Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation on sugars intake and dental caries: an umbrella review of a global perspective

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 986 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

As part of the Global Strategy on Oral health, the World Health Organization (WHO) is exploring cost-effective interventions for oral health, including taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). To inform this process, this umbrella review aimed to identify the best available estimates pertaining to the impact of SSB taxation on the reduction of sugars intake, and the sugars-caries dose–response, such that estimates of the impact of SSB taxation on averting dental caries in both high (HIC) and low and middle (LMIC) countries be available.

Methods

The questions addressed were: (1) what are the effects of SSB taxation on consumption of SSBs and (2) sugars? (3) What is the effect on caries of decreasing sugars? and (4) what is the likely impact of a 20% volumetric SSB tax on the number of active caries prevented over 10 years? Data sources included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Systematic Review Register, and PROSPERO. The review was conducted with reference to JBI guidelines. The quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR to identify best evidence.

Results

From 419 systematic reviews identified for questions 1 & 2, and 103 for question 3, 48 (Questions 1 & 2) and 21 (Question 3) underwent full text screening, yielding 14 and five included reviews respectively. Best available data indicated a 10% tax would reduce SSB intake by 10.0% (95% CI: -5.0, 14.7%) in HIC and by 9% (range -6.0 to 12.0%) in LMIC, and that a 20% tax would reduce free sugars intake on average by 4.0 g/d in LMIC and 4.4 g/d in HIC. Based on best available dose response data, this could reduce the number of teeth with caries per adults (HIC and LMIC) by 0.03 and caries occurrence in children by 2.7% (LMIC) and 2.9% (HIC), over a 10-year period.

Conclusion

Best available data suggest a 20% volumetric SSB tax would have a modest impact on prevalence and severity of dental caries in both HIC and LMIC.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In response to the World Health Assembly Resolution on Oral Health (WHA74.5) a Draft Global Strategy on Oral Health has been developed [1]. This includes the Strategic Objective ‘to enable all people to achieve the best possible oral health and target and reduce the social and commercial determinants and risk factors of oral diseases and conditions.’ The Global Strategy on Oral health, aims to recommend cost-effective oral health interventions by 2024. This will form part of the updated Appendix 3 of the WHO Global action plan on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). WHO Member States will be guided in developing national responses to promote oral health and reduce oral health inequalities and diseases including dental caries; globally.

Dental caries is the most prevalent oral disease [2]. The role of dietary sugars in its aetiology is well established [3, 4]. A WHO recommendation, for minimising lifelong risk of dental caries, is to limit free sugars intake to below 5% of energy intake. This puts forth an important strategy for caries prevention [5]. Addressing the universally high free sugars intake, is an important part of the Global Strategy on Oral Health [1], yet public health measures to reduce sugars consumption are rare [6, 7]. To make a tangible difference, oral health policy and action plans need to move away from approaches that rely entirely on individual dietary behaviour change for free sugars reduction. Creating social and economic structures to support people to make behaviour changes will require taking bold action to focusing on upstream interventions to limit free sugars intake [8,9,10]. One such measure is the implementation of taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB).

SSB are a common source of dietary free sugars, with an average global consumption by children of 326 ml/day (ranging from 115 ml/day in Australia to 710 ml/day in China) [11]. In European countries SSB contribution to free sugars varies between 0–65% [12] and in the US SSB contribute to added sugars intake by 16–23% [13]. These data suggest that lowering SSB intake could significantly impact on free sugars intake. The WHO recognises, and provides guidance on, the implementation of taxes on SSB as an evidence-based policy to prevent obesity and non-communicable diet-related diseases [6]. SSB taxes have been introduced in several countries around the world to incentivise healthy beverage choice [14]. A wealth of evidence suggests that this has a positive impact on obesity prevention [15], though little attention has focused on the impact on the global impact on dental caries.

Within-country-based modelling studies aiming to predict the impact of taxation of SSB on subsequent levels of dental caries are largely from high income countries (HIC) [16,17,18,19]. However, a diversity of approaches and assumptions has led to vast between-study differences in effect sizes and irreproducible results. The impacts of SSB taxation on development of dental caries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have not been broadly reported [20]. The challenges in publishing in mainstream journals of HIC faced by authors from LMIC, may explain this observation. With a view to assisting WHO in the identification of cost-effective interventions, an independent assessment of the evidence pertaining to the predicted impact of SSB taxation on dental caries in both HIC and LMIC on prevention of dental caries was conducted. For this purpose, an Umbrella Review approach was chosen. An umbrella review is a review of systematic reviews [21] that captures the vast amount of evidence contained in systematic reviews and studies to access research evidence and inform decision-making. They provide a summary of existing research syntheses related to a given topic or question and are also applied when there is a need for “fast” evidence in reduced timeframes. Umbrella reviews can be used to summarize more than one research synthesis e.g., for different populations or geographic locations. Using an umbrella review approach, the aims of this study were first, to identify the available data pertaining to the impact of SSB taxation on consumption of SSB (i.e., the price elasticity of demand (PED) and sugars, and of the impact of the reduced sugars intake on the development of dental caries; and second, to utilise these data as model parameters to assess the impact of SSB taxation on caries prevention in both LMIC and HIC. The objectives were first, to conduct an umbrella review to identify the best available evidence pertaining to the PED of SSB and the impact of taxation on sugars consumption, and of sugars consumption on the development of dental caries; and second, to use these data to estimate the potential impact of introducing a 20% SSB volumetric tax on averting dental caries.

Methods

A preliminary search for previous umbrella reviews on the topic was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science and no existing reviews were identified. The protocol for this umbrella review was registered on PROSPERO in January 2022 (CRD 42022293187) [22]. The review was guided by the Methodology for Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Umbrella Reviews [21]. The following questions were addressed:

  1. 1.

    What are the effects of SSB taxation on SSB on PED/ consumption?

  2. 2.

    What is the effect of SSB taxation on consumption of sugars?

  3. 3.

