Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks increases the risk of type 2 diabetes (and metabolic syndrome); one to two cans per day raise type 2 diabetes risk by about 26%, and each daily serving by about 18%.
Original statement
في تحليل تجميعي لـ 11 دراسة أتراب نُشر في Diabetes Care عام 2010، شمل أكثر من 310 آلاف شخص، تبيَّن أن مَن يشرب علبة إلى علبتين من المشروبات السكرية يومياً يرتفع لديه خطر السكري من النوع الثاني بنسبة 26% وخطر متلازمة الأيض بنسبة 20%. ثم جاء تحليل أحدث في BMJ عام 2015 ليرفع الرقم إلى 18% زيادة في خطر السكري عن كل علبة يومياً.
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks increases the risk of type 2 diabetes (and metabolic syndrome); one to two cans per day raise type 2 diabetes risk by about 26%, and each daily serving by about 18%.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (study selection and narrative are the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/soda/
- Attribution uncertainty
- The archive homepage states that the forbidden-food section is supported by research 'independently of Dr. Diaa's words'. No evidence was found that Elawady himself cited these studies.
- Claimed mechanism
Liquid sugar, rapidly absorbable sugars, weight gain.
- Claimed health effect
Type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome.
- Population concerned
Adults (general population)
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Scientific assessment
Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Sugary sodas raise type 2 diabetes risk; 26% for 1-2 cans/day (Malik 2010) and 18% per daily serving (Imamura 2015).
2. What is demonstrably correct?
The cited numbers are reported correctly: Malik 2010 pooled RR 1.26 (95% CI 1.12-1.41) highest vs lowest intake; Imamura 2015 found 18% higher incidence per serving/day (13% after adjustment for adiposity). Higher sugar-sweetened beverage intake is consistently associated with higher type 2 diabetes incidence.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
The archive says the 2015 analysis 'raised the number' to 18%. This is a different metric (per daily serving, not highest vs lowest quantile), not a larger effect. The word 'raises' implies proven causation; the evidence is mainly observational. Fruit juice was also associated with diabetes in Imamura 2015, which is relevant because the system allows juices (see C-SUG-06).
4. What remains unclear?
Exact size of the causal effect; how much is mediated by weight gain.
5. Which studies support it?
A-SOD-01, A-SOD-08, A-SOD-10, A-SOD-23; I-SUG-02 (umbrella review); I-SUG-03 (EFSA 2022).
6. Which studies contradict it?
No contradicting high-quality evidence found. Heterogeneity across cohorts is high; EFSA rated causal certainty for type 2 diabetes from RCTs on surrogate endpoints as low.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
The WHO guideline (2015) on free sugars and EFSA's 2022 opinion (intake of added and free sugars 'as low as possible') apply in Germany and the EU; the European EPIC cohort (A-SOD-17) found associations in 10 European countries including Germany.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Sugar-sweetened soft drinks are widely sold in Egypt. No Egypt-specific study was reviewed for this claim; the physiological mechanisms and cohort findings are not known to differ by country, but absolute risks depend on local consumption and disease rates.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Limiting sugar-sweetened soft drinks is consistent with WHO and EFSA advice; water is the preferred drink.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Consistent prospective cohort evidence from several overlapping meta-analyses with dose-response and persistence after adjustment for adiposity; supported by RCTs on surrogate outcomes (EFSA: low certainty for a causal link with type 2 diabetes from RCTs). Observational design limits causal certainty; heterogeneity is high (I2 up to 89%).
- Source quality
Archive cites peer-reviewed meta-analyses and large cohorts accurately in numbers. Interpretation slightly overstated (causal wording; '18% raises the number').
- Regional transferability
High for Europe: EPIC and UK data included in the evidence base (Imamura 2015 estimated UK and US population attributable fractions).
- Individual exceptions
Risk applies at population level; individual risk depends on overall diet, body weight, physical activity and genetics.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Scientifically well supported – The claim agrees with consistent, high-quality evidence.
