research paper on soft drinks pdf

Advertisement

Impact of soft drinks to health and economy: a critical review

• Original Scientific Article
• Open access
• Published: 08 June 2019
• Volume 21 , pages 109–117, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• J. F. Tahmassebi 1 &
• A. BaniHani 1  

100k Accesses

68 Citations

219 Altmetric

27 Mentions

Explore all metrics

To provide information regarding the different types of soft drinks and critically reviewing their risk on the dental and general health of children and adolescents, as well as the cost associated with such drinks.

The literature was reviewed using electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and was complemented by cross-referencing using published references list from reviewed articles. Search words; soft drinks, juices, carbonated drinks, sports and energy drinks, soft drink and dental diseases, soft drink and health, cost of soft drinks, soft drink advertising, sugar tax on soft drinks were used for this review. In total, 104 papers were reviewed by both authors; of these, 62 papers were found to have relevant information.

The consumption of soft drinks was found to have increased dramatically over the past several decades. The greatest increase in soft drink consumption has been among children and adolescents. Some commercial soft drinks are high in sugar content and acidity. In addition, they supply energy only and are of little nutritional benefit and lack micro-nutrients, vitamins and minerals. Soft drink consumption can contribute to detrimental oral and general health. Efforts have been made by manufacturers and government agencies to reduce the potential harmful effects of sugar-containing soft drinks on teeth and general health. These include banning the sale of soft drinks in schools, restricting soft drinks advertising, modifying the composition of soft drinks and introducing tax on sugar-containing soft drinks.

Conclusions

The consumption of soft drinks with high sugar content and acidity can contribute to detrimental oral health and may also affect general health. Therefore, it is necessary to educate patients about the harmful effects of different types of soft drinks as it is not always easy for individuals to identify from drink labelling the ingredients which they contain.

Similar content being viewed by others

The top five selling UK energy drinks: implications for dental and general health

The impact of sugar-sweetened beverages tax on oral health-related outcomes: a systematic review of the current evidence

Association between Sugar Intake, Oral Health, and the Impact on Overall Health: Raising Public Awareness

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Soft drinks include carbonated drinks, still and juice drinks, dilutables, fruit juices, bottled waters, sports and energy drinks (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ). According to the British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report ( 2016 ), the overall consumption of soft drinks in the UK has increased slightly from 2010 to 2015 by 0.2%. In 2015; 13.3 billion litres of soft drinks were consumed compared with 13.2 in 2010 with more than half (58%) of the consumption was of no or low calorie types (0–20 kcal per 100 ml).

Commercial soft drinks first appeared in 1884 when a product called “Moxie” was made by a drugstore owner in Lisbon Falls in the USA (Tahmassebi et al. 2006 ). Soon afterwards, similar products appeared including Coca-Cola ® and Pepsi-Cola ® . Over the past century, soft drinks have changed dramatically from being a local pharmacy product to worldwide industry that earns $60 billion and produce 1 billion litres per year. These changes have been due to advances in manufacturing technology and marketing innovations (Shenkin et al. 2003 ).

Some soft drinks have been suggested to have a harmful effect on the dental and general health of people including children and adolescents (Al-Majed et al. 2002 ; Sayegh et al. 2002 ; Harding et al. 2003 ; Luo et al. 2005 ; Tahmassebi et al. 2006 ; Cheng et al. 2009 ; Vartanian et al. 2011 ; Malik et al. 2010 ; Chi and Scott 2019 ). The high content of sugar and acids, which have cariogenic and acidogenic potential, can contribute to dental caries, tooth erosion, as well as contributing to health effects such as overweight and obesity and may be associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Efforts have been made by manufacturers and government agencies to reduce the potential harmful effects of sugar-containing soft drinks on teeth and general health. These include banning the sale of soft drinks in schools, restricting soft drinks advertising, modifying the composition of soft drinks and introducing tax on sugar-containing soft drinks.

This paper aims to provide information regarding the different types of soft drinks and their risk on the dental and general health of children and adolescents and the use of artificial sweeteners in soft drinks and a discussion of the cost associated with such drinks.

Materials and methods

Research question.

What are the different types of soft drinks and their risk on the dental and general health of children and adolescents including the use of artificial sweeteners as well as the cost associated with such drinks?

Search strategy

The literature was reviewed by both authors (AB and JT) using electronic databases, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and was complemented by cross-referencing using published references list from reviewed articles. Search words included soft drinks, juices, carbonated drinks, sports and energy drinks, soft drink and dental diseases, soft drink and health, cost of soft drinks, soft drink advertising, and sugar tax on soft drinks were used for this review. For Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, studies related to the MeSH heading of ‘soft drinks’ or the terms ‘juices’, ‘carbonated drinks’, or ‘sports and energy drinks’ together with the MeSH headings of ‘soft drink and dental diseases’, ‘soft drink and health’, ‘cost of soft drink’, ‘soft drink advertising’, or ‘sugar tax on soft drinks’ were combined. Papers were initially reviewed by assessing the title and abstract followed by the full paper. In total, 104 papers were reviewed; of these, 62 papers were found to have relevant information.

The search strategy is summarised in Fig.  1 . The inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in Table  1 .

Summary of search strategy with inclusions and exclusions

Different types of soft drinks

Modern drinks now contain carbon dioxide for carbonation. Carbonated soft drinks accounted for the largest category of these drinks in 2016, with a market share of 38% in the UK (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ). Carbon dioxide, a common factor to all carbonates, is added to make drinks fizzy. Other ingredients include water, sugar (sucrose, glucose, and fructose), intense sweeteners (discussed later), acid (citric acid, malic acid, and phosphoric acid), fruit juice, preservatives, flavourings, and colours. Currently, low- and no-calorie drinks make up 45% of the category, with a further 5% being mid-calorie (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ).

Some drinks are made with concentrates that require dilution to taste by consumers, such as squashes, and cordials, accounted for the second largest share (22%) of overall soft drink consumption in 2016. There is a dominance of low- and no-calorie variants within this category (87%), providing lower calorie refreshment for adults and children alike (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ). Fruit juice is 100% pure juice which is made from the flesh of fresh fruit or from whole fruit, depending on the type used. No sugar, sweeteners, preservatives, flavourings or colourings are added to fruit juice. They contain cells or bits of fruit pulps and vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Fruit juice accounted for 7% of total soft drink consumption in UK (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ).

Sport drinks are another popular drinks especially amongst adolescents and young adults and they contain water, carbohydrate mainly glucose, maltodextrin as well as fructose, and electrolytes such as sodium, potassium and chloride (Coombes and Hamilton 2002 ; Coombes 2005 ; British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ). The electrolytes are added to improve palatability and to help maintain fluid/electrolyte balance. Sport drinks aim to prevent dehydration, and enhance the athletic physical performance before, during or after sporting activity. They replace fluids and electrolytes/minerals lost by sweating and supply a boost of carbohydrates. The additional benefits of sport drinks over water alone in reducing the effect of dehydration resulting from exercise on cardiovascular dynamics, temperature regulation and exercise performance have been questioned (Coombes and Hamilton 2002 ; Coombes 2005 ; Seifert et al. 2011 ; Jean 2017 ). For most individuals engaged in physical activity, no clear evidence was found to support the additional performance benefits of soft drinks over water alone (Coombes and Hamilton 2002 ; Coombes 2005 ; Jean 2017 ). Although these drinks are designed to help athletes, they have become popular over recent years with the general population especially the younger generation and are being consumed socially (Coombes and Hamilton 2002 ; Coombes 2005 ).

Conversely, energy drinks are glucose based that supply a boost of energy from caffeine, guarana, taurine, and ginseng (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ). Energy drinks contain high amount of sugar and caffeine; therefore, they can enhance the mental and physical performance, improve alertness, concentration, endurance and mood (Bunting et al. 2013 ). The caffeine content and concentration vary widely between various brands and labelling of the amount of caffeine presents in these drinks is not mandated by the Food and Drug Administration of the USA (Rath 2012 ).

Currently, the sport and energy drinks sector in the UK market has a share of 6% and worth over £2 billion (Bunting et al. 2013 ; British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ). Low- and no-calorie made up only 5% of the category with 62% of the energy drinks sold in the market are of the regular type.

It is encouraging to see that the consumption of bottled waters in UK has increased significantly from 2 billion litres (14.8%) in 2010 to nearly 3 billion litres (19.3%) in 2015. Likewise, in USA, total consumption of bottled water increased from 54 billion litres in 2015 to 58 billion litres in 2016, an increase of nearly 9%. The sales of bottled water surpassed carbonated soft drinks to become the largest beverage category by volume in the USA in 2016 (International Bottled Water Association 2017 ).

Effect of soft drinks on dental health

Dental caries is a multifactorial disease that is affected by several factors including salivary flow and composition, exposure to fluoride, consumption of dietary sugars, and by oral hygiene practices (González-Aragón Pineda et al. 2019 ).

Regular (non-diet)-soft drinks excluding bottled waters contain large amounts of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup that have cariogenic potential; a typical 350-ml can of regular carbonated soft drink contains approximately 10 teaspoons (40 g) of these sugars (Table  2 ). Long-term and frequent consumption of regular-soft drinks with high sugar content may induce dental caries. Many studies have shown a positive relationship between caries and intake of soft drinks (Al-Majed et al. 2002 ; Sayegh et al. 2002 ; Harding et al. 2003 ; Luo et al. 2005 ; Cheng et al. 2009 ; Chi and Scott 2019 ). The greatest risk for caries development in children is associated with the consumption of soft drink between meals rather than with meals.

Unfortunately, dental caries is the most common reason for children aged 5–9 years to be admitted to hospital in UK when poor oral health is largely preventable (The Royal College of Surgeons of England 2015 ; BaniHani et al. 2019 ). In 2013–2014, nearly 46,500 children and young people under 19 years old in England were admitted to hospital for a primary diagnosis of dental caries from which over 55% of the cases were between 5 and 9 years old. This figure has increased by 14% from 2010 to 2011 and it continues to increase year on year. Dental rehabilitation under general anaesthesia (GA) is considered as a distressing experience for many children and their parents, and it carries risk of morbidity including postoperative pain, sleepiness, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, and mortality (Atan et al. 2004 ). This approach to dental care comes at a cost to health services as well. For example, in 2012–2013, the NHS spent £30 million on hospital-based tooth extractions for children aged 18 years and under with average cost of £837 for treatment under GA (The Royal College of Surgeons of England 2015 ; BaniHani et al. 2019 ).

The solubility of dental tissues is affected by a pH and titratable acidity of both the oral cavity and the soft drink. When oral pH drops below the pH of 5.5, enamel dissolution occurs (Chowdhury et al. 2018 ). Most soft drinks excluding bottled waters have a pH that ranges from 2.5 to 3.5 with an average pH of 3.44 for the carbonated drinks and fruit juices (Table  2 ) (Chowdhury et al. 2018 ). In addition, they contain acids that have erosive potential mainly carbonic acid, phosphoric acid, malic acid, and citric acid (Shenkin et al. 2003 ; González-Aragón Pineda et al. 2019 ). Therefore, the consumption of soft drinks with high acidic content, both regular- and diet/zero-calories types, is significantly associated with dental erosion (Al-Majed et al. 2002 ; Sayegh et al. 2002 ; Harding et al. 2003 ; Luo et al. 2005 ; Cheng et al. 2009 ; Tahmassebi et al. 2014 ; Pachori et al. 2018 ). Dental erosion can contribute to significant tooth surface loss (TSL) not only in adults but also in children and adolescents resulting in teeth sensitivity, eating and drinking difficulties as well as dissatisfaction with appearance (Milosevic 2017 ).