    What are the effects of decreasing sugars consumption on levels of dental caries?

  4. 4.

    What is the likely effect of a 20% volumetric tax on averting dental caries over a 10-year period?

Population

Studies of healthy populations (i.e., reviews that do not specifically target participants with disease), all age groups, race, gender and geographic locations were included. Data pertaining to the above questions was explored by age group (adults, children (for dental caries outcomes children were further classified according to whether outcomes related to the primary dentition, the permanent dentition or both), geographic location (country), income classification of included countries (high, middle, and low), socioeconomic status of participants and type of tax. To facilitate best-possible context-specificity, where possible, the evidence was mapped according to the WHO Regions.

Intervention/exposure and outcomes

For Questions 1 and 2, systematic reviews of studies that measured the impact of any type of tax to SSB including ad valorem, volumetric tax, or nutrient based tax (based on the sugars content of the drink) were included. Different levels of taxes, including excise tax and sales tax, applied by government, manufacturer, or retailer, were considered.

For Question 1, the outcome was measure of SSB consumption measured as sales, household consumption level, and data on consumption from surveys of dietary intake. SSB included beverages with added sugars, e.g., carbonated and still beverages and sweetened fruit juices, excluding beverages sweetened exclusively with artificially sweeteners. Reports on change in consumption expressed as amount (e.g., mL/day, week, or year, or change in energy intake (EI) from SSB) or units of frequency from which amount can be derived, were included. Data on change in consumption of SSB derived from data on PED including own price elasticity (OPE) and cross price elasticity (CPE) of SSB were included.

For Question 2, the outcome measure was a quantitative change in the intake of sugars (free sugars) expressed as grams, kilograms or ounces per day, week, or year, or the amount of sugars expressed as a percent of EI. Outcomes also included data on the change in energy intake when expressed as Kcal or kJ, MJ per day, month or year, which allowed for conversion to a quantified amount of sugars using the Atwater Factor of 4 kcal/gram sugars [23].

For Question 3, systematic reviews were included if they reported data pertaining to a quantified measure of sugars intake or change in sugars intake. Sugars intake included total sugars (and any component of) i.e., free sugars, added sugars, sucrose, non-milk extrinsic sugars, expressed as g or kg/day or /year or as a percentage of EI, or a per capita population intake or availability. Systematic reviews that reported solely on the frequency of sugars consumption were excluded.

For Question 3, the outcome was a measure of dental caries. This included decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT (for permanent teeth), dmft (for primary teeth)), decayed, missing and filled surfaces (DMFS (for permanent teeth), dmfs (for primary teeth)), decayed, extracted due to caries, filled teeth (deft), or comparisons between caries and no caries or higher caries vs. lower caries.

Sources of information

Online biomedical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched. Registries for systematic reviews, including Cochrane Library, the JBI Systematic Review Register and the PROSPERO Library, were searched. Databases were selected from available sources through The University of Adelaide library, aiming for broad geographical coverage. There were no restrictions placed on language and study duration. The date limit was from 2000 to end 2021 (to broadly cover the period since the introduction of taxes on SSBs [24]. The search strategy is presented in Additional file 1. In addition to the search, known experts were contacted by email to identify any further systematic reviews. The inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures for each review question are described below.

Types of study included

The umbrella review included exclusively systematic reviews with or without evidence synthesis, e.g., meta-analysis. For Questions 1 and 2, systematic reviews which examined the effects of SSB taxes on SSB consumption, included both naturalistic (explore the impact of real-world taxes) and modelling studies (hypothetical tax) that used cross sectional or longitudinal (before after) or time series data on price and consumption, or data from experimental intervention studies. Systematic reviews of studies with exclusively qualitative data were excluded.

For Question 3, systematic reviews which exclusively examined the effects of amount of sugars intake or changing sugars intake on dental caries levels of change in dental caries development were included. Reviews that incorporate text and opinion as their primary source of evidence were excluded.

Study selection

Articles identified by searches were initially screened independently in duplicate by two authors to exclude systematic reviews clearly outside of scope. Potentially eligible reviews underwent full text review by independent duplicate assessment for inclusion. Differences between reviewers’ results were resolved by discussion. Reviews that were excluded at full-text screening are presented in Additional file 2. One reviewer extracted relevant data using a modified version of the JBI data extraction form [25] and a second reviewer checked data. Completed data extraction forms for included reviews are presented in Additional file 3 (Questions 1 and 2) and Additional file 4 (Question 3). Where pooled analysis was not available to answer a review question, data from original studies within systematic reviews was extracted and summarised.

Quality of included data

The quality of eligible systematic reviews and evidence syntheses was assessed in duplicate using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) which is based on an 11-point scale. An AMSTAR score of 8–11 is categorised as high quality, 4–7 is moderate quality and 0–3 low quality [26]. Any disagreement between reviewers was resolved by involvement of a third reviewer. Assessments were conducted independently in duplicate by two reviewers without conflicting interest (e.g., not an author of the review) and any discrepancy between reviewers were resolved by discussion.

Data summary

The approach to the presentation of findings from included systematic reviews included a tabulated summary of identified reviews that was presented in reverse chronological order and included information on AMSTAR rating. This was supported by a narrative summary that used a ‘best available evidence’ approach where data from the most recent high quality systematic review was described first, followed by a comparison with data from moderate quality reviews or earlier published reviews. Evidence synthesis from the most recent best quality systematic review was used to inform subsequent outputs. To enable a more detailed assessment and interpretation of the evidence when meta-analysis from SRs were not available, further data extraction of the characteristics and findings of primary studies included in the SRs was carried out. In this instance, data extracted included: author year, country of data collection, sample size, age, objectives, intervention or exposure, outcome, and quality assessment.

