarius provides international benchmarks via the General Standard for Food Additives (CXS 192-1995), categorizing soft drinks under 14.1.4 (water-based flavored drinks) with maximum levels for permitted substances like acidity regulators and antioxidants, harmonized to facilitate trade while deferring to national laws for enforcement. These standards prioritize empirical safety margins, such as 100-fold uncertainty factors in ADI calculations from no-observed-adverse-effect levels in animal trials, though adoption varies; for example, some nations impose stricter thresholds (e.g., 150 mg/l in energy drinks but not uniformly for all soft drinks). Disparities in standards reflect differing regulatory philosophies, with FDA and EFSA emphasizing causal evidence from controlled studies over correlative claims, amid critiques that industry self-GRAS notifications may understate long-term risks without independent verification.

Taxation Efforts and Their Outcomes

Efforts to tax sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), a primary category of soft drinks, have proliferated since the early as a measure aimed at curbing consumption linked to and related conditions. implemented a nationwide 10% on SSBs in January 2014, excluding 100% fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks, marking one of the earliest large-scale applications. In the United States, , enacted a 1 cent per on SSBs in March 2015, followed by (1.5 cents per in 2017) and other cities like and . The introduced a Soft Drinks Industry Levy in April 2018, structured as a tiered of 18 pence per liter for drinks with 5 grams or more of per 100 milliliters and 24 pence for higher levels. By 2023, at least 108 countries had adopted some form of SSB taxation, often modeled after these precedents, with taxes typically ranging from 8-20% or volume-based equivalents. Empirical evaluations indicate that these taxes generally raise retail prices and reduce SSB purchases, with elasticities around -1.0, meaning a 10% price increase correlates with a roughly 10% volume decline. In Mexico, SSB purchases fell by 9.7% in the first year post-tax, with greater reductions (up to 21%) among lower-income households, and water purchases rose by 2%; effects persisted through the second year despite some rebound. Berkeley's tax led to a 21% drop in SSB consumption four months after implementation, alongside a 33% price hike over two years. A 2022 meta-analysis of 14 real-world SSB tax implementations worldwide found consistent associations with higher prices and lower sales of taxed beverages, though substitution to untaxed alternatives like artificially sweetened drinks occurred in some cases. Revenue generation has been notable, funding programs such as Mexico's hydration campaigns or U.S. city initiatives for parks and nutrition education, but totals vary; Philadelphia's tax yielded about $200 million by 2020, offset partly by cross-border shopping. Health outcomes remain contested, with limited causal evidence linking taxes to meaningful reductions in or metabolic at population scale. While some observational data suggest modest declines in or prevalence, particularly in lower-income groups, broader intake often shows no net change due to substitutions toward other caloric sources. Peer-reviewed critiques highlight that taxes are regressive, disproportionately burdening low-income consumers who derive higher SSB utility per dollar spent, without robust proof of offsetting gains; for instance, post-tax analyses in and Berkeley found no significant BMI reductions after adjusting for confounders. Economic modeling supports cost-effectiveness in revenue terms but questions long-term efficacy, as consumer preferences and overall dietary patterns persist unchanged. advocates, drawing from tax precedents, emphasize potential preventive benefits, yet independent reviews note that many supportive studies originate from intervention-favoring institutions, potentially understating behavioral adaptations or industry responses like reformulations. Overall, while taxes demonstrably alter short-term purchasing, their causal role in improving health metrics requires further longitudinal scrutiny beyond self-reported surveys.