The total acid level rather than the pH of the beverage, known as titratable acid, determines the actual hydrogen ion availability for interaction with the tooth surface, and is considered as an important factor in development of dental erosion (Tahmassebi et al. 2014 ). Other important factors include the type of acid and its calcium chelating properties, exposure time to the acidic drink, temperature, and the concentration of the modifying substances in the acidic beverage including the calcium, phosphate and fluoride (Zero 1996 ) (Table  3 ).

It has been shown that dental erosion is associated with the drinking methods. Frequent consumption of fruit drink, carbonated beverage and fruit juice as well as bedtime consumption increased the severity of dental erosion (Milosevic 2017 ). Holding the drink longer and swishing it around the mouth lead to a more pronounced pH drop (Eisenburger and Addy 2003 ). The latter can be enhanced by higher temperature of the acid; whereas, the use of a straw while drinking has been shown to reduce the risk of acid erosion (Tahmassebi and Duggal 1997 ).

In an attempt to reduce overweight, obesity and dental caries among populations, diet soft drinks were introduced. Diet (alternatively marketed as sugar-free, zero-calorie or low-calorie) drinks are sugar-free, artificially sweetened versions of carbonated soft drinks with virtually no calories. They are generally marketed toward health conscious people, diabetics, athletes, and other people who want to lose weight, improve physical fitness, or reduce their sugar intake (Weihrauch and Diehl 2004 ; Whitehouse et al. 2008 ; Tandel 2011 ; Gardner et al. 2012 ; Pearlman et al. 2017 ). Although diet soft drinks are non-cariogenic as they contain artificial sweeteners, they contain phosphoric and citric acid at a similar level as the regular beverages which contribute to the total acidic challenge potential on enamel (Roos and Donly 2002 ; Shenkin et al. 2003 ). Diet soft drinks often have a high erosive potential that can enhance enamel demineralisation and contribute to dental erosion as sugar-containing soft drinks (Tahmassebi et al. 2006 ). Ali and Tahmassebi ( 2014 ) reported in an in vitro study that diet-Coca cola ® was acidic with an inherent pH value (pH 2.61) and low titratable acidity.

The management of dental erosion is an area of clinical practice that is undoubtedly expanding. Depending on the degree of tooth wear and symptoms, management can range from monitoring and fluoride treatment to tooth restoration including the placement of composite resin, glass ionomer fillings, and veneers (Milosevic 2017 ). The cost of placing and replacing a restorative material can be high.

Effect of soft drinks on general health

Soft drinks are often high in sugar content and acidity (Table  2 ). Each gram of sugar contains 4 calories. In addition, they supply energy only and are of little nutritional benefit (Bucher and Siegrist 2015 ; Chi and Scott 2019 ). Several studies have shown that soft drink with high sugar and acid content consumption can contribute to detrimental general and oral health effects on children and adolescents including an increasing risk of overweight, obesity, type 2 diabetes, dental caries and dental erosion (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition 2015 ; Chi and Scott 2019 ).

Obesity has recently emerged as a major global health problem. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recommend a diet where a maximum 5% of the energy comes from free sugars. The SACN ( 2015 ) reported that nearly a third of children aged 2–15 years living in the UK are overweight or obese, and that younger generations are becoming obese at earlier ages and staying so for longer. In the USA, two out of three adults and one out of three children are overweight or obese with over 18% of 6–19 year olds are above the 95th percentiles of body mass index (BMI), for age and gender (Ogden et al. 2014 ).

A rising consumption of sugar-containing soft drinks has been suggested as a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. The increase in intake of sugar-containing soft drink has coincided with rising body weights and energy intakes in several populations. In the USA, the per capita annual consumption of regular soft drink increased by 86% between 1970 and 1997 alone. During that period of time, the prevalence of obesity rose by 112% (Flegal et al. 2000 ).

Overweight and obesity can have major costs for individuals and their families as well as for the health care systems. It increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and heart disease as well as doubles the risk of dying prematurely (Pischon et al. 2008 ).

Type 2 diabetes has also emerged as a global public health concern, parallel to the global trends in the prevalence of obesity. Along with the increased consumption of soft drinks, there has been a rapid and large increase in the reported incidence of type 2 diabetes (Hu and Malik 2010 ; Greenwood et al. 2014 ).

In a systematic review by Vartanian et al. ( 2011 ), high consumption of soft drinks was related to low consumption of milk, calcium, fruit and dietary fibres contributing to an overall poorer diet. In addition, in two studies by Whiting et al. ( 2001 ) and McGartland et al. ( 2003 ), the high intake of carbonated soft drinks during adolescence was significantly associated with reduced bone mineral density among girls aged 12 and 15 years. Calcium is found mainly in dairy products and is an essential nutrient for the structural integrity of bone and for maintaining bone density throughout life (Shenkin et al. 2003 ); whereas, carbonated soft drinks contain mostly empty calories (Whiting et al. 2001 ).

Energy drinks are often high in caffeine to enhance the mental and physical performance, improve alertness, and concentration (Bunting et al. 2013 ). The amount of caffeine in most of the energy drinks is usually three times the concentration in cola drinks. They are available in the market of more than 140 countries and are the fastest growing soft drink sector not only in the USA and UK but also worldwide (Seifert et al. 2011 ).

Although moderate consumption of caffeine can be tolerated by most healthy people, studies showed that its high consumption (> 400 mg per day) has been associated with adverse effects on health including anxiety, restlessness, aggression, headaches, and depression. A prolonged exposure to high intakes of caffeine, levels greater than 500–600 mg a day, can result in chronic toxicity leading to nervousness, nausea, vomiting, seizures and cardiovascular symptoms in severe cases (Seifert et al. 2011 ; Bunting et al. 2013 ; Jean 2017 ).

Artificial sweeteners in soft drinks and general health

Several artificial sweeteners are used to give diet soft drinks a sweet taste without sugar. They are called sugar substitutes because they provide the sweetness of sugars without the added calories, thus reducing the risk for obesity, and dental caries. However, their safety has been controversial (Whitehouse et al. 2008 ). The breakdown product of these sweeteners has controversial health and metabolic effects (Whitehouse et al. 2008 ). Some research has linked the consumption of artificial sweeteners with adverse health conditions including obesity, lymphomas, leukemias, cancers of the bladder, and brain, chronic fatigue syndrome, Parkinson`s disease, Alzheimer`s disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, and systemic lupus (Whitehouse et al. 2008 ). The carcinogenic potential of artificial sweeteners, mainly aspartame and saccharine, has been investigated. Exposure to these chemicals was associated with an increased risk of brain tumours and cancer of the bladder, in both male and female mice, respectively (Olney et al. 1996 ; Weihrauch and Diehl 2004 ). Another sweetener Saccharine ® was prohibited in Canada and banned in the USA following the results of two-generation study published by Arnold et al. ( 1983 ). However, the ban on Saccharine ® use in the USA was withdrawn in 1991; nevertheless, all food and soft drinks containing Saccharine ® have to carry a warning label to indicate that “Saccharine ® is a potential cancer causing agent”. Conversely, future research has failed to conclude that there is a clear causal relationship between aspartame, saccharine and other approved artificial sweeteners consumption, with health risks in humans at normal doses (Chattopadhyay et al. 2014 ). Therefore, the FDA has concluded that these sweeteners are safe at current levels of consumption and, as a result, the decision of placing warning labels on all products that contain saccharine was overturned in 2000 (Tandel 2011 ).

Some commercial soft drinks are high in sugar content and acidity and, therefore, their consumption can contribute to detrimental oral and general health. There is a clear association of soft drink intake with increased energy intake and body weight is evident in the literature (Malik et al. 2010 ; Vartanian et al. 2011 ; Basu et al. 2013 ; Powell et al. 2017 ). Soft drinks apart from the low- and zero-calories categories contain high sugar content. A daily addition of one 350-ml can of sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drink which contains 150 kcl and 40–50 g of sugar to a typical diet with no reduction in other caloric sources can lead to a weight gain of 6.75 kg within 1 year in adults (Apovian 2004 ). Moreover, soft drinks increase hunger, decrease satiety, and condition people to a high level of sweetness that produces a preference in other foods leading to excess energy intake. If normal dietary intake does not decrease by an equivalent amount of calories obtained from consuming soft drinks, then weight gain is very much to be expected (Malik et al. 2010 ; Vartanian et al. 2011 ).

Soft drinks can also contribute to type 2 diabetes through several mechanisms mainly by their ability to induce a weight gain, which is a risk factor for the development of the condition. In addition in the USA, some of these drinks contain high amounts of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates such as sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a key ingredient in some of sugar-sweetened beverages. Though HFCS is not currently a key ingredient in sugar-sweetened beverages in the UK or EU, changes to the EU quota system on sugar policy since 2017 may influence addition of HFCS in the soft drinks in the future. These types of carbohydrates can lead to hepatic lipogenesis and high dietary glycaemic load resulting in inflammation, insulin resistance and impaired B cell function, thereby fuelling the development of type 2 diabetes (Hu and Malik 2010 ; Caprio 2012 ; Greenwood et al. 2014 ).

The economic costs of obesity and its related ill-health are great too. In 2014/2015, it was estimated that the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK spent nearly £5.1 billion on the treatment of obesity and its related ill-health. A higher figure was reported in the USA where healthcare expenditures on overweight and obesity were estimated to be between $150 billion and $190 billion, attributing to 20% of total healthcare costs per year (Scharf and DeBoer 2016 ).

Several artificial sweeteners are used to give diet soft drinks a sweet taste without sugar. The consumption of artificial sweeteners has been found to promote weight gain rather than weight loss in several studies (Hampton 2008 ; Swithers and Davidson 2008 ; Pearlman et al. 2017 ). These studies showed that these sweeteners induce insulin production into the blood and in the absence of blood sugar, hypoglycaemia and increased food intake occur resulting in overweight and obesity.

Actions have been taken by few countries across the globe to tackle the obesity and dental caries. These include banning the sale of soft drinks in schools, restricting soft drinks advertising, modifying the composition of soft drinks and introducing tax on sugar-containing soft drinks. Sugar-containing soft drinks are banned for sale in schools in many countries.

In the UK, strict rules on sales of high-sugar and -acid content soft drinks in school were instigated in 2007. Beverages with added sugar including energy drinks are not permitted. Also, some schools have banned their students from bringing energy drinks into school from outside (British Soft Drinks Association Annual Report 2016 ).