Estimated impact on levels of dental caries

The impact of SSB taxation on intake of free sugars was estimated in two ways. First, from the identified estimates of the impact of SSB taxation on the consumption of SSB (PED data from Question 1) together with available information on the level of SSB consumption in HIC and LMIC [11]. Second, using the identified estimated of the impact of SSB taxation on intake of energy and sugars (Question 2). In the absence of data from meta-analysis pertaining to sugars intake and dental caries, estimates of sugars reduction and the best available data were used. This included identified data on the dose response between sugars and development of dental caries, (identified in Question 3) to estimate the impact of a 20% volumetric SSB tax on the number of caries prevented in both children and adults over a period of 10 years (Question 4). The identified data for HIC and for LMIC were applied separately.

Results

Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram. For Questions 1 & 2, from all databases combined, 419 systematic reviews were identified following de-duplication. Following title and abstract screening, 48 systematic reviews were retained for full text screening. Following full text screening, 14 systematic reviews were included. Four were rated as high quality [15, 27,28,29] nine as moderate quality [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38] and one as low quality [39]. Two reviews did not make a declaration of conflict of interest [38, 39]. For question 3, from all databases combined, 100 systematic reviews were identified following de-duplication. Following title and abstract screening 21 reviews were retained for full text screening from which two systematic reviews were included; a further three systematic reviews were identified through known experts in the field giving five systematic reviews. Two reviews were rated as high quality [3, 4] and three as moderate quality [12, 40, 41]. One review did not make a declaration of conflicts of interests [40]. Reasons for exclusions of full texts are provided in Fig. 1 and Additional file 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart of study selection and inclusion process

Full size image

Question 1: Impact of taxation on SSB consumption and PED

Of the 14 systematic reviews identified that had data relevant to Question 1, eight included a narrative account only and six conducted evidence synthesis by pooling data or meta-analysis. Systematic reviews included data from the African, European, Southeast Asian, and Western Pacific WHO Regions as well as The Region of The Americas. A summary of included reviews along with the AMSTAR rating is provided in Table 1. Details of the AMSTAR rating for each included review is provided in Additional file 5. A summary of the original studies included in the 14 reviews, including the quality appraisal for these studies, is provided in Additional file 6.

Table 1 Summary of included systematic reviews with data pertaining to Question 1a
Full size table

Data from high-income countries

Of the systematic reviews with quantitative evidence synthesis, Teng et al. [27], which included data from HIC, and had a high AMSTAR rating, showed that a 10% tax on SSB reduced consumption by 10.0% (95% CI: -5.0, 14.7%) (PED 1.0 (95% CI: -0.5, -1.47)). The analysis by Afshin et al. [28], also with a high AMSTAR rating, was based on pooled data from studies in the US only and showed a 10% tax would reduce consumption by 7.0% (95% CI: -3.0,-10.0%). The review of Powell et al. [37] had a moderate AMSTAR rating and was based on US-based price elasticity studies and showed the overall OPE was -1.21 (95% CI: -0.7, -2.26) implying that a 10% tax would reduce consumption by 7.1–22.6% (average reduction 12.1%), and a 20% tax by 14.2–45.2% (average reduction 24.2%). The review of Andreyeva et al. [38], with a moderate AMSTAR rating and based on US data only, showed, based on mean price elasticity estimates (95% CI: -0.8, 1.0) that a 10% tax would reduce SSB consumption by 8–10%.

Data from low- and middle-income countries

The best available evidence synthesis for LMIC was provided by the review of Nakhimovsky et al. [29] which had a Moderate AMSTAR rating. This synthesis standardised data across studies and showed that a 10% tax would reduce consumption by 6–12% (average reduction 9.0%, PED 0.90 (range: -0.6 to -1.2)). The review by Cabrera Escobar et al. [35], which had a moderate AMSTAR rating, included both HIC and LMIC and showed in a meta-analysis of data from the USA, Mexico, Brazil, and France that overall OPE was -1.3 (95% CI: -1.085, -1.509), thus indicating that a 10% tax would reduce consumption by 10.9, 15.1% (average reduction 13.0%). A summary of the data on percent change in SSB consumption is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of quantitative findings of the impact of SSB taxation on percentage change in consumption
Full size table

Data by age group and SES

Only the review by Teng et al. [27] presented pooled data by age group, finding no significant difference. In an earlier review, Thow et al. [34] reported that the impact of taxes ranging from 5 to 30% on SSB consumption was proportional to tax applied. However, the impact on EI was higher in adults (range: 10.0 to 48.0%) compared with children (range: 5.0 to 8.0%) in due of considerable substitution (e.g. with milk). The systematic reviews of Maniadakis et al. [36], Thow et al. [34] (HIC), and of Nakhimovsky et al. [29] (LMIC) showed SSB taxes to be more regressive in lower income groups. However, difference by SES was not found in the analysis of HIC by Teng et al. [27], which included some studies where a 5% tax led to a greater reduction in consumption in higher SES groups. Further data on the impact of SSB tax on consumption by age and SES can be found in the summary of original studies in Additional file 6.

Only one systematic review provided data on percentage reduction of SSB consumption by type of tax, which varied but was not statistically significant [27]. Average reductions with a 10% tax level were 2.3% (95% CI: -11.2, 7.4) for an ad valorem tax, 10.2% (95% CI: -4.1, -15.9%) for volumetric; and 14.0% (95% CI: -7.5%, -20.1%) for a nutrient-based tax based on a sugars concentration threshold.

Question 2: Systematic reviews that enabled estimation of the impact of SSB tax on sugars consumption

Two included systematic reviews reported data on the impact of SSB tax on EI, which enabled the estimation of the impact of SSB tax on sugars intake [29, 36]. Nakhimovsky et al. [29], by using data from LMIC reported that a 10% tax would reduce EI by a median of 18.0 (range: -5.0, -39.0) KJ/person/day or by 4.3 ( range: -1.2 to -9.3) Kcal/person/day. Based on the Atwater conversion factor (4.0 kcal/ (17.0 kJ)/g sugar) [23], this reduction is equivalent to 1.1 (range: 0.3 to 2.3) g sugars/person/day. Maniadakis, et al. [36] based on data from HIC, estimated that a 10% increase in price/tax would reduce EI by a maximum of 50 kcal/person/day or, 450 per month. This reduction is equivalent to 12.5 g/d and 112.5 g/month decrease in sugars intake. Of the original studies included in the identified systematic reviews, 16 had data that enabled the impact of SSB taxation on intake of sugars to be determined (summarised in Additional file 7). Nine of these studies provided data that enabled the impact of a 20% tax on SSB on free sugars intake to be estimated, showing decreases ranging from 1.8 g to 11.0 g grams sugars/person/day, with the average decrease in LMIC being 4 g/d and in HIC 4.4 g/d.