Research question: Does regular consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks increase type 2 diabetes risk, and are the archive's figures (26% for 1-2 cans/day; 18% per serving) accurate?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- Adults
- Intervention or exposure
- Sugar-sweetened beverages
- Comparison
- Low or no intake
- Geographic scope
- universal biology; burden depends on local intake (high in MENA)
- Outcomes
- Incident type 2 diabetes
- Metabolic syndrome
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Sugary drinks, not all sugar, linked to diabetes
Della Corte KA et al.. Adv Nutr 2025 · PMID 40122386 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100413 Meta-analysisabstract checkednewly added2025 dose-response meta-analysis (18 cohorts, n=541,288): each daily SSB serving associated with 25% higher T2D risk (moderate certainty).
- Actual result
- RR 1.25 (1.17-1.35).
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Observational.
Sugary drinks, diet drinks, juice and diabetes
Imamura F et al.. BMJ 2015 · PMID 26199070 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.h3576 Meta-analysisfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentImamura 2015: per serving SSB RR 1.18 (1.09-1.28); 1.13 after adiposity adjustment.
- Actual result
- RR 1.18; 1.13 adjusted.
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- High heterogeneity (I2 89%).
EFSA: how much sugar is safe?
EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074 Risk assessmentfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentEFSA 2022: high certainty (>75-100%) of a positive causal relationship between SSB and T2D.
- Actual result
- Causal certainty high.
- Methodological quality
- high (agency assessment)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Attribution to the sugar fraction less certain.
What speaks against the claim?
No high-quality evidence against the claim was found.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Sugar-sweetened soft drinks are consistently associated with higher type 2 diabetes risk, with dose-response and persistence after adjustment for adiposity; the archive's figures are reported correctly.
Why some studies weigh more
Several overlapping meta-analyses of large cohorts (counted once), EFSA's causal assessment and RCTs on weight and metabolic risk factors.
Is a causal relationship established? Probable Dose-response, consistency, temporality, plausible mechanism (weight gain, glycaemic load, fructose effects); no RCTs with diabetes endpoints.
Remaining uncertainty
Exact causal effect size.
Justified conclusion
Well supported; 'raises' is slightly stronger than the observational evidence allows.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Eating habits
- SSB intake is common in Egypt; modelling estimates high SSB-attributable diabetes burden in MENA (1,001 new cases per million adults in 2020).
- Actual monitoring data
- Egypt modelling study (I-SOD-128): a 20% SSB tax could prevent ~250,000 T2D cases over 25 years.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Log-symmetry – RR 1.26 (1.12-1.41) symmetric recalculated
- Log-symmetry; comparison of metrics – RR 1.25 per serving symmetric; per-serving 1.18 implies ~1.39 at 2/day (log-linear) - archive's '26%' and '18%' are different metrics recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Incident type 2 diabetes with SSB intake
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for downgrading
- inconsistency (I2 up to 89%)
- Reasons for upgrading
- dose-response
- consistency across >18 cohorts
- Result
- moderate
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- ADA: 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026 (Diabetes Care 2026;49 Suppl 1:S89-S131; I-INTC-03) (2026) · Original publication
Rec. 5.14: minimise sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets, refined grains, processed and ultra-processed foods. Rec. 5.21: encourage water over other beverages (A). Rec. 5.22: nonnutritive sweeteners can replace sugar-sweetened products if consumed in moderation and for the short term (B). Rec. 5.25: replace sugar-sweetened beverages (including any juices) with water or low/no-calorie beverages and minimise foods with added sugar (B). - WHO: Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children (2015), publication page and news release (I-SUG-05) (2015) · Original publication
Reduce free sugars to <10% of energy (strong); further reduction to <5% (~25 g) conditional. Free sugars include sugars added by manufacturer, cook or consumer and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and concentrates (news release https://www.who.int/news/item/04-03-2015-who-calls-on-countries-to-reduce-sugars-intake-among-adults-and-children, fetched 2026-10-26).