Furthermore, governments in some countries such as the UK applied restrictions in marketing soft drinks to children online and on television (Al-Mazyad et al. 2017 ). Advertising is essential to the marketing of soft drinks with millions of dollars spent to promote their consumption. Food and beverage advertising increases the total demand and motivates brand switching (Powell et al. 2017 ). Children and youths are exposed to advertising from not only television, but also billboards, magazines, signs in stores and public places such as airports and subway stations, and now increasingly on technology such as iPad apps, and video games as well as social media (Scharf and DeBoer 2016 ). Social media are a relatively new medium through which soft drink manufacturers can uniquely target young people. The increased usage and importance of social media for young people make them vulnerable to highly personalised and targeted digital marketing campaigns by the food and beverage industry. Brownbill et al. ( 2018 ) explored how soft drinks are marketed to Australian young people, aged 13–25 years, through soft drink brand Facebook pages. The authors found that soft drink brands share highly engaging content on Facebook which seamlessly integrates their content into the lives of young people. Brands were found to align their products with common sociocultural values and practices such as masculinity, femininity, friendship, and leisure, which are regarded as important by young people today, thus portraying their products as having a normal place within their everyday lives. The results of the study suggested the need to monitor advertising via social media and the importance of understanding the exposure to, and impact on young people.

Australia, Sweden, and Belgium as well as UK are among the countries that have banned television advertisement of food high in sugar and fat during children’s programmes (Story and French 2004 ).

A number of countries across the globe have introduced a tax on sugar-containing soft drinks in an effort to reduce childhood obesity and dental caries including France, Finland, Hungary and Mexico (World Cancer Research Fund International 2008 ). Colchero et al. ( 2016 ) reported a 10% decrease of sugar-based soft drinks consumption and a 4% increase in the purchase of healthier alternatives such as bottled plain water among the Mexican population following the introduction of a tax on soft drinks in 2014. In addition, 39 states in USA have applied a tax on sugar-containing soft drinks sold either in food premises and/or vending machines (Centre for Science in the Public Interest 2011 ).

A new sugar tax on soft drinks, known as the soft drinks industry levy, was introduced in April 2018 on soft drinks with added sugar in UK to help tackle childhood obesity by reducing the consumption of soft drinks with added sugars. The levy applies to soft drinks that contain 5 grams or more of added sugar per 100 ml. Revenue from the levy is planned to be used to develop programmes that aim to reduce obesity and encourage physical activity for school age children (HM Revenue & Customs 2016 ). This action is expected to reduce the consumption of sugar-containing soft drinks by 1.6%, and it is hoped that it will encourage soft drinks manufacturer to reduce the sugar content of their products.

The consumption of soft drinks was found to have increased dramatically over the past several decades with the greatest increase among children and adolescents. Excessive intake of soft drinks with high sugar and acid content both regular and diet could cause detrimental impacts on dental and general health including dental caries, dental erosion, overweight, obesity and increased risk of type 2 diabetes. The sugar tax has raised the level of awareness; however, it is necessary to educate patients about the harmful effects of different types of soft drink as it is not always easy for individuals to know from drink labelling what they actually contain.

Ali H, Tahmassebi JF. The effects of smoothies on enamel erosion: an in situ study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2014;24:184–91.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Al-Majed I, Maguire A, Murray JJ. Risk factors for dental erosion in 5~6 year old and 12~14 year old boys in Saudi Arabia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:38–46.

Al-Mazyad M, Flannigan N, Burnside G, Higham S, Boyland E. Food advertisements on UK television popular with children: a content analysis in relation to dental health. Br Dent J. 2017;222:171–6.

Apovian C. Sugar-sweetened soft drinks, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2004;292:978–9.

Arnold DL, Krewski D, Munro IC. Saccharin: a toxicological and historical perspective. Toxicology. 1983;27:179–256.

Atan S, Ashley P, Gilthorpe MS, et al. Morbidity following dental treatment of children under intubation general anaesthesia in a day-stay unit. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2004;14:9–16.

Ayers KM, Drummond BK, Thomson WM, Kieser JA. Risk indicators for tooth wear in New Zealand school children. Int Dent J. 2002;52:41–6.

BaniHani A, Deery C, Toumba J, Duggal M. Effectiveness, costs and patient acceptance of a conventional and a biological treatment approach for carious primary teeth in children. Caries Res. 2019;53:65–75.

Basu S, McKee M, Galea G, Stuckler D. Relationship of soft drink consumption to global overweight, obesity, and diabetes: a cross-national analysis of 75 countries. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:2071–7.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bottled water—the nation’s healthiest beverage—sees accelerated growth and consumption. International Bottled Water Association. 2017. http://www.bottledwater.org/bottled-water-%E2%80%93-nation%E2%80%99s-healthiest-beverage-%E2%80%93-sees-accelerated-growth-and-consumption . Accessed Dec 2017.

British Soft Drink Association. Leading the Way. UK soft drinks annual report. 2016. http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/write/MediaUploads/Publications/BSDA_Annual_report_2016pdf . Accessed Sept 2017.

Brownbill AL, Miller CL, Braunack-Mayer AJ. The marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages to young people on Facebook. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018;42(4):354–60.

Bucher T, Siegrist M. Children’s and parents’ health perception of different soft drinks. Br J Nutr. 2015;113:526–35.

Bunting H, Baggett A, Grigor J. Adolescent and young adult perceptions of caffeinated energy drinks. A qualitative approach. Appetite. 2013;65:132–8.

Caprio S. Calories from soft drinks—do they matter. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1462–3.

Carbohydrates and Health. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report . Accessed Sept 2017.

Chattopadhyay S, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. Artificial sweeteners—a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2014;51:611–21.

Cheng R, Yang H, Shao MY, Hu T, Zhou XD. Dental erosion and severe tooth decay related to soft drinks: a case report and literature review. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2009;10:395–9.

Child Dental Health Survey 2013: Gov.Uk. 2015. http://www.gov.uk . Accessed Sept 2017.

Chi DL, Scott JM. Added sugar and dental caries in children: a scientific update and future steps. Dent Clin N Am. 2019;63:17–33.

Chowdhury CR, Shahnawaz K, Kumari PD, et al. Highly acidic pH values of carbonated sweet drinks, fruit juices, mineral waters and unregulated fluoride levels in oral care products and drinks in India: a public health concern. Perspect Public Health. 2018;1:1–9.

Google Scholar  

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.

Coombes JS, Hamilton KL. The effectiveness of commercially available sports drinks. Sports Med. 2002;29:181–209.

Coombes JS. Sports drinks and dental. Am J Dent. 2005;18:101–4.

Deery C, Wagner ML, Longbottom C, Simon R, Nugent ZL. The prevalence of dental erosion in United States and a United Kingdom sample of adolescents. Paediatr Dent. 2000;22:505–10.

Eisenburger M, Addy M. Influence of liquid temperature and flow rate on enamel erosion and surface softening. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:1076–80.

Existing soft drink taxes. Center for Science in the Public Interest. 2011. http://cspinet.org/liquidcandy/existingtaxes.html . Accessed Oct 2017.

Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Johnson CL. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2000. JAMA. 2000;288:1723–7.

Ganss C, Kilmek J, Giese K. Dental erosion in children and adolescents -a cross-sectional and logitudinal investigation using study models. Community Dent Oral Epideniol. 2001;29:264–71.

Gardner C, Wylie-Rosett J, Gidding CC, et al. Nonnutritive sweeteners: current use and health perspectives. Circulation. 2012;126:509–19.

Greenwood DC, Threapleton DE, Evans CE, et al. Association between sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;112:725–34.

González-Aragón Pineda ÁE, Borges-Yáñez SA, Irigoyen-Camacho ME, Lussi A. Relationship between erosive tooth wear and beverage consumption among a group of schoolchildren in Mexico City. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:715–23.

Hampton T. Sugar substitutes linked to weigh gain. JAMA. 2008;299:2137–8.

Harding MA, Whelton H, O’Mullane DM, Cronin M. Dental erosion in 5-year-old Irish school children and associated factors: a pilot study. Community Dent Health. 2003;20:165–70.

Hu FB, Malik VS. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiol Behav. 2010;100:47–54.

Jean G. How can we restrict the sale of sports and energy drinks to children? A proposal for a World Health Organization-sponsored framework convention to restrict the sale of sports and energy drinks. Aust Dent J. 2017;62(4):420–5.

Kazoullis S, Seow WK, Holcombe T, Newman B, Ford D. Common dental conditions associated with dental erosion in school children in Australia. Pediatr Dent. 2007;29:33–9.

Luo Y, Zeng XJ, Du MQ, Bedi R. The prevalence of dental erosion in preschool children in China. J Dent. 2005;33:115–21.

Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després JP, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation. 2010;12:1356–64.

McGartland C, Robson PJ, Murray G, et al. Carbonated soft drink consumption and bone mineral density in adolescence: the Northern Ireland Young Hearts project. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:1563–9.

Milosevic A. Acid erosion: an increasingly relevant dental problem. Risk factors, management and restoration. Prim Dent J. 2017;6(1):37–45.

Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. JAMA. 2014;311N:806–14.

Olney JW, Farber NB, Spitznagel E, Robins LN. Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame? J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1996;55:1115–23.

Pachori A, Kambalimath H, Maran S, et al. Evaluation of changes in salivary pH after intake of different eatables and beverages in children at different time intervals. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;11(3):177–82.

Pearlman M, Obert J, Casey L. The association between artificial sweeteners and obesity. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2017;19(12):64.

Pischon T, Boeing H, Hoffmann KM, et al. General and abdominal adiposity and risk of death in Europe. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2105–20.

Powell LM, Wada R, Khan T, Emery SL. Food and beverage television advertising exposure and youth consumption, body mass index and adiposity outcomes. Can J Econ. 2017;50(2):345–64.

Rath M. Energy drinks: what is all the hype? The dangers of energy drink consumption. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2012;24:70–6.

Roos EH, Donly KJ. In vivo dental plaque pH variation with regular and diet soft drinks. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:350–3.

Sayegh A, Dini EL, Holt RD, Bedi R. Food and drink consumption, sociodemographic factors and dental caries in 4–5-year-old children in Amman, Jordan. Br Dent J. 2002;193:37–42.

Scharf RJ, DeBoer MD. Sugar-sweetened beverages and children’s health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:273–93.

Seifert SM, Schaechter JL, Hershorin ER, Lipshultz SE. Health effects of energy drinks on children, adolescents, and young adults. Pediatrics. 2011;127:511–28.

Shenkin JD, Heller KE, Warren JJ, Marshall TA. Soft drink consumption and caries risk in children and adolescents. Gen Dent. 2003;51:30–6.

Soft drinks industry levy. HM Revenue & Customs. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy/soft-drinks-industry-levy . Accessed Sept 2017.

Story M, French S. Food advertising and marketing directed at children and adolescents in the US. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2004;1:1–3.

Swithers SE, Davidson TL. A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats. Behav Neurosci. 2008;122:161–73.

Tahmassebi JF, Duggal MS. The effect of different methods of drinking on the pH of dental plaque in vivo. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1997;7:249–53.

Tahmassebi JF, Duggal MS, Malik-Kotru G, Curzon ME. Soft drinks and dental health: a review of the current literature. J Dent. 2006;34:2–11.

Tahmassebi JF, Kandiah P, Sukeri S. The effects of fruit smoothies on enamel erosion. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2014;15:175–81.