Question 3. The effects of decreasing sugars consumption on levels of dental caries

The five included systematic reviews are summarised in Table 3. One review [4] was an update of an earlier review [3]. None of the included systematic reviews provided a meta-analysis pertaining to the impact of amount of sugars intake on the development of dental caries. However, data from included original studies relating to the dose response relationship are summarised in Table 4. The best available data, based on study design came from cohort studies with low risk of bias (RoB). For adults, this was provided by the analysis of Bernabé et al. [104], which showed that for each 10 g intake of total sugars DMFT increased 0.09 over the 11-year follow up period. For children, the best available data for the primary dentition came from the analysis of Turck et al. [12] (Moderate RoB), which showed an increase in dmft of 1.64 between ages 3 and 6 for each 10 g/day sucrose consumption. The best available data for the permanent dentition of children came from the Michigan Study (low RoB) [105, 106] which showed a 1% increase for each 5 g of sugar in children over a three-year follow-up period.

Table 3 Summary of systematic reviews with data pertaining to Question 3a
Full size table
Table 4 Identified studiesa with data enabling estimation of the dose response between sugars and dental caries
Full size table

Question 4. The likely effect of a 20% volumetric tax on averting dental caries over a 10-year period

Table 5 tabulates the best available data pertaining to the impact of taxation on SSB consumption, sugars intake, and the dose response between amount of sugars intake and development of caries. Estimates for the impact of a 20% volumetric SSB tax on caries development for both HIC and LMIC are presented.

Table 5 Summary of the best available evidence and estimated impact of a 20% volumetric tax on the development of dental caries over a ten-year period
Full size table

Discussion

Through an umbrella review of the best available evidence, the findings of this study suggest that over a ten-year period, a 20% volumetric tax to SSB would reduce the per capita caries count (number of teeth affected by caries) in adults in both HIC and LMIC by approximately 0.03. In children the per capita caries count (number of tooth surfaces affected by caries) would reduce by 0.16 and 0.18, and the caries occurrence by 2.7% and 2.9% in LMIC and HIC respectively.

It has been recognised that no single action will be effective in reducing sugars intake to recommended threshold levels and that this is unlikely to be achieved by interventions that rely on individuals changing behaviour alone [118]. This umbrella review has indicated that SSB taxation alone would have a modest impact on disease levels. Moreover, these reductions in dental disease would likely have notable cost benefits due to the high direct costs incurred in treating dental caries and the indirect costs associated with the disease [119].

Findings in context of previous findings

Most modelling studies of the effect of SSB taxation on caries have reported on the impact on consumption of SSB but not reported the impact on quantitative measures of dietary sugars consumption per se [18,19,20]. However, Schwendicke et al. [17] using consumption data from the German National Nutrition Survey indicated a 20% tax had variable impacts across gender and SES groups. The most affect sugars intake being in lower income males (up to an average of 13.7 g/day in males aged 20–29 and 5.7 g/day in females aged 15–19 years). Three [29, 34, 36] of the four [27, 29, 34, 36] systematic reviews identified in this umbrella review that included analyses by SES also showed taxes to be more regressive in lower SES groups.

It has been suggested that taxes are most effective when price change is passed to the consumer [8]. However, few data were identified on the impact of different types of taxation. Only one high quality systematic review showed that nutrient based taxes were most effective, an observation also noted by the WHO [120]. Nutrient based taxes are not, however, always passed to the consumer; SSB taxation in the UK [121], which was a tiered system, based on different sugars thresholds, drove product reformulation to lower the sugars content of drinks available for purchase. The UK SSB has thus resulted in a dual benefit of lowering sugars of products available and deterring consumers from buying drinks with higher sugars content.

Limitations

Despite the advantage of umbrella reviews in being a method of review to capture large amounts of evidence in a short time frame, there are several limitations to be acknowledge. First, despite a broad search strategy, potentially relevant studies may have been omitted for example the databases selected did not include all databases available in LMIC e.g. African Index Medicus (AIMS), Index, Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR). Moreover, the process of screening, data extraction and analysis take time meaning that any relevant systematic reviews published after the search cut-off date and before publication of the umbrella review will be omitted. In this review, screening, extracting and quality appraisal of systematic reviews were carried out independently in duplicate. However, inadvertent systematic error during selection, appraisal or extraction cannot be ruled out. Umbrella reviews, by nature, are subject to limited coverage of evidence because if a study has not been included in a published systematic review, an umbrella review will not include it. In extracting data from this umbrella review, the estimates for caries reduction for LMIC may be conservative because the identified data on the dose response between sugars intake and development of dental caries came exclusively HIC. Sugars exposure may have a greater effect on caries in populations with less exposure to fluoride [122] and increased likelihood of undernutrition [123]. This umbrella review identified systematic reviews with data from most regions of the world, including the African, European, Southeast Asian, Western Pacific and The Region of the Americas. The data sources used in included systematic reviews covered a broad range of databases including those capturing publications from both HIC and LMIC for example Web of Science, SciElo and LILACS, However, some database capturing data from LMIC e.g. the African Index Medicus, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region were not searched by any review. Future systematic and umbrella reviews should select databases to ensure optimum geographic representation and to ensure all available data from LMIC are captured.