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("sugar-sweetened beverages" OR "dietary sugar") AND ("type 2 diabetes") AND ("dose-response meta-analysis" OR "dose-response") AND PUB_YEAR:[2022 TO 2026] | both directions | 725 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (sugar-sweetened beverage*[ti] OR soft drink*[ti]) AND (type 2 diabetes[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[pt]) AND 2020:2026[dp] | both directions | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("sugar-sweetened beverages") AND ("184 countries" OR "global burden") AND ("type 2 diabetes") | supporting evidence | 827 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | Lara-Castor L[au] AND sugar-sweetened beverages | supporting evidence | 5 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (Egypt OR Egyptian) AND ("sugar-sweetened beverages" OR "soft drinks" OR "carbonated beverages" OR "added sugar") AND (obesity OR diabetes OR caries OR intake) | both directions | 1302 |
Open questions
Measured SSB intake trends in Egypt.
How deeply was this checked?
9 linked studies: 4 checked in full text (4 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 5 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly true (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly true (moderate)
Newest dose-response meta-analysis and regional modelling confirm the existing assessment.
New sources: I-SUG-105 I-SOD-127 I-SOD-128
In plain language
Large studies following hundreds of thousands of people show that people who drink sugary soft drinks every day develop type 2 diabetes more often. The numbers quoted by the archive are correct. These studies show a link, not final proof of cause, but the link is consistent, increases with the amount consumed, and fits with experiments. Health authorities therefore advise limiting such drinks. The same concern applies to other drinks with a lot of free sugar, such as juices.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (9)
-
Sugary drinks and diabetes risk: pooled cohorts
Malik VS et al.. Diabetes Care 2010 · PMID 20693348 · DOI 10.2337/dc10-1079Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyPeople in the highest intake group had a 26% higher risk of type 2 diabetes than those drinking almost none.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is SSB intake associated with incident metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes?
- How was the study done?
Systematic search (MEDLINE to May 2010) and random-effects meta-analysis of prospective cohorts, highest vs lowest SSB quantile.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
11 cohorts; 310,819 participants; 15,043 T2D cases; 19,431 participants/5,803 cases for metabolic syndrome; Adults in prospective cohorts
- What was actually found?
T2D: RR 1.26 (95% CI 1.12-1.41); metabolic syndrome: RR 1.20 (1.02-1.42).
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 1.26 (1.12-1.41)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Regular sugary drinks are linked with more diabetes.
- What are the study's limitations?
Only MEDLINE; no risk-of-bias assessment; high heterogeneity; observational studies; overlaps with later meta-analyses
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Core evidence for C-SOD-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High; cohorts from Western populations.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That sugary drinks alone cause the difference.
-
Sugary drinks, diet drinks, juice and diabetes
Imamura F et al.. BMJ 2015 · PMID 26199070 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.h3576Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentEach daily sugary drink was linked with 13-18% more diabetes; diet drinks and juice also showed (possibly biased) links.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Are SSB, ASB and fruit juice associated with T2D independently of adiposity?
- How was the study done?
Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of prospective cohorts; PAF estimation (US, UK).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
17 cohorts; 38,253 cases; 10,126,754 person-years; Adults without diabetes
- What was actually found?
Per serving/day: SSB +18% (9-28%; I2 89%) and +13% (6-21%) after adiposity adjustment; ASB +25% and +8% (publication bias and residual confounding indicated); fruit juice +5% (-1 to 11%) and +7% (1-14%). PAF: 8.7% USA, 3.6% UK.
- How large was the observed effect?
+18% per serving (+13% adiposity-adjusted)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Neither diet drinks nor juice are proven healthier alternatives to sugary drinks.
- What are the study's limitations?
High heterogeneity; observational studies; protocol not registered; ASB and juice results likely biased
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-SOD-01; mixed for C-SOD-10; limits C-SUG-06 (juice association).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (UK PAF estimated).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation; that diet drinks or juice cause diabetes; diet-drink effects on mortality
-
Sugary drinks, weight and diabetes in 91,000 women
Schulze MB et al.. JAMA 2004 · PMID 15328324 · DOI 10.1001/jama.292.8.927Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedWomen drinking one or more sugary drinks daily had 83% higher diabetes risk; fruit punch similar.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Are SSB associated with weight change and T2D in women?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (NHS II) 1991-1999.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
91,249 (diabetes); 51,603 (weight); 741 T2D cases; Women aged young/middle-aged
- What was actually found?