Taji S, Seow WK. A literature review of dental erosion in children. Aust Dent J. 2010;55:358–67.

Tandel KR. Sugar substitutes: health controversy over perceived benefits. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2:236–43.

The state of children’s oral health in England. Royal College of Surgeons; England, 2015. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/report-childrens-oral-health/ . Accessed Sept 2017.

Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2011;97:667–75.

Weihrauch MR, Diehl V. Artificial sweeteners—do they bear a carcinogenic risk? Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1460–5.

Whitehouse CR, Boullata J, McCauley LA. The potential toxicity of artificial sweeteners. AAOHN J. 2008;56:251–61.

Whiting SJ, Healey A, Psiuk S, et al. Relationship between carbonated and other low nutrient dense beverages and bone mineral content of adolescents. Nutr Res. 2001;21:1107–15.

World Cancer Research Fund International, “Economic Tools”. 2008. http://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework/use-economic-tools . Accessed Sept 2017.

Zero DT. Etiology of dental erosion—extrinsic factors. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104:162–77.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Leeds School of Dentistry/Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Level 6, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9LU, UK

J. F. Tahmassebi & A. BaniHani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. F. Tahmassebi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tahmassebi, J.F., BaniHani, A. Impact of soft drinks to health and economy: a critical review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 21 , 109–117 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00458-0

Download citation

Received : 19 February 2019

Accepted : 03 June 2019

Published : 08 June 2019

Issue Date : February 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00458-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Carbonated drink
• Dental caries
• Dental erosion
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782
• Corpus ID: 17416346

Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

• L. Vartanian , M. Schwartz , K. Brownell
• Published in American Journal of Public… 28 February 2007
• Medicine, Agricultural and Food Sciences

Tables from this paper

1,844 Citations

Impact of water intake on energy intake and weight status: a systematic review., association between soft-drink intake and obesity, depression, and subjective health status of male and female adults, soft drinks consumption, diet quality and bmi in a mediterranean population, the utility of serving size in the measurement of soft drink consumption., nutritively sweetened beverage consumption and body weight: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized experiments.

• Highly Influenced

Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies

A 4-year prospective study of soft drink consumption and weight gain: the role of calorie intake and physical activity, a higher mediterranean diet adherence and exercise practice are associated with a healthier drinking profile in a healthy spanish adult population, is soft drink consumption associated with body composition a cross-sectional study in spanish adolescents., sugar-sweetened beverages and body mass index in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis., 119 references, soft drink consumption among us children and adolescents: nutritional consequences., soft drink consumption among us children and adolescents: nutritional consequences, associations of adequate intake of calcium with diet, beverage consumption, and demographic characteristics among children and adolescents, correlates of beverage intake in adolescent girls: the national heart, lung, and blood institute growth and health study., beverage consumption is not associated with changes in weight and body mass index among low-income preschool children in north dakota., comparison of dietary intakes associated with metabolic syndrome risk factors in young adults: the bogalusa heart study., beverages in the diets of american teenagers., relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis, , in adolescents : a randomized , controlled pilot study effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight, energy-dense snack food intake in adolescence: longitudinal relationship to weight and fatness., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Biomed Res Int

Health Safety of Soft Drinks: Contents, Containers, and Microorganisms

Dorota kregiel.

Institute of Fermentation Technology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Lodz University of Technology, Wolczanska 171/173, 90-924 Lodz, Poland

Soft drinks consumption is still a controversial issue for public health and public policy. Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted into the possible links between soft drink intake and medical problems, the results of which, however, remain highly contested. Nevertheless, as a result, increasing emphasis is being placed on the health properties of soft drinks, by both the industry and the consumers, for example, in the expanding area of functional drinks. Extensive legislation has been put in place to ensure that soft drinks manufacturers conform to established national and international standards. Consumers trust that the soft drinks they buy are safe and their quality is guaranteed. They also expect to be provided with information that can help them to make informed decisions about the purchase of products and that the information on product labels is not false or misleading. This paper provides a broad overview of available scientific knowledge and cites numerous studies on various aspects of soft drinks and their implications for health safety. Particular attention is given to ingredients, including artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives and to the lesser known risks of microbiological and chemical contamination during processing and storage.

1. Background

Modern soft drinks constitute a diverse group of products. They can be classified in several ways, for example, on the basis of their sugar and fruit juice content, flavoring, carbonation level, main nonwater ingredients, and functionality. Apart from drinking water, the most popular types of soft drinks are as follows: (i) ready-to-drink essence-flavored beverages; (ii) ready-to-drink beverages containing fruits or fruit juice; (iii) beverages ready-to-drink after dilution [ 1 ] ( Table 1 ). Functional drinks are a rapidly growing subsector of the market and include drinks enriched with juices, vitamins, and minerals; sports and energy drinks; wellness drinks and nutraceuticals. Many functional drinks have been developed to provide specific medical or health benefits, such as promoting heart health, improving immunity and digestion, and helping to boost energy [ 2 ] ( Figure 1 ). The target markets for functional beverages are diverse, and products are often tailored towards particular target markets, for instance, according to age and gender, with a growing focus on children, women, and seniors.

Functional drinks.

Types of soft drinks.

2. Legislation

Soft drinks intended for human consumption are covered by national regulations based on codes and standards [ 3 ]. For example, the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations prescribe quality, composition, and labelling standards which also apply to nonalcoholic beverage manufacturers [ 4 ]. Japanese legislation includes the Food Sanitation Act for food additives and labeling of processed foods. Japan also has a positive list of additives [ 5 ]. In Australia and New Zealand, Standard 2.6.2, Nonalcoholic Beverages and Brewed Soft Drinks, defines a number of products and sets certain compositional requirements for packaged water, electrolyte drinks, brewed soft drinks, and beverages [ 6 ]. In the United States, soft drinks are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Sections 401 (Food Standards) and 409 (Food Additives) regulate additives listed on the Food Additives Status List, formerly called Appendix  A of the Investigations Operations Manual (IOM), which includes those additives specified under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [ 7 ]. Soft drinks ingredients must comply with all applicable FDA safety requirements [ 8 ].

In the EU, beverages are subject to EU legislation on microbiological criteria, food additives, and general hygiene requirements for the production, storage, and trade of food products [ 9 , 10 ]. The four main EU regulations are as follows: (i) Regulation EC 1331/2008, which describes a common authorization procedure for food additives, enzymes, and flavorings; (ii) Regulation EC 1332/2008 on food enzymes; (iii) Regulation EC 1333/2008 on food additives, which lists (in Annexes II and III) approved food additives together with the food categories with which they may be used; and (iv) Regulation EC 1334/2008 on flavorings. Together, these regulations are often referred to as the “Package on Food Improvement Agents” (FIAP) [ 11 ]. In 2011, the FIAP was supplemented with the following new regulations: (i) Regulation EC 1129/2011, amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) number 1333/2008 on food additives; (ii) Regulation 1130/2011, amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) number 1333/2008 on food additives, food enzymes, food flavorings, and nutrients; and (iii) Regulation EC 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) number 1333/2008 with regard to steviol glycosides. In addition, a special program to evaluate food additives was established, set up by Regulation EC 257/2010. According to this regulation, the reevaluation of approved food additives must be completed by the end of (i) 2015 for food colors; (ii) 2018 for all additives other than colors and sweeteners; (iii) 2020 for food sweeteners.

3. Ingredients

Soft drinks typically contain water, sweetener (8 ÷ 12%, w/v), carbon dioxide (0.3 ÷ 0.6% w/v), acidulants (0.05 ÷ 0.3% w/v), flavorings (0.1 ÷ 0.5% w/v), colorings (0 ÷ 70 ppm), chemical preservatives (lawful limits), antioxidants (<100 ppm), and/or foaming agents (e.g., saponins up to 200 mg/mL). Some types of soft drink use sugar substitutes. However, certain ingredients may be hazardous to health if consumed in large quantities, and there is widespread concern generally with regard to preservatives and sweeteners. Therefore, while on the one hand there is a trend to produce ever wider ranges of more specialist soft drinks, there is also pressure to minimize the use of, in particular, artificial and synthetic additives and ingredients.

Conventional soft drinks contain 90 percent water, while diet soft drinks may contain up to 99% water. Drinking water includes trace amounts of various ions which alter its taste. Soft drinks manufacturers usually use softened water to prevent off-tastes from chlorine residues [ 12 ]. The most frequent methods of removing water hardness employ ion-exchange polymers or reverse osmosis. Other approaches include precipitation methods and sequestration using chelating agents. These procedures reduce the concentration of metal ions to approximately 50 ppm Mg and Ca [ 13 ]. Water for soft drinks should fulfill the physical, chemical, and microbiological criteria for drinking water according to European Directive EC 98/1983, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards [ 14 ].

3.2. Sugars and Sweeteners

With the exception of zero calorie products, soft drinks usually contain between 1% and 12% sugar (w/w). Sucrose, glucose, or fructose, in various forms, is used as natural carbohydrate sweeteners. The most common natural sweeteners provide glucose, the primary source of energy. Sucrose (saccharose) is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose molecules bound by an α -1,2 linkage. This sugar can preserve and enhance the flavor of a drink and gives a satisfying sensation. Other natural carbohydrate sweeteners are as follows: trehalose, isomaltulose (Palatinose), and D-tagatose [ 12 ]. Trehalose is a disaccharide composed of two glucose molecules bound by an α -1,1-linkage. This compound is characterized by high thermostability and a wide pH stability range. Its relative sweetness is around 45% that of sucrose. The metabolism of trehalose is similar to other disaccharides: Ingested trehalose is hydrolysed into glucose and absorbed in the small intestine [ 15 ]. Isomaltulose, like saccharose, is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, but in contrast to sucrose is joined by an α -1,6 glycosidic bond. Isomaltulose is a tooth-friendly disaccharide with slow energy release, low glycemic index, and mild sweetness [ 16 ]. Tagatose has a structure similar to that of fructose. It is almost as sweet as sucrose and has flavor-enhancing properties. Most ingested tagatose is fermented by colon microflora, resulting in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are then absorbed almost completely and metabolized.

As is well known, overconsumption of sugars can cause negative health effects, such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Natural sweeteners provide 1.5 ÷ 4.0 calories per gram and have been linked with weight gain [ 17 ]. Fructose contributes to the formation of advanced glycation end products, which may be factors in the onset of diabetes, hasten aging processes, and cause thickening of artery walls [ 18 ]. Since tagatose is absorbed slowly and only incompletely in the intestine, consuming excessive amounts may lead to flatulence and/or laxation [ 13 ].

Due to health, including dental health, concerns, alternative sweeteners are commonly added to soft drinks which are produced and labeled as containing “no added sugar” [ 18 ]. Most low-calorie beverages contain intense sweeteners, which have been approved for use within levels of Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and in accordance with the appropriate regulations. The most commonly used sweeteners (with maximum permitted dosage in the EU) are aspartame (600 mg/L), acesulfame K (350 mg/L), sucralose (300 mg/L), and saccharin (80 mg/L) [ 17 ].