Restrictions in Institutions and Public Spaces

Numerous jurisdictions have implemented restrictions on the sale and availability of sugary soft drinks in educational institutions to address concerns over and dental health. In the United States, by the 2010-2011 school year, 47% of adhered to policies banning all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), often mandated at state or district levels, with studies indicating these measures reduced soda availability in schools but showed inconsistent effects on overall adolescent consumption due to compensatory purchases outside . In , as of 2020, 23 state laws prohibited soft drink sales in schools across 63% of state capitals, covering 56.9% of students, though enforcement varied and did not uniformly curb intake. Europe's soft drink industry voluntarily ceased selling sugary beverages in EU schools starting in late 2018, aligning with recommendations, while enacted a 2025 law explicitly banning sugary drinks and ultra-processed foods from school menus to promote fresh produce instead. In healthcare and government facilities, bans target captive audiences presumed vulnerable to overconsumption. New York City's public hospital system, , eliminated all SSBs with more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces from its facilities in March 2020, replacing them with water, unsweetened tea, and low-calorie options to model healthier choices for patients and staff. Similarly, , operating 48 hospitals in , restricted items exceeding 25 grams of sugar per serving by 2018, contributing to broader institutional shifts away from high-sugar vending options. Local governments in have prohibited sugary drinks in public buildings, reflecting a pattern where such policies prioritize nutritional signaling over direct consumption metrics, though empirical data on sustained health impacts remains sparse. Public spaces, including parks and transit areas, impose vending restrictions to limit impulse buys of soft drinks. In many U.S. municipalities, park vending machines require permits and often exclude sugary sodas or to align with wellness guidelines, as seen in locales where soda machines face outright prohibitions in recreational zones. State properties, such as those in , mandate licensed operators for vending facilities and may restrict high-sugar items to prevent monopolization by unhealthy options. These measures, while reducing on-site access, frequently encounter substitution effects, with studies on analogs showing increased soft drink purchases post-ban, suggesting limited net reduction in total intake without addressing broader market availability.

Critiques of Interventionist Approaches

Interventionist policies targeting soft drink consumption, such as taxes, sales restrictions in institutions, and mandatory labeling, have faced for their empirical in improving outcomes. Systematic reviews indicate that while these measures often raise prices and produce short-term reductions in taxed beverage purchases—typically 10-30% initially—long-term effects diminish due to behavioral adaptations, with no consistent evidence of reduced rates or caloric intake at the population level. For instance, a of global sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes found associations with lower of taxed items but highlighted persistent substitution toward untaxed, calorie-dense alternatives like snacks, juices, or higher-fat products, which can offset potential benefits. In , the 2014 SSB tax of one peso per liter initially reduced purchases by about 10% in the first year, but by 2018, consumption partially rebounded, with four-year data from 2025 showing only a 7% sustained drop in SSB volumes and a 4.4% decrease in non-essential energy-dense foods, accompanied by increased purchases of untaxed items such as processed meats and desserts. Similar patterns emerged in U.S. jurisdictions: Berkeley's 2015 one-cent-per-ounce tax correlated with a 52% initial drop in SSB sales within the city, but overall regional consumption did not decline significantly due to cross-border shopping, and no measurable impact on was observed. Philadelphia's 2017 tax reduced soda intake among adolescents by an estimated 31% in self-reported frequency, yet evaluations noted heterogeneous effects, including substitutions to other sugary products and negligible changes in adult consumption of non-taxed beverages. Critics argue these policies exhibit regressivity, disproportionately burdening lower- households who spend a larger share of on taxed goods without commensurate health gains, as evidenced by differential purchase declines among socioeconomic groups but persistent disparities. Economic analyses further reveal unintended fiscal and costs, including job losses in beverage distribution and retail—estimated at thousands in affected regions—and shortfalls from evasion via bulk buying or informal markets. Restrictions in schools and public spaces, such as bans implemented in over U.S. states by 2020, similarly fail to curb overall intake, as students and employees procure soft drinks from external vendors or homes, with studies showing no sustained shifts in dietary patterns or weight metrics. From a causal standpoint, these interventions overlook broader determinants of overconsumption, such as sedentary lifestyles and ultra-processed food ubiquity, prioritizing soft drinks—which contribute less than 7% of daily caloric intake in high-obesity nations—over comprehensive approaches like agricultural subsidies reform or personal education. Proponents' reliance on modeling projections often overstates benefits, as real-world data consistently underperforms predictions, raising questions about the proportionality of coercive measures against individual agency in a context where moderate soft drink intake shows no causal link to metabolic diseases independent of total energy imbalance.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/soft-drinks