Increasing SSB to >=1/day: 4.69 and 4.20 kg weight gain over 4 years vs 1.34 and 0.15 kg in decreasers; >=1 SSB/day T2D RR 1.83 (1.42-2.36); fruit punch RR 2.00 (1.33-3.03).
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 1.83 (1.42-2.36)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Sugary drinks, including fruit punch, are linked with weight gain and diabetes.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational design; residual confounding possible; Self-reported dietary intake
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Sweetened drinks dose-response
Qin P et al.. Eur J Epidemiol 2020 · PMID 32529512 · DOI 10.1007/s10654-020-00655-yMeta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedEach extra 250 mL/day of sugary drinks was linked with 12-19% higher risks of obesity and diabetes; diet drinks showed similar links.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Dose-response of SSB/ASB with obesity, T2D, hypertension, mortality.
- How was the study done?
Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohorts.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
39 articles; Adults
- What was actually found?
Per 250 mL/day SSB vs ASB: obesity RR 1.12 vs 1.21; T2D 1.19 vs 1.15; hypertension 1.10 vs 1.08; all-cause mortality 1.04 vs 1.06 (with I2 up to 92.6%).
- How large was the observed effect?
T2D RR 1.19 per 250 mL/d (SSB)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
More sweetened drinks, more risk in observational data.
- What are the study's limitations?
High heterogeneity; Cohorts only; Reverse causation for ASB
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation, especially for diet drinks.
-
Sugar and health: umbrella review
Huang Y et al.. BMJ 2023 · PMID 37019448 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2022-071609Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyAcross 73 meta-analyses, high sugar intake was linked to 45 adverse outcomes; authors advise under 25 g/day of added sugar.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Quality and validity of evidence on sugar and health outcomes.
- How was the study done?
Umbrella review of 73 meta-analyses.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
73 meta-analyses; 83 outcomes; Humans free of acute/chronic disease
- What was actually found?
Significant harmful associations with 45 outcomes; moderate-quality: SSB and body weight, added sugars and ectopic fat; low-quality: +4% gout per SSB serving/week, +17% CHD and +4% all-cause mortality per 250 mL/day SSB; recommends free/added sugars <25 g/day and SSB <1 serving/week.
- How large was the observed effect?
CHD +17% per 250 mL/d SSB
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
High sugar intake is more harmful than beneficial.
- What are the study's limitations?
Most evidence is observational and of low certainty, and concerns sugary drinks rather than sugar in foods; sucrose intake was even linked to slightly lower diabetes risk in some cohorts; recommendations go beyond the strength of the evidence.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot show that sugar in any form or small amount is harmful, nor precise effect sizes; it does not cover honey, fruit or sugars eaten in solid foods well.
-
EFSA: how much sugar is safe?
EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyEFSA found no safe intake level and advises keeping added and free sugars as low as possible.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Can a UL or safe level for dietary sugars be set?
- How was the study done?
Regulatory scientific opinion with systematic reviews.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; General population
- What was actually found?
Sugars are a well-established hazard for caries; RCTs on surrogate endpoints show causal positive relationship of added/free sugars with obesity and dyslipidaemia (moderate certainty), NAFLD and T2D (low), hypertension (very low); no safe level identified; intake of added and free sugars should be as low as possible in a nutritionally adequate diet.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Applies to sugar, honey and syrups alike.
- What are the study's limitations?
Trials looked at markers (weight, liver fat, blood fats) rather than diseases; cohort studies mostly compared sugar with other calories at equal total energy; few data below 10% of energy.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-SUG-01, C-SUG-05 (health relevance); supports C-SOD-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Directly applicable in EU/Germany.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot name a safe daily amount of sugar; it does not show that sugar is harmful when it does not add extra calories, except for tooth decay.
-
Sugary drinks, not all sugar, linked to diabetes
Della Corte KA et al.. Adv Nutr 2025 · PMID 40122386 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100413Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyEach daily serving of sugary drinks was linked to 25% higher diabetes risk and fruit juice to 5%; total sugar from foods was not linked to higher risk.
SSB RR 1.25 per serving (moderate certainty).
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure how different types and sources of sugar relate to type 2 diabetes.