Aspartame (E951) consists of two amino acids: L-phenylalanine and L-aspartic acid, esterified to methyl alcohol. This compound is 200 times sweeter than sucrose and leaves no unpleasant aftertaste. However, it is unstable at high temperatures and therefore is unsuitable for use in pasteurized beverages. Aspartame is also unstable in aqueous solutions, where it is gradually converted into diketopiperazine (DKP). In the body, aspartame is broken down into phenylalanine (about 50% by weight), aspartic acid (40%), and methanol (10%). Soft drinks with aspartame must carry a label indicating that the product contains phenylalanine, which can be harmful to individuals with phenylketonuria, who must strictly limit the intake of this amino acid. Aspartame is permitted in more than 100 countries in the world. Authorities that have approved aspartame include the FDA, the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA), and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) approved aspartame for use in food and beverages [ 19 ].

Acesulfame K (E950) is 200 times sweeter than sucrose, thermo- and pH-stable, and freely soluble in water. This compound is neither metabolized nor stored in the body. The FDA, FAO/WHO, JECFA, and the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Union (SCF) have concluded that acesulfame is safe for use in foods and beverages.

Sucralose (E955) is derived from sucrose through selective replacement by chlorine atoms of three hydroxyl groups. This compound is 600 times sweeter than sucrose but has no calories. Readily soluble in water and acid solutions, sucralose hydrolyses slowly to its monosaccharides. Sucralose has been determined safe by FAO/WHO, JECFA, and FDA and is permitted for use in beverages in more than 40 countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and Mexico [ 20 ]. In 2011, sucralose, along with other sugar substitutes, was cleared for use by the EFSA as a sweetener in food and beverages [ 21 ].

Saccharin (E954) is 300 times sweeter than sucrose but leaves a bitter/metallic aftertaste. Use of saccharin in foods dates back to 1907. This sweetener is permitted in more than 100 countries around the world [ 13 , 15 ].

Other less common sweeteners include thaumatin (E957) and stevioside (E960). Thaumatin is a mixture of proteins isolated from the katemfe fruit ( Thaumatococcus daniellii Benth) from West Africa. It is the most powerful natural sweetener, 2000 times sweeter than sugar. It is used in food as a safe sweetener and flavour modifier [ 12 ]. Stevioside is another intense sweetener, 200 times sweeter than sucrose, extracted from the leaves of the stevia plant ( Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni). It has a long history of use in several countries, including Japan and Paraguay [ 15 ]. Stevioside is permitted for use in many countries, including the USA, France, Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, Switzerland, and Malaysia. In Canada, stevia extract is sold as a natural health product. In Europe (except France), stevia is permitted as a dietary supplement but is not yet permitted for use as a sweetener in food and beverages [ 22 ]. In France, stevia extract (rebaudioside A) is permitted for use as a sweetener in foods and beverages [ 23 ]. Other sweeteners used more rarely in soft drinks include cyclamate, erythritol, and neotame [ 17 ]. Over the years, the number of available sweeteners has steadily increased.

3.3. Fruit Juices

Fruits and fruit juices are a rich source of various nutrients and bioactive compounds, such as fiber, sugars, organic acids, phosphates, minerals, and vitamins, as well as colors, flavors, and antioxidants [ 13 ]. The sugar content in natural fruit juices varies depending on the type of fruit. All fruit juices contain fructose but vary in their amounts of sucrose, glucose, and sorbitol. Lemons, limes, rhubarb, raspberries, blackberries, and cranberries are relatively low in sugars. For example, one tablespoon of fresh lemon juice has 4 calories. Fruit groups high in saccharides include grapes, tangerines, cherries, pomegranates, mangoes, figs, and bananas. About 12 medium-size grapes contain 52 calories [ 18 ].

Apart from sugars, vitamins, and minerals, fruits and fruit juices contain another important component of a balanced diet: fiber. Dietary fiber is defined as nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin, including starch or the nonstarch polysaccharides cellulose, hemicelluloses, pectins, hydrocolloids, and oligosaccharides. It has been confirmed that high-fiber diets can improve digestive health and help prevent heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, and some cancers [ 24 ]. Fruits rich in fiber include apples, blackberries, pears, and raspberries. One medium apple with its skin contains 4.4 grams of fiber, half a cup of fresh blackberries contain 3.8 grams, and a half-cup of raspberries contains 4 grams, while the same size serving of strawberries provides only 2 grams of dietary fiber. According to the US Department of Agriculture, regardless of age, weight, or gender, people should consume at least 14 grams of fiber for every 1 000 calories [ 25 ]. The EFSA recommends average dietary fiber intakes of 10 to 20 g per day for young children (<10 to 12 years), 15 to 30 g per day for adolescents, and 16 to 29 g per day for adults [ 26 ].

3.4. Acidity Regulators and Carbon Dioxide

The carbonation of soft drinks varies from 1.5 to 5 g/L. Carbon dioxide is supplied to soft drinks manufacturers either in solid form (as dry ice) or in liquid form maintained under high pressure in heavy steel containers. This process makes the drink more acidic, which serves to sharpen the flavor and taste [ 27 ]. It also helps preserve soft drinks for longer time [ 28 ]. Acidity regulators are used in soft drinks to improve their taste by balancing the sweetness. Human saliva is almost neutral (pH approximately 6.8), and when our taste receptors interact with acids in food or drink this sensation is perceived as sourness [ 29 ]. Acids also play an important role in the natural preservation of soft drinks [ 30 ].

In most of beverages, citric acid (E 330) is the first choice for use as an acid regulator, as it has several additional benefits, such as enhancing the activity of beneficial antioxidants and adding aroma. Malic acid (E 296) is used when strong flavor enhancement is required and mostly in combination with citric acid. Succinic acid (E 363) has a wide range of applications, including dairy and desserts, but due to regulations it can only be used in instant beverages to be prepared at home [ 27 ]. Citric acid, succinic acid, and phosphoric acid are all subject to EC Regulation 1333/2008 on Food Additives.

Phosphoric acid (E 338) has a strong effect on pH and is commonly used to give a specific taste profile to cola-type beverages. Use of phosphoric acid remains controversial, since it has been associated with adverse health effects. High levels of phosphorus in the blood, referred to as “hyperphosphatemia,” can lead to organ damage, most notably of the kidneys. Poor kidney function can raise levels of phosphorus in the blood, which in turn lowers calcium levels, increasing the risk of brittle bone disease. Moreover, increased serum phosphorus levels, as well as other mineral abnormalities, can individually and collectively contribute to vascular calcification and cardiovascular disease [ 31 – 33 ]. The EFSA has presented its opinion on the upper intake level of phosphorus, according to which healthy individuals can tolerate up to 3000 mg/day without negative effects. However, in some individuals mild gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported with supplemental intakes of >750 mg phosphorus per day [ 34 ]. Phosphoric acid and its derivatives were permitted in the European Union prior to 2009 and are therefore included in the program for reevaluation of food additives [ 35 ].

3.5. Flavorings and Colorings

The use of colorings in soft drinks serves several important functions: (i) making the product more aesthetically appealing; (ii) helping to correct for natural variations in color or for changes during processing or storage; (iii) contributing to maintaining the qualities by which the drink is recognized. There are three basic categories of colorings: natural colors, artificial colors, and caramels. Natural colorings can be extracted from plants, fruits, and vegetables and comprise two main categories: (i) yellow to orange carotenoids, extracted from plants; (ii) bright red to purple anthocyanins obtained commercially from a range of fruits and vegetables. Natural colorings are also added to soft drinks for their antioxidant properties [ 36 ]. Due to increasing consumer preference for natural colors, the trend in both the EU and the US markets in recent years has been for manufacturers and retailers to reduce the use of artificial colors in their products.

The use of colorings in EU countries must comply with Food Additives Regulation (EC) 1333/2008. All permitted colors are listed in Annex II and Annex III with limitations specified on their use. The EFSA's expert Scientific Panel which deals with food additives, the ANS Panel, has begun a reassessment of all permitted food colorings. For example, in 2013 the EFSA recommended that new tests be carried out to address the possible genotoxicity of Allura Red AC and other “sulphonated monoazo dyes”: Amaranth, Ponceau 4R, Sunset Yellow FCF, Tartrazine, and Azorubine/Carmoisine [ 37 ]. Another coloring, Ponceau 4R (E124), is an allergen, which may elicit intolerance in people allergic to salicylates (aspirin). It is also a histamine liberator, which may intensify symptoms of asthma. Ponceau 4R is even considered carcinogenic in some countries, including the USA, Norway, and Finland. It is currently on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) list of banned substances in the USA. The EFSA has decided to decrease the ADI for Ponceau 4R from 4 mg/kg to 0.7 mg/kg bodyweight per day [ 38 ].

Flavorings, in contrast to colorings, are used in comparatively small amounts, so consumer exposure is relatively low. European Union legislation defines the different types of flavorings as natural, natural-identical, and artificial. Based on work by the EFSA, in 2012 the European Commission established a list of flavorings which may be used in the EU. The EFSA has also developed guidelines which specify the data the industry should submit in order to facilitate the safety evaluation of new flavorings [ 39 ].

3.6. Preservatives

Chemical preservatives are used to improve the microbiological stability of soft drinks. The types of chemical preservatives that can be used depend on the chemical and physical properties of both the preservative and the beverage. The pH of the product, the presence of vitamins, the packaging, and the conditions of storage will determine what types of preservative, if any, should be used to prevent microbial growth. Sorbates (E 200–203), benzoates (E 210–213), and dimethyl dicarbonate (DMDC) (E 242) are permitted in ready-to-drink beverages in Europe.

Sorbates are very effective preservatives against bacteria, yeasts, and molds. The antimicrobial effectiveness of sorbates depends on the physical and chemical properties of the beverage. Sorbates and benzoates are often used in combination, especially in highly acidic drinks [ 40 ]. Sorbic acid affects yeast growth by inhibiting the uptake of amino acids and the function of sulfhydryl enzymes, while benzoic acid destroys the internal proton level of microbial cells [ 41 ].

Benzoic acid occurs naturally, notably in cranberries, cinnamon, plums, and currants and has been used to inhibit microbial growth for many years, including nonalcoholic beverages. Benzoate salts are particularly well suited for use in carbonated, nonalcoholic, and juice beverages. They are more stable than benzoic acid, more soluble in water, and work best at pH levels between 2 and 4.4. According to Battey et al. [ 41 ], the three significant growth predictors for spoilage yeasts are the variables: pH level, potassium sorbate, and sodium benzoate. However, benzoates react with ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and form benzene, especially if they are stored for extended periods at high temperatures. In the United States, the EPA has classified benzene as a known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure [ 42 ]. Despite the fact that producers have developed methods to prevent or minimize its occurrence, and the frequency and levels of benzene formation in soft drinks have not represented a risk to public health in the past, benzoates are being used more rarely in the industry. This is partly due to new processing techniques, which have reduced the need to use benzoates in soft drinks production. However, these preservatives are still necessary to maintain quality in some beverages.