Most systematic reviews reported the impact of SSB taxation on EI with few studies reporting the direct impact on intake of sugars. Restricting included data to original studies identified in the included systematic reviews only may have missed some original data on the impact of taxation on sugars intake. However, to conduct a systematic review of original studies was beyond the scope of this analysis. In the present analysis, Atwater Factors were used to derive intake of sugars from reported changes in EI. This approach assumes that any change in EI is accounted for by a change in intake of sugars, which would underestimate the impact on sugars in scenarios where SSB were replaced with drinks containing energy from nutrients other than sugars (e.g., with milk substitution). For example, although Fletcher et al. [42] reported no impact of taxation on the intake of energy, due to substitution with other sources of energy, this does not equate to no reduction in intake of sugars.

In addition to data from the original studies on the average effect of SSB taxation on sugars intake, published pooled estimates of the mean consumption for HIC and for LMIC [11] were also used to estimate the impact on sugars intake. However, it must be noted that there is considerable variation in SSB intake between HIC and LMIC, which was not captured in this analysis.

Future research

Based on published data, this umbrella review has provided an indication of the reduction in dental caries that might result from SSB taxation in HIC and LMIC. Further cost-effective analysis based on these data will determine the likely impact on cost benefit to healthcare services in LMIC and HIC. The current study has also identified few data from LMIC exploring the dose response between amount of sugars intake and development of dental caries showing that identified data from LMIC pertaining to amount of sugars and dental caries are cross sectional. There is a need for more, well-conducted cohort studies, especially from LMIC, to explore the dose–response relationship between amount of sugars intake and development of dental caries.

Conclusion

Through an umbrella review, the best available evidence pertaining to the impact of SSB taxation on sugars intake and levels of dental caries in both HIC and LMIC has been identified. Evidence indicates a 20% tax would reduce sugars intake by 20.0% in HIC and 18.0% in LMIC, and per capita sugars intake by 4.0 g or more a day. This one intervention alone has a modest positive impact on oral health by reducing caries counts in both adults in both HIC and LMIC by 0.03, and caries prevalence in children by 2.7% and 2.9% for HIC and LMIC respectively.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

AMSTAR:

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews

CI:

Confidence interval

CINAHL:

Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

CPE:

Cross price elasticity

DMFS:

Decayed missing and filled tooth surfaces (permanent teeth)

dmfs:

Decayed missing and filled tooth surfaces (primary teeth)

DMFT:

Decayed missing and filled permanent teeth

dmft:

Decayed missing and filled primary teeth

EI:

Energy intake

G:

Grams

HIC:

High-income countries

JBI:

Joanna Briggs Institute

Kcal:

Kilocalorie

Kj:

Kilojoule

LMIC:

Low- and middle-income countries

MJ:

Mega-joule

NCDs:

Non-communicable diseases

OPE:

Own price elasticity

PED:

Price elasticity of demand

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

RoB:

Risk of bias

SSB:

Sugar-sweetened beverages

UK:

United Kingdom

WHA:

World Health Assembly

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. World Health Organization. Discussion paper draft global strategy on oral health. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabe E, Fleming TD, Reynolds AE, Vos T, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. J Dent Res. 2017;96(4):380–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moynihan PJ, Kelly SA. Effect on caries of restricting sugars intake: systematic review to inform WHO guidelines. J Dent Res. 2014;93(1):8–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Moores CJ, Kelly SAM, Moynihan PJ. Systematic review of the effect on caries of sugars intake: ten-year update. J Dent Res. 2022;101(9):1034–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. Guideline on sugars intake for adults and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization. WHO manual on sugar-sweetened beverage taxation policies to promote healthy diets. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benzian H, Guarnizo-Herreno C, Kearns C, Muriithi MW, Watt RG. The global oral health workforce reply. Lancet. 2021;398(10318):2245–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moynihan P, Miller C. Beyond the chair: public health and governmental measures to tackle sugar. J Dent Res. 2020;99(8):871–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Benzian H, Listl S. Global oral health in the international health policy spotlight-challenges and new opportunities for sustainable improvement. Bundesgesundheitsbla. 2021;64(7):871–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Watt RG, Daly B, Allison P, Macpherson LMD, Venturelli R, Listl S, et al. Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):261–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ooi JY, Wolfenden L, Sutherland R, Nathan N, Oldmeadow C, McLaughlin M, et al. A systematic review of the recent consumption levels of sugar-sweetened beverages in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization regions with high dietary-related burden of disease. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2022;34(1):11–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Turck D, Bohn T, Castenmiller J, de Henauw S, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Knutsen HK, et al. EFSA panel on nutrition, novel foods and food allergens (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022;20(2):7074–337. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.7074.

  13. Marriott BP, Hunt KJ, Malek AM, Newman JC. Trends in intake of energy and total sugar from sugar-sweetened beverages in the United States among children and adults, NHANES 2003–2016. Nutrients. 2019;11(9):2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11092004. PMID: 31450689; PMCID: PMC6770750.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Teng A, Snowdon W, Tin STW, Genc M, Na’ati E, Puloka V, et al. Progress in the Pacific on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: a systematic review of policy changes from 2000 to 2019. Aust NZ J Publ Heal. 2021;45(4):376–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Itria A, Borges SS, Rinaldi AEM, Nucci LB, Enes CC. Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a policy to reduce overweight and obesity in countries of different income classifications: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(16):5550–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Briggs ADM, Mytton OT, Elhussein A, Scarborough P. Econometric and comparative risk assessment scenario modelling of the proposed UK sugary drink tax on health. Lancet. 2016;388:S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32246-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwendicke F, Thomson WM, Broadbent JM, Stolpe M. Effects of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages on caries and treatment costs. J Dent Res. 2016;95(12):1327–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jevdjevic M, Trescher AL, Rovers M, Listl S. The caries-related cost and effects of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Public Health. 2019;169:125–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sowa PM, Keller E, Stormon N, Lalloo R, Ford PJ. The impact of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax on oral health and costs of dental care in Australia. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(1):173–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Urwannachotima N, Hanvoravongchai P, Ansah JP, Prasertsom P, Koh VRY. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage tax on dental caries: a simulation analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1061-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Aromataris E, Fernandez RS, Godfrey C, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-11.