  2. https://encyclopedia.che.engin.umich.edu/soft-drinks/
  3. http://www.historyofsoftdrinks.com/soft-drink-history/history-of-carbonated-water/
  4. https://sodasense.com/blogs/bubbly-blog/when-was-soda-invented
  5. https://www.imarcgroup.com/soft-drinks-market
  6. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-market-share-of-u-s-soft-drinks/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1829363/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3497921/
  9. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782
  10. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.107.689935
  11. https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/carbonated-soft-drinks-what-you-should-know
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4324883/
  13. https://www.betbev.com/news-posts/soft-drinks-inside-out/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/carbonated-beverage
  15. https://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/ingredients/
  16. https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-documents-regulatory-information-topic-food-and-dietary-supplements/bottled-watercarbonated-soft-drinks-guidance-documents-regulatory-information
  17. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/169092/why-soft-drink
  18. https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/55763/soft-drinks-show-popularity-around-the-w
  19. https://www.news5cleveland.com/here-is-what-people-call-soda-pop-in-every-part-of-country
  20. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/12/12/ask-a-sotan-why-do-minnesotans-call-soda-pop
  21. https://www.southernliving.com/culture/why-do-southerners-call-soda-coke
  22. https://repository.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:1023363/datastream/PDF/view
  23. https://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/media/sidhuk3k/ii-soft-drinks-their-origins-and-history.pdf
  24. https://www.diffordsguide.com/g/1283/mocktails/history
  25. https://www.sugar.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-lemonade/
  26. http://mbhp.forgottensea.org/noalcohol.html
  27. https://www.historyofsoftdrinks.com/soft-drink-history/timeline-of-soft-drinks/
  28. https://everything-everywhere.com/the-history-of-soft-drinks/
  29. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/powerful-effervescence/
  30. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/josephpriestleyoxygen.html
  31. https://www.borgandoverstrom.com/en/blog/the-history-of-sparkling-water/
  32. https://www.diffordsguide.com/encyclopedia/1253/bws/schhh-you-know-who-the-story-of-schweppes
  33. https://www.rockymountainsoda.com/blogs/soda-news/brief-history-of-soda
  34. https://drpeppermuseum.com/the-industrial-revolution-and-the-soft-drink-industry/
  35. https://www.thoughtco.com/introduction-to-soda-pop-1992433
  36. https://creagermerc.com/the-history-of-soda-2/
  37. https://www.teamsterslocal812.com/categories/2-uncategorised/130-soda-history
  38. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history
  39. https://pepsibrattleboro.com/the-history-of-pepsi/
  40. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/soft-drink-industry
  41. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/a-history-of-the-world-in-six-glasses/chapter-12-globalization-in-a-bottle
  42. https://www.coca-cola.com/us/en/about-us/faq/how-did-coca-cola-grow-as-an-international-business
  43. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/business/history-and-future-expansion-of-pepsico-business-essay.php
  44. https://www.historyoasis.com/post/cocacolonization
  45. https://decasia.org/academic_culture/2010/07/22/coca-cola-and-postwar-market-liberalization/index.html
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Soft-drink-intake-from-1950-to-2000-Data-are-expressed-in-gallons-per-capita-and-liters_fig1_236047993
  47. https://www.thestreet.com/restaurants/history-of-cola-cola
  48. https://sdonline.org/issue/50/coca-globalization-following-soft-drinks-new-york-new-guinea
  49. https://www.historyoasis.com/post/history-of-diet-sodas
  50. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_880981
  51. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history/diet-coke-global-premiere-1982
  52. https://www.americanheritage.com/sweet-nothing-triumph-diet-soda-0
  53. https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-drinks-drive-decline-in-consumption
  54. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/sugary-drink-tax-prompts-substantial-decline-in-purchases/
  55. https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/countries-that-have-implemented-taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages-ssbs
  56. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/sugar-tax-soda-tax-ssb/
  57. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-state-and-local-soda-taxes-work
  58. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/au/en/private/2019/sugar-reduction-booklet/CCSP%2520Actions%2520in%2520the%2520Marketplace%25202019.pdf
  59. https://www.balanceus.org/industry-efforts/cutting-sugar-american-diet/
  60. https://www.fooddive.com/news/sugary-drinks-plunge-pepsico-coca-cola-study/704068/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2376983/
  62. https://www.ucs.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its-influence-science-about-sugar-and-health