DMDC is commonly used as a preservative in cold-sterilized soft drinks. DMDC is very reactive and rapidly breaks down when added to a substrate, such as a water-based beverage. The principal products are methanol and carbon dioxide; however, the methanol concentrations after treatment with DMDC are of no toxicological concern. DMDC performs a broad range of antimicrobial actions against yeasts, mould fungi, and bacteria. Dimethyl dicarbonate penetrates into the cell and deactivates enzymes, leading to the destruction of the microorganism [ 43 ]. Various international regulatory bodies have evaluated DMDC and concluded that there are no health or safety concerns when this preservative is used in permitted food categories at prescribed usage levels. The safety of DMDC was evaluated by the USFDA in 1988 and approved for use in wines as a yeast inhibitor up to a concentration of 200 mg/L. The European Scientific Committee on Food evaluated DMDC in 1990 and concluded that it was suitable for the cold sterilisation of soft drinks and fruit juices at levels up to 250 mg/L. DMDC was also evaluated in 1990 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. It was considered acceptable as a cold sterilising agent for beverages when used in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice up to a maximum concentration of 250 mg/L [ 44 ].

Sulfites are sulfur-containing compounds and have been used for centuries to reduce or prevent spoilage and to enhance the flavor or preserve freshness in fruit juices. However, in recent years sulfites, as well as sorbates and benzoates, have been associated with allergic reactions in some people, especially sufferers of asthma [ 12 ]. The FDA requires labeling on any food containing a sulfite concentration of more than 10 parts per million (ppm). EU legislation also states that the additives used in a product should be listed on the label so as to permit consumers to make informed choices and avoid certain additives when necessary [ 40 ].

The use of natural antimicrobial compounds in soft drinks has become a subject of concern for both consumers and industry. This is due to two primary factors. Firstly, the misuse and mishandling of various preservatives have resulted in a remarkable rise in the number of microorganisms, including some foodborne pathogens, which are more tolerant to food processing and preservation methods. Secondly, increasing consumer awareness of the potential negative impact of synthetic preservatives on health, in contrast to the benefits of natural additives, has generated interest in the development and use of natural products. Compounds derived from natural sources have antimicrobial properties against a broad range of foodborne pathogens and could be used as alternative preservatives, with the potential of enhancing the safety and quality of drinks [ 45 ].

Since the first scientific experiments on plant antimicrobial activity and chemical composition were documented in the second half of the 19th century, a wide range of food plants, including various berries and fruits, have been shown to inhibit microbial growth. Different plants belonging to various families possess strong antimicrobial properties. For example, the Rosaceae family includes several species which are well known for their antibacterial activity, such as cloudberries ( Rubus chamaemorus ), raspberries ( Rubus idaeus ), strawberries ( Fragaria ananassa ), blackberries ( Rubus fruticosus ), chokeberries ( Aronia melanocarpa ), and European rowan ( Sorbus aucuparia ) [ 46 , 47 ]. The list of plants which exhibit antimicrobial effects is long, over 1000 fruits and herbs [ 48 ].

The antimicrobial activity of plant extracts is based on phenolics (simple phenols, phenolic acids, quinones, flavones, flavonoids, flavonols, tannins, and coumarins), terpenoids and essential oils, alkaloids, lectins, polypeptides, and so forth [ 49 ]. Various aroma compounds and citron essential oils containing citral, β -pinene, limonene, linalool, and α -pinene, combined with mild heat treatment, have been used to inhibit the growth of S. cerevisiae in noncarbonated soft drinks. Clary, sage, juniper, lemon, and marjoram essential oils were shown by Lucera et al. to preserve apple juice [ 50 ]. The antimicrobial effects of these essential oils have been observed in the acidic pH range. Synergism or additive effects may result from the combination of different active compounds. Although some active agents are known to influence smell or taste, this has rarely been the object of close study. One solution to the problem may be to use combinations of different preservation systems, which would provide the benefits of each while at the same time appreciably reducing the amount of antimicrobial agent required.

3.7. Other Ingredients

Various hydrocolloids, such as guar and locust gum, pectin, and xanthan, are used as stabilizers and thickeners, especially in diet drinks (to improve mouthfeel) and fruit juice drinks (to reduce phase separation). Antioxidants, most commonly ascorbic acid, are used to prevent the deterioration of flavors and colors, especially when drinks are packaged in oxygen-permeable bottles and cartons. Functional drinks, nutraceuticals, and wellness drinks contain a variety of unconventional ingredients, which can include the so-called “superfruits” (e.g., pomegranate, acai, acerola, noni, and mangosteen), berries (e.g., cranberries, blackberries, strawberries, and blueberries), or botanical extracts (e.g., ginger, ginkgo, and melissa) [ 36 ]. Some functional drinks use plant sterols and omega-3 fatty acids to promote heart health. Others include dietary fibres, such as inulin and maltodextrin, which are prebiotics that selectively modulate host microbiota, conferring health benefits [ 51 ].

The most common active ingredients of energy drinks are taurine (average 3180 mg/L), caffeine (360–630 mg/L), and caffeine-rich plant extracts (e.g., tea, ginseng, guarana, and yerba mate). Energy drinks also contain B-vitamins (B3, B6, and B12) [ 52 ]. The main ingredients in sport drinks are carbohydrates in the form of glucose, fructose, and maltodextrin (5.5–8.2% w/v), salts, and water [ 53 ]. Typical sodium and potassium concentrations are 20 ÷ 30 and 5 mM, respectively [ 54 ]. In addition, an increasing number of other functional ingredients are being used in sports drinks. Energy drinks are promoted for their stimulating effects and claim to offer a variety of benefits including increased attention, endurance, and performance. They are also associated with weight loss and entertainment. However, there are increasing reports of caffeine intoxication from energy drinks. In children and adolescents, who are not habitual caffeine users, vulnerability to caffeine intoxication may be markedly increased due to an absence of pharmacological tolerance. Several studies suggest that energy drinks may serve as a gateway to other forms of drug dependence [ 55 ].

Cereal-based high-fibre ingredients are another area of interest. The health benefits of β -glucans and cereal fibres in general are well known. The relationship between consuming β -glucans and healthy levels of blood cholesterol has been confirmed by the EFSA [ 56 ]. Based on the evidence, the EFSA Panel concluded that foods, with at least 3 g/d of β -glucans from oats, oat bran, barley, and barley bran, or with mixtures of nonprocessed or minimally processed β -glucans, can reduce blood cholesterol in adults with normal or mildly elevated cholesterol levels.

3.8. Probiotic Bacteria

The market for probiotic foods and beverages is expanding rapidly. In the last decade, five hundred new probiotic food and beverages have been introduced around the world. Europe is currently the largest probiotics market, due to widespread public awareness of the benefits of probiotic yogurts and fermented milk. Drinking yogurt is a popular soft drink in Europe and the USA. Yakult (Japan, China), tibicos (tibi) (Caucasus), kombucha (China, Korea, Japan, Russia), and kvass (Russia) are further examples of fermented beverages of various origins. Probiotic lines of frozen yogurt, fruit/vegetable juices, or soya-based drinks are now beginning to appear on the market [ 57 ]. The World Health Organization states that “probiotics…should not only be capable of surviving passage through the digestive tract, by exhibiting bile and acid tolerance, but also should have the capability to proliferate in the gut.” The most common probiotics, used in the production of probiotic milk products, belong to Lactobacillus plantarum , Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus acidophilus , and Pediococcus pentosaceus .

Unfortunately, many commercial products have been pasteurized or preserved chemically, destroying the bacteria. Probiotic bacteria also do not survive well in natural fruit or vegetable juice environments. The viable cell counts of lactic cultures in fermented juice gradually decrease during the first few weeks of cold storage [ 58 , 59 ]. In research conducted by Mousavi et al. [ 60 ], it has been shown that in probiotic pomegranate juice L. plantarum and L. delbrueckii have higher viability than L. paracasei and L. acidophilus during storage. Considerable amounts of citric acid, a major organic acid in pomegranate juice, were consumed by all probiotic lactic acid bacteria. Viable bacterial cells remained at their maximum level for 2 weeks but decreased dramatically after 4 weeks. However, it was found that the additives vitamin C, grape extract, and green tea extract improved rates of survival by probiotic bacteria. Three samples of a model juice containing grape seed extract, green tea extract, or vitamin C were given the same initial population of 8 log CFU/mL probiotic bacteria and at the end of a 6-week storage period had average viabilities of 4 log CFU/mL, 7 log CFU/mL, and 6 log CFU/mL, respectively [ 58 ].

4. Bottle Material

Harmonization of legislation on food contact material (FCM), meaning that for specific food contact materials the EU fixes specific requirements which allow them to be considered to be generally in compliance with the rules in operation in all EU territories, began in the early 2000s and has since been in a process of constant evolution. Currently, EU legislation covers the following FCM: cellulose films, ceramics, plastics, elastomers and rubbers, coatings, and adhesives. The general requirements for all food contact materials are laid down in Framework Regulation EC 1935/2004. Any migration of unsafe levels of chemical substances from the material to the food, changing the composition of the food in an unacceptable way or having adverse effects on its taste and/or off-flavor, must be prevented. Good Manufacturing Practice for materials and articles intended for contact with food is described in Regulation EC 2023/2006. There are also EU regulations and directives for specific materials: ceramics, regenerated cellulose film, plastics, recycled plastics, and active and intelligent materials. Some directives cover single substances or groups of substances used in the manufacture of food contact materials.

It would be difficult to present a complete introduction to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) legislation and its practical use in the clearance of food contact materials, a task which is in any case beyond the scope of this paper. Central to its policy, however, is the FDA's “Threshold of Regulation” (TOR) program, which sets limits under which certain substances that may migrate into foods from packaging or food processing equipment do not need to be included as additives on product information. Over 3000 of these substances, known as “indirect” food additives, are listed along with administrative and chemical information as part of the Priority-Based Assessment of Food Additives (PAFA) program. These include components in adhesives, coatings, paper, and paperboard, as well as polymers, adjuvants, and production aids. Additional exemptions for substances are listed in separate inventories. Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 170,39, “Threshold of Regulation for Substances Used in Food-Contact Articles,” presents conditions and guidelines for making a TOR request, which producers must submit in order to ensure that indirect food additives and their estimated exposure qualify for exemption under the TOR process [ 61 – 63 ].

Most convenience beverage bottles in both the United States and the European Union are made from glass and plastics. Seven resin codes (usually found on the bottom of containers and bottles) are used to indicate the types of resin in plastics. Of these, the most commonly used in the food industry are (i) polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for soft drink bottles and water bottles; (ii) low density polyethylene (LDPE) for wrapping films and grocery bags; (iii) polypropylene (PP) for syrup bottles, yogurt tubs, and bottle caps; (iv) polystyrene (PS) for single-use coffee cups. Soft drinks are also packaged in tin-free steel, aluminum, treated cardboard cartons, or foil pouches.