  22. Hijishafiee MA, Kapellas K. Effects of taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages on consumption of sugars sweetened beverages, sugars consumption, and risk of dental caries: an umbrella review protocol. CRD42022293187. 2021. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Merrill A, Watt BK. Energy value of foods: basis and derivation. USDA Agricultural Handbook No 74. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1973.

  24. Obesity Evidence Hub. Prevention: tax and pricing. In: Countries that have taxes on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs). 2023. https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/countries-that-have-implemented-taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages-ssbs.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid-Based Hea. 2015;13(3):132–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2(12):e1350.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Teng AM, Jones AC, Mizdrak A, Signal L, Genc M, Wilson N. Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2019;20(9):1187–204.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Afshin A, Penalvo JL, Del Gobbo L, Silva J, Michaelson M, O’Flaherty M, et al. The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nakhimovsky SS, Feigl AB, Avila C, O’Sullivan G, Macgregor-Skinner E, Spranca M. Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce overweight and obesity in middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sobhani S, Babashahi M. Taxation for reducing purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: a systematic review. Int Arch Health Sci. 2019;6(2):65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergallo P, Castagnari V, Fernandez A, Mejia R. Regulatory initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in Latin America. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205694.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Redondo M, Hernandez-Aguado I, Lumbreras B. The impact of the tax on sweetened beverages: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;108(3):548–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Backholer K, Sarink D, Beauchamp A, Keating C, Loh V, Ball K, et al. The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages according to socio-economic position: a systematic review of the evidence. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3070–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Thow AM, Downs S, Jan S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: Understanding the recent evidence. Nutr Rev. 2014;72(9):551–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cabrera Escobar MA, Veerman JL, Tollman SM, Bertram MY, Hofman KJ. Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1072. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1072.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Maniadakis N, Kapaki V, Damianidi L, Kourlaba G. A systematic review of the effectiveness of taxes on nonalcoholic beverages and high-in-fat foods as a means to prevent obesity trends. Clinicoeconomic Outc. 2013;5:519–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013;14(2):110–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Andreyeva T, Chaloupka FJ, Brownell KD. Estimating the potential of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Prev Med. 2011;52(6):413–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Niebylski ML, Redburn KA, Duhaney T, Campbell NR. Healthy food subsidies and unhealthy food taxation: A systematic review of the evidence. Nutrition. 2015;31(6):787–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. SACN. Carbohydrates and health report supporting document; systematic review of the evidence carbohydrates and oral health. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition; 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report.

  41. Mahboobi Z, Pakdaman A, Yazdani R, Azadbakht L, Montazeri A. Dietary free sugar and dental caries in children: a systematic review on longitudinal studies. Health Promot Perspect. 2021;11(3):271–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. The effects of soft drink taxes on child and adolescent consumption and weight outcomes. J Public Econ. 2010;94(11–12):967–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Alvarado M, Unwin N, Sharp SJ, et al. Assessing the impact of the Barbados sugar-sweetened beverage tax on beverage sales: an observational study. Int J Behav Nutr Phy. 2019;16:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0776-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, et al. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: a before-and-after study. Plos Med. 2017;14(4):e1002283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Briggs ADM, Mytton OT, Kehlbacher A, Tiffin R, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ. 2013;347:f6189.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Briggs ADM, Mytton OT, Madden D, O’Shea D, Rayner M, Scarborough P. The potential impact on obesity of a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Ireland, an effect assessment modelling study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:860. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-860.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakamura R, Mirelman AJ, Cuadrado C, Silva-Illanes N, Dunstan J, Suhrcke M. Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: an observational study in urban areas. Plos Med. 2018;15(7):e1002596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002596.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Veerman JL, Sacks G, Antonopoulos N, Martin J. The impact of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on health and health care costs: a modelling study. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0151460.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Long MW, Gortmaker SL, Ward ZJ, Resch SC, Moodie ML, Sacks G, et al. Cost effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):112–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, Kanter GP. The short-term impacts of the Philadelphia beverage tax on beverage consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(1):26–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sturm R, Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Chaloupka FJ. Soda taxes, soft drink consumption, and children’s body mass index. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):1052–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lin BH, Smith TA, Lee JY, Hall KD. Measuring weight outcomes for obesity intervention strategies: the case of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Econ Hum Biol. 2011;9(4):329–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Zepeda-Tello R, Rodrigues ER, Colchero MA, Rojas-Martinez R, Lazcano-Ponce E, et al. Expected population weight and diabetes impact of the 1-peso-per-litre tax to sugar sweetened beverages in Mexico. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0176336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Basu S, Vellakkal S, Agrawal S, Stuckler D, Popkin B, Ebrahim S. Averting obesity and type 2 diabetes in India through sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an economic-epidemiologic modeling study. Plos Med. 2014;11(1):e1001582.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Taxing soft drinks and restricting access to vending machines to curb child obesity. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):1059–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Manyema M, Veerman LJ, Chola L, Tugendhaft A, Sartorius B, Labadarios D, et al. The potential impact of a 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on obesity in South African adults: a mathematical model. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Colchero MA, Guerrero-Lopez CM, Molina M, Rivera JA. Beverages sales in Mexico before and after implementation of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163463.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Colchero MA, Popkin BM, Rivera JA, Ng SW. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352:h6704.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Colantuoni F, Rojas C. The impact of soda sales taxes on consumption: evidence from scanner data. Contemp Econ Policy. 2015;33(4):714–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Waterlander WE, Mhurchu CN, Steenhuis IHM. Effects of a price increase on purchases of sugar sweetened beverages. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Appetite. 2014;78:32–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1865–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Aguilar A, Gutierrez E, Seira E. The effectiveness of sin food taxes: evidence from Mexico. J Health Econ. 2021;77:102455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Capacci S, Allais O, Bonnet C, Mazzocchi M. The impact of the French soda tax on prices and purchases. An ex post evaluation. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Caro JC, Corvalan C, Reyes M, Silva A, Popkin B, Taillie LS. Chile’s 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: an observational study in an urban environment. Plos Med. 2018;15(7):e1002597.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Castello JV, Lopez-Casasnovas G. Impact of SSB taxes on consumption. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Colchero MA, Molina M, Guerrero-Lopez CM. After Mexico implemented a tax, purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased and water increased: difference by place of residence, household composition, and income level. J Nutr. 2017;147(8):1552–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Fletcher JM, Frisvold DE, Tefft N. Non-linear effects of soda taxes on consumption and weight outcomes. Health Econ. 2015;24(5):566–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Batis C, Rivera JA, Popkin BM, Taillie LS. First-year evaluation of Mexico’s tax on nonessential energy-dense foods: an observational study. Plos Med. 2016;13(7):e1002057.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Alvarado M, Kostova D, Suhrcke M, Hambleton I, Hassell T, Samuels TA, et al. Trends in beverage prices following the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Barbados. Prev Med. 2017;105:S23–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Block JP, Chandra A, McManus KD, Willett WC. Point-of-purchase price and education intervention to reduce consumption of sugary soft drinks. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(8):1427–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Brown DM, Tammineni SK. Managing sales of beverages in schools to preserve profits and improve children’s nutrition intake in 15 Mississippi Schools. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(12):2036–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Shikany JM, Guilkey D, Jacobs DR, Popkin BM. Food Price and diet and health outcomes 20 years of the CARDIA study. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(5):420–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Gordon-Larsen P, Guilkey DK, Popkin BM. An economic analysis of community-level fast food prices and individual-level fast food intake: a longitudinal study. Health Place. 2011;17(6):1235–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Grogger J. Soda taxes and the prices of sodas and other drinks: evidence from Mexico. Mexico: Bureau of Economic Research, Inc; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  76. Ritter-Burga PI. Essays on obesity and oral health in developing countries. University of Chicago USA: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. 2016.