  63. https://www.iccr.org/coca-cola-and-pepsi-to-face-shareholder-proposals-citing-the-potential-health-harms-from-continued-use-of-non-sugar-sweeteners-in-diet-drinks/
  64. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470996034.ch3
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/carbonated-beverage
  66. https://linhomachine.com/juice-processing-system/you-must-know-the-carbonated-drink-how-about-the-detail-ingredients.html
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996921001198
  68. https://tandobeverage.com/carbonated-soft-drinks/
  69. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/carbonated-soft-drinks-global-market-164400883.html
  70. https://www.statista.com/statistics/283939/soft-drinks-market-share-of-carbonates-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-flavour/
  71. https://www.euromonitor.com/article/five-soft-drinks-innovation-trends-for-2025
  72. https://www.bevsource.com/news/2025-beverage-trends
  73. https://www.accio.com/business/2025-soda-flavor-trends
  74. https://www.skyquestt.com/report/non-carbonated-soft-drinks-market
  75. https://www.strategicmarketresearch.com/market-report/non-carbonated-soft-drinks-market
  76. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/non-alcoholic-drinks/soft-drinks/non-carbonated-soft-drinks/worldwide
  77. https://monumentalvending.com/non-carbonated-drinks-vending/
  78. https://www.reddit.com/r/Soda/comments/u01j9o/what_are_some_good_noncarbonated_soda/
  79. https://www.industryresearch.biz/market-reports/non-carbonated-soft-drinks-market-108977
  80. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/report/non-carbonated-soft-drink
  81. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/non-carbonated-soft-drinks-market-23696
  82. https://www.flavorman.com/media/beverage-sweeteners
  83. https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/the-secret-history-of-why-soda-companies-switched-from-sugar-to-high-fructose-corn-syrup
  84. https://www.obesityaction.org/resources/a-not-so-sweet-story-high-fructose-corn-syrup/
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713520303972
  86. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11990090/
  88. https://www.supplysidefbj.com/beverage-development/us-and-eu-beverage-ingredient-compliance
  89. https://www.freshbyte.com/blog/different-food-and-beverage-standards-between-europe-and-the-u.s
  90. https://www.mosaicflavors.com/news/artificial-and-natural-flavorings-know-the-differences
  91. https://foodprint.org/blog/are-natural-flavors-better-than-artificial/
  92. https://www.bonappetit.com/story/truth-about-natural-artificial-flavors
  93. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/11/03/560048780/is-natural-flavor-healthier-than-artificial-flavor
  94. https://www.niranbio.com/what-food-additives-do-carbonated-beverage-factories-need-a-guide-for-beverage-manufacturers.html
  95. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachana-Shalini/publication/258770116_Additives_used_in_soft_drinks/links/00b49528f236ddbfec000000/Additives-used-in-soft-drinks.pdf
  96. https://dermnetnz.org/topics/food-additives-and-e-numbers
  97. https://www.meco.com/how-water-purity-impacts-the-food-and-beverage-industry/
  98. https://northwesternextract.com/manufacturing-of-soft-drinks/
  99. https://www.bieroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012WaterUseEfficiencyBenchmarking-1.pdf
  100. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers
  101. https://www.reagent.co.uk/blog/what-chemicals-are-in-fizzy-drinks/
  102. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/faq/ingredients
  103. https://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Soft-Drink.html
  104. https://jochamp.com/carbonated-beverages-manufacturing-process/
  105. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FS379
  106. https://il-tec.com/en/isobaric-filling-or-counter-pressure-bottle-filling-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work/
  107. https://www.neologicengineers.com/blogs/carbonated-soft-drink-production-process
  108. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/cdfs-133
  109. https://www.thepkglab.com/blog/34/the-origin-of-the-soda-can-a-genius-packaging-innovation
  110. https://industrialphysics.com/knowledgebase/articles/history-of-the-can-timeline/
  111. https://www.packagingstrategies.com/articles/83980-timeline-50-years-of-packaging-innovations
  112. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/coca-cola-system
  113. https://medium.com/marketing-today/soft-drink-distribution-is-fascinating-8aecdcb016fc
  114. https://www.aluminum.org/news/aluminum-beverage-can-moves-recycling-bin-newly-formed-can-less-60-days
  115. https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/applications-design/novelis-and-drt-to-develop-sustainable-aluminum-beverage-can-ends/
  116. https://ortec.com/en-us/insights/9-innovative-strategies-beverage-distribution
  117. https://www.endplasticwaste.org/insights/story/environmental-impact-of-five-different-soft-drink-containers
  118. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060415/how-much-global-beverage-industry-controlled-coca-cola-and-pepsi.asp
  119. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coca-cola-vs-keurig-dr-163500942.html
  120. https://www.brandvm.com/post/biggest-beverage-brands-world
  121. https://www.voronoiapp.com/investing/Top-10-Beverage-Companies-by-Market-Capitalization-Worldwide-4983
  122. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/inves7_the-400-billion-question-who-really-activity-7366839190958804994-KNX8
  123. https://sherwood.news/business/while-pepsi-revenue-pops-sprite-and-dr-pepper-are-bubbling-up-in-the-soda/
  124. https://polarbeverages.com/heritage/