Glass bottles seem to be the safest option for food packaging and storage, since there is no possible transferal of contaminating chemicals. Glass recycling is also more environmentally friendly than plastic recycling, which can release toxic chemicals. However, soft drinks containers are often stored under unpredictable conditions for several months before consumption, and this can have an effect on how they interact with the liquids inside. Different materials (glass, soft PET, and hard PET) and different bottle colors have different effects. It has been demonstrated that under certain conditions glass bottles can contaminate bottled water with Pb and Zr [ 64 ]. Other elements may be added to glass during the production process to determine color (Fe, Cr for green colors, Co for blue colors). Reimann et al. [ 65 ] have shown that many more elements leach from glass than from PET bottles. Comparing water sold in PET-bottles to the same water sold in glass bottles, Ce, Pb, Al, and Zr were found to leach most from glass, but levels of Ti, Th, La, Pr, Fe, Zn, Nd, Sn, Cr, Tb, Er, Gd, Bi, Sm, Y, Lu, Yb, Tm, Nb, and Cu were all also significantly higher compared to water sold in PET bottles. The pH of beverages can also be assumed to play an important role in the release of elements from their containers. In most cases leaching increases considerably at a lowered pH of 3.5, often by a factor 10 or more. The leaching of chemical elements from mineral water bottle materials was also found by these authors to be temperature-dependent [ 66 ].

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles have been shown to contaminate water with Sb, with concentrations increasing with storage time [ 67 – 69 ]. It is also well known that acetaldehyde and antimony leach from PET bottles, although this process is not fully understood due to the number of contributing factors (contact time, type of simulant, temperature, exposure to sunlight, and bottle color). In light of these difficulties, further investigation is needed to understand the migration of degradation products from PET and ensure that it is safe for use in food and drinks containers [ 70 ].

Plastic bottles have other chemicals that can contaminate the beverages they contain. One example is bisphenol A (BPA) which can affect the natural communication system of hormones when ingested. Phthalates also leach into the bottled water we drink after as little as 10 weeks of storage, or much faster if the bottles have been left in the sun. Phthalates are used as plasticizers to increase the flexibility of plastics, including PVC. As they are not chemically bound in plastics, they can leach into the environment. Moreover, phthalates are lipophilic compounds and have been found to bioaccumulate in fats. Exposure to phthalates can be detrimental to human health. The larger molecular weight phthalates, di(2-ethyl-hexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), diisononyl phthalate (DiNP), are suspected carcinogens and are known to be toxic to the liver, kidneys, and reproductive organs [ 71 ]. More toxic chemicals leach from reused plastic bottles than from new.

The bottle material may also influence the number and type of microorganisms in soft drinks, due to cells adhering to the bottle surface. Plastic bottles have higher surface roughness, hydrophobicity, and electrostatic charges than glass bottles and usually have higher microbial counts [ 72 ]. Nutrients from soft drinks are absorbed by and concentrate on plastic surfaces and therefore are more available to bacteria. Adsorption of organic matter is then the basis for adhesion of microorganisms to bottle surfaces. Jayasekara and coworkers [ 73 ] report considerable variation between bottles from the same water producer and found that up to 83% of the total microbial population adhered to the inner surfaces of those bottles. In contrast, Jones et al. [ 72 ] detected much lower levels of adhesion. Their studies using scanning electron microscopy revealed sparse cell adherence to the surfaces of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packaging, while biofilms represented around 0.03–1.79% of the total viable count in 1.5 L water bottles. The differing results of these studies suggest that bottles made from different resins may provide microhabitats suitable for specific microflora [ 74 ].

5. Microbial Spoilage

Microbial contamination of soft drinks usually originates during the production process. The raw materials, factory environment, microbiological state of the equipment and packages, and lack of hygiene are all possible factors [ 75 , 76 ]. Packaging materials such as cans and bottles can also be sources of contamination.

There are two main methods of producing soft beverages. In the first, the syrup is diluted with water, after which the product is cooled, carbonated, and bottled. In the second, a precise amount of syrup is measured into each bottle, which is then filled with carbonated water. The processes of blending of syrups and mixing with water, container washing, and container filling are all performed almost entirely by automatic machinery. Returnable bottles are washed in hot alkaline solutions for a minimum of five minutes and then rinsed thoroughly. Single-use containers are usually air- or water-rinsed before filling. The preparation of noncarbonated beverages requires similar processes. However, since they lack the protection against spoilage provided by carbonation, noncarbonated drinks are usually pasteurized, either in bulk, by continuous flash pasteurization prior to filling, or in the bottle. Cold aseptic filling is usually used, especially for sport drinks, teas, flavored waters, and juices.

The condition of raw materials and the production environment can directly or indirectly affect the safety of manufactured soft drinks. The following obligatory systems have been designed to ensure food safety: Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), Good Hygienic Practice (GHP), and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) [ 77 ]. However, when technological processes go wrong, the method of beverage production will have a significant impact on the type of spoilage microflora.

Spoilage is a metabolic process that causes beverages to be undesirable or unacceptable for human consumption, due to changes in sensory characteristics. Microbial contamination of raw materials can cause odors, gushing, and other undesirable defects in the final product. Soft drinks are high in water activity and often rich in vitamins and minerals, so they present an attractive environment for microorganism [ 75 , 78 – 81 ]. Soft drinks can contain different types of microorganism, but aciduric microorganisms are the only significant spoilage microflora; although new, sometimes exotic ingredients used in soft drinks could introduce additional spoilage species. The most important microorganisms with their typical effects on contaminated soft drinks are presented in Table 2 .

Examples of quality changes in soft drinks associated with common spoilage microorganisms.

5.1. Yeasts

Yeasts are considered to be the primary spoilage microbes in carbonated products, mainly due to their ability to resist high carbonation and low pH levels. Zygosaccharomyces bailii yeast can tolerate moderately high carbonation and is also able to grow at refrigerator temperatures [ 82 ]. Other fermentative yeasts isolated from spoiled soft drinks include Saccharomyces, Brettanomyces, Hanseniaspora, Hansenula , and Pichia . Most species grow within a pH range from 1.5 to 8.5 with optimal growth in the range of 3.0 ÷ 6.5 [ 79 , 83 ]. Yeasts produce ethanol as an end-product of fermentation and the ethanol level in spoiled soft drinks may exceed the legal limit for nonalcoholic products. Fermentation can also result in bulging cans or exploding bottles. CO 2 formation by fermentative spoilage yeasts, measured after 2 weeks of growth in a soft drink containing 1 M glucose, generated 2 to 7 bars of gas pressure [ 75 ]. Spoilage yeasts can also alter the beverage by changing its pH or degrading preservatives. For example, the spoilage yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is able to degrade sorbic acid to form a volatile hydrocarbon, 1,3-pentadiene [ 84 ]. The flavor of pentadiene is described as kerosene-like with additional notes of plastic, paint, and geranium, depending on the concentration. Some spoilage yeasts also possess lipolytic enzymes which can degrade the fatty acids [ 41 ].

A special group of weak-fermentative yeasts causes spoilage when production processes go wrong. These belong to Candida davenportii , C. parapsilosis, or Debaryomyces spp. Some yeasts can serve as indicators of poor hygiene in manufacturing plants but do not cause spoilage in the final product. These include red aerobic yeasts Rhodotorula, Sporidiobolus, and Sporobolomyces and the black genus Aureobasidium . These yeasts usually predominate in soft drinks factories and are typically found on technological surfaces in places difficult to clean and disinfect [ 75 , 85 ].

Molds grow as white, delicate, fluffy, cottony masses suspended in soft drinks. Fungal spores or conidia and mycelium fragments can contaminate beverages at any stage of the production process [ 86 ]. Like yeasts, molds can become established in manufacturing factories due to poor process hygiene or spread from contaminated packages. Water availability and high acidity are basic conditions for fungal spoilage of soft drinks. The maximum and minimum value of pH for growth are dependent on other factors such as water activity, temperature, or the type of acid used. For example, citric, phosphoric, and tartaric acids promote growth at lower pH, when acetic or lactic acids are present [ 87 ]. Unlike yeasts, however, molds require oxygen, although some species can grow at low oxygen concentrations (~0.01% v/v) [ 86 , 88 ]. Mold spores cannot grow in carbonated beverages but can survive. Aspergillus, Penicillium, Rhizopus, Cladosporium, and Fusarium are often detected in soft drinks and in factory environments [ 89 ]. They produce pectinases, resulting in undesirable changes in taste and flavor, and less frequently gas formation [ 89 – 91 ]. Fungal contamination may also lead to discoloration, formation of allergens, and the production of toxic compounds [ 88 ]. Mycotoxins are fungal metabolites which cause sickness or death in people and animals when ingested, inhaled, or absorbed [ 92 ]. When present in high levels, mycotoxins can have toxic effects ranging from the acute (e.g., kidney or liver damage) to the chronic (increased cancer risk and suppressed immune system). Production of a particular mycotoxin is a species- or strain-specific property. The relevant mycotoxins related to foods and beverages are produced by species in the genera Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, and Alternaria and include aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, patulin, and Fusarium toxins, such as trichothecenes and zearalenone [ 14 ].

5.3. Bacteria

Certain lactic acid bacteria (LAB) belonging to Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc can grow in soft drinks containing fruit juices [ 93 ]. LAB have been isolated from fruits, fruit juices, and packaging materials [ 79 ]. These bacteria are also resistant to benzoic and sorbic acids. Common LAB responsible for spoilage are Lactobacillus paracasei, L. brevis, L. buchneri, L. plantarum, L. perolens, and also Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Weissella confusa [ 78 ]. Depending on the species and growth conditions, sugar catabolism can lead to the formation of lactic acid, ethanol, acetate, succinate, or formate [ 94 ]. Formic acid has been proposed as a LAB spoilage indicator in apple juice [ 95 ]. Metabolites of LAB are responsible for loss of carbonation and increasing astringency in soft drinks [ 79 ]. Some strains produce diacetyl, which gives a buttery taste and smell. L. mesenteroides and W. confusa are able to produce extracellular polymers composed of fructose or glucose, which are responsible for ropiness in drinks or biofilm formation on technological surfaces [ 78 , 96 , 97 ].

Acetic acid bacteria (AAB) are less common in soft drinks than LAB, since they are strictly aerobic and require at least some oxygen for growth [ 79 ]. AAB are acid-tolerant bacteria and grow at pH 3.0 ÷ 3.8, producing acetic, gluconic, lactic, and succinic acids, acetaldehyde, or ketones [ 79 , 98 ]. The taxonomy of AAB has been modified significantly as new genera have been isolated, and new molecular methods of identification have been introduced [ 99 ]. Many AAB tolerate commonly used preservatives (benzoates, sorbates, and dimethyldicarbonate) [ 98 ]. Their growth in soft drinks can cause flavor changes, package swelling, ropiness, haze, or sediments. Many species have the ability to form biofilms on production surfaces or packaging materials [ 78 , 100 , 101 ]. Besides the earliest isolated genera Acetobacter and Gluconobacter , Gluconacetobacter and Asaia rods are also common contaminants in soft drinks [ 100 , 102 – 104 ]. Serious problems with AAB may occur in beverages packaged in oxygen-permeable containers, for example, in certain types of PET bottles.

Coliforms (e.g., Klebsiella , Citrobacter , and Enterobacter ) and other members of Enterobacteriaceae are generally acid-intolerant, although some are able to proliferate in juices with pH values below 4.3 [ 79 ]. Extracellular polymers maybe also be produced, so Gram-negative bacteria can be detected as specimens of biofilm consortia in plant environments [ 101 , 105 – 107 ].