  77. Barquera S, Hernandez-Barrera L, Tolentino ML, Espinosa J, Ng SW, Rivera JA, et al. Energy intake from beverages is increasing among Mexican adolescents and adults. J Nutr. 2008;138(12):2454–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Claro RM, Levy RB, Popkin BM, Monteiro CA. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Brazil. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(1):178–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Paraje G. The effect of price and socio-economic level on the consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSB): the case of ecuador. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Ni Mhurchu C, Eyles H, Schilling C, Yang Q, Kaye-Blake W, Genc M, et al. Food prices and consumer demand: differences across income levels and ethnic groups. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Zhen C, Wohlgenant MK, Karns S, Kaufman P. Habit formation and demand for sugar-sweetened beverages. Am J Agr Econ. 2011;93(1):175–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Zhen C, Finkelstein EA, Nonnemaker JM, Karns SA, Todd JE. Predicting the effects of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on food and beverage demand in a large demand system. Am J Agr Econ. 2014;96(1):1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Nonnemaker J, Todd JE. Health care reform impact of targeted beverage taxes on higher- and lower-income households. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22):2028–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Bahl R, Bird R, Walkerm MB. The uneasy case against discriminatory excise taxation; soft drink taxation in Ireland. Public Finance Review. 2003;31:510–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Gustavsen G. Public policies and the demand for carbonated soft drinks: a censored quantile regression approach. Copenhagen: European Association of Agricultural Economists; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Can Soft drink taxes reduce population weight? Contemp Econ Policy. 2010;28(1):23–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Smith TA, Lin BH, Lee JY. Taxing calorie sweetened beverages: poteintal effects on beverage consumption, calorie intake, and obesity. Washington DC: Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Dharmasena S, Capps O. Intended and unintended consequences of a proposed national tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to combat the U.S. obesity problem. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):669–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Lopez RA, Fantuzzi KL. Demand for carbonated soft drinks: implications for obesity policy. Appl Econ. 2012;44(22):2859–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Wang YC, Coxson P, Shen YM, Goldman L, Bibbins-Domingo K. A penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would cut health and cost burdens of diabetes. Health Affair. 2012;31(1):199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Bonnet C, Requillart V. Sugar policy reform, tax policy and price transmission in the soft drink industry. Working Paper No. 4. Transparency of Food Pricing (TRANSFOP) project. Brussels: Toulouse School of Economics. 2012.

  92. Dharmasena S, Davies GC, Capps OJ, editors. Partial versus genearl equilibrium calorie and revenue effects of a sugar-sweetened beveraged tax. Pittsburgh: Joint Annula Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and the North-eastern Agricultural and Applied Economics Association; 2011 July 24–26; 2011.