- How was the study done?
Pooled 29 long-term cohort studies with dose-response analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
More than half a million adults for the drink analyses.
- What was actually found?
Sugary drinks and fruit juice were linked to more diabetes; total sugar and sucrose were not.
- How large was the observed effect?
SSB RR 1.25 per serving; juice 1.05; total sugar 0.96 per 20 g.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Sugar in drinks matters most; juices are not a free pass.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; food-sugar findings may be confounded.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the soda-diabetes claim; does not support unlimited sugar.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Many European cohorts included.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove causation.
-
Sugary drinks may cause millions of diabetes cases worldwide
Lara-Castor L et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 39762424 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-024-03345-4Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checkedA global model estimated that sugary drinks accounted for about 10% of new type 2 diabetes cases in 2020, with high burdens in the Middle East and North Africa.
Modelled SSB-attributable T2D burden, high in MENA.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate the global disease burden from sugary drinks.
- How was the study done?
Risk-assessment model across 184 countries.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Population data.
- What was actually found?
2.2 million new diabetes and 1.2 million new heart disease cases attributed to sugary drinks in 2020.
- How large was the observed effect?
9.8% of new T2D cases.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Reducing sugary drinks could prevent many cases, including in the Arab region.
- What are the study's limitations?
Relies on causal assumptions.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the public-health relevance of the claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Includes Europe.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot itself prove causation.
-
Taxing sugary drinks in Egypt could prevent diabetes
Dalugoda Y et al.. Public Health Pract (Oxf) 2026 · PMID 42058140 · DOI 10.1016/j.puhip.2026.100786Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checkedA 2026 model estimated that a 20% tax on sugary drinks in Egypt could prevent about 250,000 cases of type 2 diabetes over 25 years.
Egypt model: SSB tax could prevent 250,000 T2D cases over 25 years.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Model the health effects of a sugary-drink tax in Egypt.
- How was the study done?
Life-table simulation.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Egyptian population.
- What was actually found?
Fewer cases of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay.
- How large was the observed effect?
250,000 T2D cases prevented over 25 years.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Sugary drinks matter for health in Egypt too.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model assumptions.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the regional relevance of the claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Egypt-specific.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove causation.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)
No studies in this group.
Regional context
Germany / EU
The WHO guideline (2015) on free sugars and EFSA's 2022 opinion (intake of added and free sugars 'as low as possible') apply in Germany and the EU; the European EPIC cohort (A-SOD-17) found associations in 10 European countries including Germany.
Egypt
Sugar-sweetened soft drinks are widely sold in Egypt. No Egypt-specific study was reviewed for this claim; the physiological mechanisms and cohort findings are not known to differ by country, but absolute risks depend on local consumption and disease rates.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly true Daily sugary soft drinks are consistently linked to a higher risk of type 2 diabetes; the archive's figures are accurate, its causal wording slightly overstated.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Additives and processing
Honey, sugar, sweets
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.. Malik VS et al.. Diabetes Care 2010 · PMID 20693348 · DOI 10.2337/dc10-1079
- Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction.. Imamura F et al.. BMJ 2015 · PMID 26199070 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.h3576
- Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women.. Schulze MB et al.. JAMA 2004 · PMID 15328324 · DOI 10.1001/jama.292.8.927
- Sugar and artificially sweetened beverages and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and all-cause mortality: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.. Qin P et al.. Eur J Epidemiol 2020 · PMID 32529512 · DOI 10.1007/s10654-020-00655-y
- Dietary sugar consumption and health: umbrella review.. Huang Y et al.. BMJ 2023 · PMID 37019448 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2022-071609
- Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars.. EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074
- Dietary Sugar Intake and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.. Della Corte KA et al.. Adv Nutr 2025 · PMID 40122386 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100413
- Burdens of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages in 184 countries.. Lara-Castor L et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 39762424 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-024-03345-4
- The potential health effects of taxing sugar-sweetened drinks in Egypt: An epidemiologic-economic modelling study.. Dalugoda Y et al.. Public Health Pract (Oxf) 2026 · PMID 42058140 · DOI 10.1016/j.puhip.2026.100786