  125. https://www.vanguardrenewables.com/fpsa/fpsa-member-polar-beverages
  126. https://polarbeverages.com/about/
  127. https://www.ourstate.com/history-of-cheerwine/
  128. https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/cheerwine/
  129. https://www.maine.gov/sos/kids/about/symbols/drink
  130. https://www.coca-cola.com/us/en/brands/moxie
  131. https://www.jonessoda.com/pages/about-us
  132. https://www.jonessoda.com/
  133. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-craft-soda-companies-how-compare-them-pbate/
  134. https://foodinstitute.com/focus/craft-soda-market-bubbling-over/
  135. https://www.euromonitor.com/newsroom/press-releases/june-2025/innovation-and-functionality-drive-global-soft-drinks-market-to-usd1.1-trillion
  136. https://market.us/report/global-soft-drinks-market/
  137. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/763162/per-capita-volume-sales-in-the-soft-drinks-market-worldwide-by-country?srsltid=AfmBOor33XxMF_9Y-ryV_G5lhidcYL_VHnFZ31HzeaoXvNzRpUOWEAqO
  138. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/soda-consumption-by-country
  139. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/coca-cola-consumption-by-country
  140. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/bed/per-capita-soft-drink-consumption/1786/
  141. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/non-alcoholic-drinks/soft-drinks/worldwide?srsltid=AfmBOopKy9Yu0azg5-tI1N0X9JV93GHv92d1wTFBKdUXdQ9f1XtP00RP
  142. https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/sugary_drinks_in_america_who_s_drinking_what_and_how_much
  143. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/42513/Ferguson_KE_T_2011_1.pdf
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7369330/
  145. https://f1000research.com/articles/9-708
  146. https://bejoisdistributing.com/best-soft-drinks-for-events/
  147. https://www.americanbeverage.org/education-resources/blog/beverages-are-an-american-tradition-that-are-here-to-stay/
  148. https://www.historysouth.org/the-souths-love-affair-with-soft-drinks/
  149. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history/the-history-of-the-coca-cola-contour-bottle
  150. https://www.cascade.app/studies/how-coca-cola-became-successful
  151. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/pop-soda-or-coke-a-linguist-explains-the-history-behind-the-various-names-for-the-drink
  152. https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/34/7/520/5543873
  153. https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/01/13/g-s1-41864/soda-diabetes-sugar-africa-latin-america
  154. https://partea.com.sg/bottled-happiness-soft-drinks-and-their-role-in-soc/
  155. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-soft-drinks-market
  156. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-soft-drinks-market
  157. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/carbonated-beverages-market
  158. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/diet-soft-drinks-market
  159. https://www.reportlinker.com/dataset/e6fd48ef10a5ec3f258b30587c0fed8bea231b06
  160. https://www.ibisworld.com/global/industry/global-soft-drink-bottled-water-manufacturing/420/
  161. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/careers
  162. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2025/10/21/coca-cola-rides-zero-sugar-protein-boom-amid-glp-1-shift/
  163. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/non-alcoholic-drinks/soft-drinks/worldwide
  164. https://www.worldstopexports.com/top-soft-drinks-exporters-by-country/
  165. https://oec.world/en/profile/hs/beverage-waters-sweetened-or-flavoured
  166. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/soda-production/285/
  167. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000888.htm
  168. https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-drinks/sugary-drinks/
  169. https://www.coca-cola.com/us/en/brands/coca-cola/products/original
  170. https://ksyed.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/6/7/9667255/sweetners_2.pdf
  171. https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l2408
  172. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652206556X
  173. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8465972/
  174. https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/nutrition-health-and-wellness/does-sparkling-water-hydrate-you.html
  175. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2862460/
  176. https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3576
  177. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20693348/
  178. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203388
  179. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165%252822%252910529-0/fulltext
  180. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16510646/
  181. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.097634
  182. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00627-6
  183. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-062322-020650
  184. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03345-4
  185. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10096725/
  186. https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/dental-erosion
  187. https://karger.com/mpp/article/24/5/451/204014/Erosive-Effect-of-Different-Soft-Drinks-on-Enamel
  188. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37049624/
  189. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17023723/
  190. https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-021-00698-1
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435699000979