  93. Gustavsen GW, Rickertsen K. The effects of taxes on purchases of sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks: a quantile regression approach. Appl Econ. 2011;43(6):707–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Bilger M, Nonnemaker J, Farooqui AM, Todd JE. Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):219–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Brown MG, Lee J-Y, Seale JL. Demand relationships among juice beverages: a differential demand system approach. J Agric Appl Econ. 1994;26(2):417–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Brown MG. Impact of income on price and income responses in the differential demand system. J Agric Appl Econ. 2008;40(2):593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Dharmasena S, Capps O. On Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages to combat the obesity problem. Denver: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Canandian Agricultrual Economics Society, and Western Agricultral Economics Association Joint Annual Meeting; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Dharmasena S, Capps O. Demand interrelationships of at home non¬alcoholic beverage consumpion in the United States. Milwaukee: Demand interrelationships of at home non¬alcoholic beverage consumpion in the United States. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and American Council on Consumer Interests Joint Annual Meeting; July 28, 2009; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Pofahl GM, Capps O, Clauson A. Demand for non-alcoholic beverages: evidence from the ACNielsen Home Scan Panel. Providence: American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting; July 24–27; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Yen ST, Lin B-H, Smallwood DM, Andrews M. Demand for nonalcoholic beverages: The case of low-income households. Agribusiness. 2004;20(3):309–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Zheng Y, Kaiser HM. Estimating asymmetric advertising response: an application to U.S. nonalcoholic beverage demand. J Agric Appl Econ. 2008;40(3):837–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zheng Y, Kaiser HM. Advertising and U. S. nonalcoholic beverage demand. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 2008;37(2):147–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Sturm R, Datar A. Regional price differences and food consumption frequency among elementary school children. Public Health. 2011;125(3):136–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Bernabe E, Vehkalahti MM, Sheiham A, Lundqvist A, Suominen AL. The shape of the dose-response relationship between sugars and caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2016;95(2):167–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Burt BA, Eklund SA, Morgan KJ, Larkin FE, Guire KE, Brown LO, et al. The effects of sugars intake and frequency of ingestion on dental-caries increment in a 3-year longitudinal-study. J Dent Res. 1988;67(11):1422–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Szpunar SM, Eklund SA, Burt BA. Sugar consumption and caries risk in schoolchildren with low caries experience. Community Dent Oral. 1995;23(3):142–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Rugg-Gunn AJ, Hackett AF, Appleton DR, Jenkins GN, Eastoe JE. Relationship between dietary habits and caries increment assessed over two years in 405 English adolescent school children. Arch Oral Biol. 1984;29(12):983–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Rugg-Gunn AJ, Hackett AF, Appleton DR. Relative cariogenicity of starch and sugars in a 2-year longitudinal study of 405 English schoolchildren. Caries Res. 1987;21(5):464–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Ruottinen S, Karjalainen S, Pienihakkinen K, Lagstrom H, Niinikoski H, Salminen M, et al. Sucrose intake since infancy and dental health in 10-year-old children. Caries Res. 2004;38(2):142–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Karjalainen S, Soderling E, Sewon L, Lapinleimu H, Simell O. A prospective study on sucrose consumption, visible plaque and caries in children from 3 to 6 years of age. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(2):136–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Burt BA, Szpunar SM. The Michigan study: the relationship between sugars intake and dental caries over three years. Int Dent J. 1994;44(3):230–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Barrington G, Khan S, Kent K, Brennan DS, Crocombe LA, Bettiol S. Obesity, dietary sugar and dental caries in Australian adults. Int Dent J. 2019;69(5):383–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Rosier BT, van Loveren C, Zaura E, Loos BG, Keijser BJF, Crielaard W, et al. Caries incidence in a healthy young adult population in relation to diet. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2017;2(2):142–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Chi DL, Hopkins S, O’Brien D, Mancl L, Orr E, Lenaker D. Association between added sugar intake and dental caries in Yup’ik children using a novel hair biomarker. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Olczak-Kowalczyk D, Turska A, Gozdowski D, Kaczmarek U. Dental caries level and sugar consumption in 12-year-old children from Poland. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2016;25(3):545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Saw WS, Nik-Shanita S, Zahara BAM, Tuti MND, Poh BK. Dietary intake assessment in adults and its association with weight status and dental caries. Pak J Nutr. 2012;11:1066–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Mitrakul K, Asvanund Y, Arunakul M, Srisuchat N, Chotthanakarn N, Praisuwanna N, et al. Assessing associations between caries prevalence and body mass index and nutritional data among children aged 6–12 years. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2016;47(1):152–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Public Health England. Sugars reduction: the evidence for action. London: HMSO; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Kastenbom L, Falsen A, Larsson P, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, Davidson T. Costs and health-related quality of life in relation to caries. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0874-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. World Health Organization. Fiscal policies for diet and prevention of non-communicable diseases: technical meeting report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Pell D, Mytton O, Penney TL, Briggs A, Cummins S, Penn-Jones C, et al. Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2021;372:n254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Ha DH, Spencer AJ, Moynihan P, Thomson WM, Do LG. Excess risk of dental caries from higher free sugars intake combined with low exposure to water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 2021;100(11):1243–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Tanner L, Craig D, Holmes R, Catinella L, Moynihan P. Does dental caries increase risk of undernutrition in children? Jdr Clin Transl Res. 2022;7(2):104–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank library liaison officer Vikki Langton for assistance with the search strategies and Dr. Benoit Varenne, Oral Health Programme Officer, WHO for comments the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Maryam Hajishafiee, Kostas Kapellas & Paula Moynihan

  2. Department of Dentistry - Quality and Safety of Oral Health Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Stefan Listl & Madhuri Pattamatta

  3. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

    Athanasios Gkekas

Authors
  1. Maryam Hajishafiee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kostas Kapellas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Listl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Madhuri Pattamatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Athanasios Gkekas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paula Moynihan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Paula Moynihan, Stefan Listl and Maryam Hajishafiee developed the study protocol. Maryam Hajishafiee and Kostas Kapellas conducted the literature searches. Maryam Hajishafiee and Paula Moynihan mapped and extracted the data. Maryam Hajishafiee, Paula Moynihan and Kostas Kapellas conducted quality assessments of included reviews. Paula Moynihan, Madhuri Pattamatta and Athanasios Gkekas contributed to the data analysis and critically appraised the dose response data. Maryam Hajishafiee and Paula Moynihan drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Moynihan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

P Moynihan is a member of the Oral Health Advisory Council of Haleon (formally GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare) and her institution receives a fee with respect to this. Other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search Strategies.

Additional file 2.

Excluded studies.

Additional file 3.

Data extraction forms for included systematic reviews addressing Questions 1 and 2.

Additional file 4.

Data extraction forms for included systematic reviews addressing Question 3.

Additional file 5.

AMSTAR results for included systematic reviews and evidence syntheses.

Additional file 6.

Summary of original studies identified in included reviews addressing Question 1.

Additional file 7.

Details of original studies with data on sugars intake.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hajishafiee, M., Kapellas, K., Listl, S. et al. Effect of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation on sugars intake and dental caries: an umbrella review of a global perspective. BMC Public Health 23, 986 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15884-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15884-5

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us