5.4. Pathogens

Studies on microbiological quality of carbonated soft drinks have shown that, as a result of poor hygiene, soft drinks can contain high numbers of pathogenic bacteria. Enteric pathogens do not belong to indigenous microbes in fruit. Rather, contamination results from direct or indirect contact with faeces [ 108 ]. Bacterial pathogens can remain viable in carbonated soft drinks for different periods [ 109 , 110 ]. The pathogenic bacteria most commonly encountered in fruit juice-related outbreaks of foodborne disease are enterohemorrhagic or Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli , the serotype O157:H7, and various serotypes of Salmonella [ 111 ]. E. coli and Salmonella have been shown to be capable of surviving up to 48 hours in a cola soft drink, while Yersinia enterocolitica have been found to be able to survive in a commercial orange soft drink (pH 3.5) for 3 days at 30°C [ 112 ].

Many exotic juices used in modern beverage formulations (e.g., acai, melon, persimmon, and papaya) have low acidity (pH 4.8–6.2). These juices provide conditions suitable not only for the survival but also for the growth of pathogenic bacteria [ 108 ]. Such bacteria are able to survive in acidic juices long enough to transmit diseases. Concentrates used for soft drink production may provide a good environment for pathogenic bacteria to survive. For example, Listeria monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica have been found to be capable of surviving for lengthy periods in various frozen juice concentrates and in freshly pressed orange juice (pH 6.3) [ 112 , 113 ]. Incubation at a low temperature (4°C) usually enhances the survival of pathogenic bacteria [ 114 ].

Parasites and viruses may also be associated with fruit juice-related disease outbreaks. Protozoa do not replicate outside their hosts, but they can survive for long periods in the environment in a resting stage, that is, in oocysts. The protozoan Cryptosporidium parvum has been isolated from apple cider and juice [ 111 ]. The survival rates of oocysts in natural mineral waters vary. Waters with high mineral content have been found to have higher inactivation rates at 20°C compared to waters with low mineral content [ 115 ].

Viruses do not grow in foods, as they need living cells to replicate. Hepatitis A, norovirus, and rotavirus could potentially transmit diseases via improperly produced beverages. Hepatitis A was transmitted via orange juice during an outbreak in the 1960s [ 111 ]. It was shown that the SA11 rotavirus is able to survive for 3 hours at 28°C in fresh papaya (pH 5.1) and honeydew melon (pH 6.3) juices, although not in pineapple juice (pH 3.6). In cold-stored fruit juice (pH 3.01), rotavirus survived for 3 days. Norovirus has been associated with outbreaks traced to raspberries irrigated with contaminated water [ 14 ].

5.5. Preservation

Acidity is the most important factor in the preservation of soft drinks. Low pH greatly increases the effects of heat treatment while also acting as an additional barrier to the growth of microorganisms. The pH level of most soft drinks is below 4.0. The great majority of heterotrophic bacteria are unable to grow at such low pH values. However, fungal growth is possible at low pH levels. Chilled storage is often used to extend the open shelf life of fruit juices. Most spoilage yeasts and molds are able to grow at 5°C, albeit slowly. Some molds, such as Penicillium spp., can grow in chilled juices at 0°C. Lactic acid bacteria gradually lose viability in chilled juices. The use of oxygen-impermeable packaging can double the shelf life of juices from 35 to 65 days. It is often recommended that, after opening, products should be chilled and consumed within 3 days.

Most spoilage incidents caused by yeasts are controlled by preservative systems [ 13 ]. However, certain yeast species show resistance, especially to weak-acid preservatives. These strains belong to the fermentative yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Zygosaccharomyces spp., and Dekkera spp. [ 14 , 75 , 78 , 108 ]. Zygosaccharomyces bailii is able to grow in the presence of both 60% w/v glucose and preservatives far in excess of the legal limits in Europe. Resistance to sorbic and benzoic acids by Z. bailii may be caused by reduced uptake combined with metabolism of the preservatives [ 116 , 117 ]. Other preservative-resistant spoilage yeasts include Issatchenkia orientalis ( Candida krusei ), Pichia membranifaciens , Schizosaccharomyces pombe , and Saccharomyces cerevisiae [ 84 ].

Certain LAB of Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc can grow in soft drinks containing fruit juices [ 71 ]. Also new AAB of Asaia spp. have been isolated from reclaimed fruit beverages and flavored waters preserved by DMDC, benzoate, or sorbate at concentrations 1.5 mmol/L and higher, limiting the possibilities of preventing spoilage in similar drinks. These bacteria have, additionally, been found in processing equipment in the form of biofilm, which is persistent and difficult to remove by usual cleaning methods [ 100 , 102 , 104 ].

Like common molds, preservative-resistant molds form white, delicate, fluffy, cottony masses suspended in liquids and can grow in limited oxygen. These molds usually grow slowly in bottled beverages and are often detected only after the drinks have reached the marketplace [ 117 ].

5.6. Pasteurized Drinks

Drinks containing fruit juices, teas, and so forth with no added preservatives are usually pasteurized at temperatures below 90°C. Spoilage is mainly due to the survival of spore-forming bacteria, yeasts forming heat-resistant ascospores, and ascospores of heat-resistant molds belonging to the genera Byssochlamys spectabilis / Paecilomyces variotii , Talaromyces spp., Penicillium arenicola, and Neosartorya spp. [ 14 , 79 ]. Propionibacterium cyclohexanicum has also been isolated from spoiled pasteurized fruit juices with an off-flavour. Propionibacterium cyclohexanicum is a Gram-positive pleomorphic rod that produces propionic, acetic, and lactic acids as products of sugar fermentation. Its growth in orange juice is inhibited by high concentrations of preservatives, potassium sorbate (500 mg/L) and natrium benzoate (1000 mg/L). However, Propionibacterium spp. cells are able to survive pasteurization procedures. They are also capable of growing even at refrigerator temperatures [ 118 ].

Spore-forming bacteria of the genera Bacillus and Clostridium are usually inhibited in acid soft drinks. Nonetheless, their spores can remain viable [ 78 ]. It is difficult to kill spores completely using conventional heat treatment techniques. For example, heat treatment (sterilization) at 121°C effectively lowers the survival rate of vegetative cells of Geobacillus stearothermophilus within a few seconds. However, to have the same effect on spores of G. stearothermophilus , the duration of heat treatment must be increased to 10 ÷ 20 minutes [ 119 , 120 ]. With the development of functional beverages containing fibre and/or vegetable/fruit juices, the importance of spore-forming bacteria as spoilers is increasing [ 80 ]. Anaerobic butyrate-forming clostridia such as Clostridium butyricum and Clostridium sporogenes, which cause a rancid off-flavour in the final product, have been shown to be transmitted by sugar syrups used in the beverage industry. These bacteria can be active even at pH values of 3.6 ÷ 3.8 [ 14 ].

Another spore-forming bacteria, Alicyclobacillus spp. (ACB), is often associated with the spoilage of soft drinks including carbonated and noncarbonated fruit juices, lemonade, isotonic water, and ice-tea [ 121 ]. Among Alicyclobacilli, A. acidoterrestris is the primary contaminant. However A. acidophilus, A. acidocaldarius, A. cycloheptanicus, A. hesperidium, A. herbarius, and A. pomorum have also been detected [ 122 , 123 ]. Spoilage is usually noticeable by a specific medicinal odor caused by the production of guaiacol and halophenols [ 121 ]. Sediment, haze, and discoloration may also appear, although these are comparatively rare [ 14 , 124 ]. The characteristic musty, mouldy, or earthy off-flavor in pasteurized soft drinks is caused by the metabolites, geosmin, 2-methylisoborneol, and 2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine, produced by Streptomyces griseus . These bacteria are able to grow in soft drinks in conditions of limited oxygen and at temperatures as low as 4°C [ 14 , 80 ].

6. Conclusion

Soft drinks consumption is still a controversial issue for public health and public policy. Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted into the possible links between soft drink intake and medical problems, the results of which, however, remain contested. All the ingredients in soft drinks should be approved for use under the appropriate regulations governing the maximal concentrations and acceptable daily doses. Nevertheless, there is a strong body of evidence to support the existence of health risks associated, especially, with overconsumption and with certain artificial colorings and preservatives. Lesser known to the public are risks involving chemical and microbial contamination from containers, production equipment, and (in the case of microbial contamination) certain ingredients themselves. These can affect even the so-called “healthy” low-calorie and functional drinks. Consumers require further education on the use of ingredients, additives, and packaging materials and their potential effects on human health. In turn, producers are under pressure to ensure the health safety of their goods, both from legislation and from consumer demand.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Soft drinks research (2006)

Related Papers

Indus Foundation International Journals UGC Approved

The study deals with assessment of marketing mix of the MOHA soft drinks industry share company in Hawassa millennium Pepsi-Cola plant. Both primary and secondary data have been employed. Primary data obtained through interview and questionnaires, distributed to marketing managers and employees/staffs/ of the marketing department. The findings showed that the factory provides five types of products namely Pepsi Cola, Mirinda Orange, 7-Up, Mirinda Tonic, and Mirinda Apple. The plant has no any written pricing policy as a result the prices of the products are depends on different factors like; transportation charges, Competitors' costs, Economic factors, Gross profit costs, Overhead costs, Net profit, direct costs. The findings also shows that Hawassa millennium Pepsi-cola plant promotes its products by means of erecting artistic notice board in towns, at main public squares, sight-catching places, major outlets and inlets, public service stations and on vehicles and contributing to popular events by means of sponsoring various exhibitions etc. The recommendation made was to alleviate the problems in the distribution of the products (to fill the gap between the imbalances of demand and supply requirements), the factory must choose distributors that reach its customers most effectively and other intermediaries that add value to the distributive process. The factory has to do more to expand its local market coverage and increase its market share by selling the products even in rural areas.

ABENEZER ABAYNEH

Abstract This report is about the internship program which we have been dealing for the last semester. It includes the activities, benefits gained and the sections in Hawassa millennium pepsi factory including the project work. The project was on the caustic tank piping system which previously has two pumps for both tanks to pump their caustic in to the industry. But now one of the pumps is in unfixable condition which brought up additional difficulties for the workers working in there. Our project is designing a new piping system which will enable both tanks to use the remaining pump being controlled with their own valves.

Michael Baylosis, CPA PhD

Michael Hitt defines strategic management process in his book titled Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases as “the full set of commitments, decisions, and actions required for a firm to achieve strategic competitiveness and earn above-average returns.” The process begins with strategic inputs, which is a result of examining the internal and external environments of the business firm. This is followed by the formulation and implementation of strategic actions and concluded by strategic outcomes. The desired outcome is competitive advantage, measured by above-average returns. This strategic management paper aims to apply the strategic management process to Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. PCPPI is the bottler and distributor of PepsiCo beverages and snacks in the Philippines, with headquarters in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. It is a public company, trading on the Philippine Stock Exchange with the abbreviation PIP. The company is involved in the manufacturing and sale of carbonated and non-carbonated drinks. In addition, it is also involved in the manufacturing and sale of food and food products. The strategic management process in this paper aims to target PCPPI’s operations, marketing, financial, information technology, and human resource strategies. It also aims to provide frameworks in the management of strategies in these areas.

Mohammad Jabbar

Guenter Schroeder

Bhagwan Singh Chandravanshi

Steve Staal

Girma Kebbede

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024