  192. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393443707_THE_INFLUENCE_OF_INCREASED_CARBONATED_BEVERAGES_CONSUMPTION_ON_THE_RISK_OF_NEPHROLITHIASIS_DEVELOPMENT_A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_AND_META-ANALYSIS_OF_OBSERVATIONAL_STUDIES
  193. https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2016/07120/associations_between_the_consumption_of_carbonated.57.aspx
  194. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936
  195. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-intensity-sweeteners
  196. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/how-sweet-it-all-about-sweeteners
  197. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
  198. https://journals.lww.com/ebp/fulltext/2018/12000/do_artificial_sweeteners_help_people_lose_weight_.43.aspx
  199. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429
  200. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522031860
  201. https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/research-alert-artificial-sweeteners-significantly-alter-the-small-bowel-microbiome/
  202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900723002654
  203. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11315849/
  204. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-nutr-062322-020650
  205. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1452085/full
  206. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11663681/
  207. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12377782/
  208. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12098100/
  209. https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Food-Labeling-Guide-%2528PDF%2529.pdf
  210. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101
  211. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients-information-consumers
  212. https://www.today.com/health/news/sodas-with-bvo-rcna160150
  213. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/food-additives-petitions
  214. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/labelling-and-nutrition/food-information-consumers-legislation/mandatory-food-information_en
  215. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/sweeteners
  216. https://unesda.eu/key-facts/nutrition-labelling/
  217. https://www.fao.org/gsfaonline/foods/details.html?id=248
  218. https://www.isdi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CODEX-STAN-192-1995.pdf
  219. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/food-chemical-safety
  220. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5525113/
  221. https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/do-soda-taxes-work
  222. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1311
  223. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-12-2023-who-calls-on-countries-to-increase-taxes-on-alcohol-and-sugary-sweetened-beverages
  224. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792842
  225. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10556476/
  226. https://www.taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/sugar-tax-soda-tax-ssb/
  227. https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/health-disease/2024/soda-taxes-dont-work-behavioral-economists-say
  228. https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2010/would-soda-taxes-really-yield-health-benefits
  229. https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/8/e005662
  230. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9285619/
  231. https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-12-S1-S7
  232. https://www.scielosp.org/article/rsp/2020.v54/42/
  233. https://www.mfds.go.kr/eng/brd/m_60/view.do?seq=71932&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&multi_itm_seq=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=360
  234. https://www.facebook.com/drmarkhyman/posts/spains-groundbreaking-new-law-bans-ultra-processed-foods-sugary-drinks-and-proce/1336707911143791/
  235. https://www.nychealthandhospitals.org/pressrelease/nyc-health-hospitals-eliminates-all-sugary-drinks-from-its-facilities-system-wide/
  236. https://www.foodservicedirector.com/hospital-healthcare/5-things-hospitals-ban-on-sugary-drinks-rankles-some
  237. https://smithandjones.com/resources/blog/hospitals-and-soda-why-the-two-dont-mix/
  238. https://www.vendinglocator.com/blog/can-i-put-a-vending-machine-in-a-park
  239. https://curleybusinesslaw.com/how-to-start-a-vending-machine-business-in-texas/
  240. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/LA/htm/LA.355.htm
  241. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004727271630069X
  242. https://kiesel.ucdavis.edu/Huang_Kiesel_erae_2012.pdf
  243. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9161017/
  244. https://p3rc.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/561/2021/12/Rvw-Effcts-US-SSB-Taxes-Sbsttn-to-Untxd-Bev-Foods_Rsrch-Brf-No.-123_Nov-2021.pdf
  245. https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/3/1/e001524
  246. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2807547
  247. https://www.fuqua.duke.edu/duke-fuqua-insights/bollinger-soda-tax
  248. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8524354/
  249. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9804786/
  250. https://www.theamericanconsumer.org/2019/06/sugar-taxes-are-ineffective-evidence-shows/
  251. https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/soda_tax_jep.pdf
  252. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-resource-111522-111325
  253. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11502358/
  254. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0z61j1z9
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.