Sugars are carbohydrates made of one or two sugar units. EFSA, the EU’s food safety agency, lists seven main ones in mixed diets. Glucose, fructose and galactose are single sugars; sucrose (table sugar), lactose (milk sugar), maltose and trehalose are double sugars.
Each of the six common ones has its own page: glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, lactose and maltose. This page is the overview, and it keeps single-sugar detail short.
The word “sugar” hides four different ideas, and the health advice depends on which one is meant. The table below sorts them out. In short, the WHO limit applies to free sugars. Those include the sugar in honey, syrups and fruit juice, but not the sugar in a whole apple.
Most readers do not know how far past the limits typical intakes are. In the national US survey, added sugar supplied 14.9% of calories on average in 2005 to 2010. And 71.4% of adults took in 10% or more.
This page sets out what 34 studies and reports show, at their real evidence level. They cover teeth, weight, diabetes, the heart, the liver, sugar taxes and the history of industry funding.
| Term | What it covers | Who uses it |
|---|---|---|
| Total sugars | All single and double sugars in a food, whatever their source. EU rules count all monosaccharides and disaccharides in food and leave out polyols (sugar alcohols). FDA rules define total sugars as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides, such as glucose, fructose, lactose and sucrose. | EU label rules, FDA, EFSA |
| Natural (intrinsic) sugars | Sugars inside intact fruit, vegetables and milk. This is not a separate line on a label. The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables or in milk. | WHO |
| Added sugars | Sugars added to food as an ingredient during processing or cooking, or eaten alone or added at the table. The FDA label rule also counts sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juice beyond what the same volume of 100% juice would hold. | EFSA, FDA |
| Free sugars | Added sugars plus the sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. This is the group the WHO limit covers. | WHO, EFSA |
Sources
- European Parliament and Council. Food information to consumers. Annex I (definition of sugars) and Annex XIII (reference intakes). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, retained text.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 101.9, nutrition labeling of food. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21.
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA). Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022.
Health effects of sugar
The top findings from 34 studies, strongest evidence first
What the stars mean
- Strong. Several randomized trials, pooled in a meta-analysis, point the same way, or regulators (FDA or EFSA) have approved the claim.
- Moderate. Good randomized trials support it, but there are fewer of them, or their results vary.
- Limited. Small, short or single trials, or mixed results. Promising, but it needs confirmation.
Population and lab studies get no stars: they show a link or a mechanism, not proof.
How we rate evidence →- ★★★Weight gain from sugary drinks in adultsIn adults, adding sugary drinks led to 0.83 kg more weight gain, and taking them out cut weight by 0.49 kg. A WHO review found weight fell by 0.80 kg when adults ate less free sugar and rose by 0.75 kg when they ate more.
- ★★Tooth decay goes with sugar intakeEFSA, the EU food safety agency, calls sugar intake a well-established hazard for tooth decay. A WHO review of mostly observational studies found less decay when free sugars stayed under 10% of energy.
- ★★Raised blood fats and blood pressureIn 39 trials, more free sugar raised triglycerides, a blood fat (by 0.11 mmol/L), and LDL “bad” cholesterol (by 0.12 mmol/L). In trials of 8 weeks or more, the top blood pressure number was higher (6.9 mm Hg systolic).
- ★★No clear effect on children’s behavior or thinkingIn 23 blinded studies, children given sugar and children given a sweetener placebo did not clearly differ on 14 measures. The authors say a small effect cannot be ruled out.
- ★★Extra fructose calories raised liver fatIn healthy adults, 7 of 13 small trials found that swapping in fructose at equal calories did not change liver fat. The other 6 added 21 to 35% extra energy as fructose, which raised liver fat, perhaps through the extra energy.
All 27 studies, strongest evidence first
EU claim: replacing sugar with sugar replacers helps maintain tooth mineralization
Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 lists the claim for foods or drinks using intense sweeteners, polyols such as xylitol and sorbitol, sucralose or polydextrose. It applies only to swaps in foods or drinks that lower plaque pH (mouth acidity) below 5.7. The swap must keep the product from lowering plaque pH below 5.7 during and up to 30 minutes after eating. A second authorized claim, a lower blood glucose rise than with sugary versions, needs sugars cut by at least the amount for a “reduced” claim. Both claims are about the swap, not about sugars themselves.
In adults, adding sugary drinks led to 0.83 kg more weight gain
This meta-analysis pooled 85 articles: 48 in children (40 cohorts with 91,713 children, 8 trials with 2,783) and 37 in adults. The adults were in 21 cohorts with 448,661 people and 16 trials with 1,343. Against a no-calorie control, taking the drinks out cut adult weight by 0.49 kg, and children in trials gained 0.21 kg/m² less BMI. In cohorts, each daily serving went with 0.07 kg/m² more BMI in children and 0.42 kg more weight in adults, a straight-line dose response. BMI is body mass index, and the drinks were sweetened beverages, not sugar alone.
EFSA, moderate certainty: added sugars raise obesity and blood fat risk
The Panel reviewed trials on surrogate endpoints and prospective cohorts, called sugar a well-established hazard for dental caries, and set no safe or upper level. From the trials, certainty for added and free sugars was moderate for obesity and abnormal blood fats, low for fatty liver and type 2 diabetes. It was very low for high blood pressure. For sugar-sweetened beverages, certainty was high for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. But diet drinks showed similar or stronger links for the last two, so the sugar may not be the cause. Cohorts did not support a link between sugars, swapped for other nutrients at the same energy, and chronic disease. The Panel names excess energy as the main route, and advises added and free sugars “as low as possible” within a nutritionally adequate diet.
In adults, less free sugar cut 0.80 kg; more added 0.75 kg
This systematic review for the WHO sugars guideline found 30 of 7,895 trials and 38 of 9,445 cohort studies eligible. The weight changes came in trials where adults ate freely. Swapping sugars for other carbohydrates at the same energy changed weight by 0.04 kg, so energy intake looks like the driver. Children’s trials showed no overall change and had low compliance. In cohorts, the highest intake of sugary drinks went with 1.55 times the odds of overweight or obesity.
WHO review: less tooth decay below 10% of energy from free sugars
This systematic review of 55 eligible studies (3 intervention, 8 cohort, 20 population, 24 cross-sectional) rated the evidence at that cut-off moderate quality. Forty-two of 50 studies in children and 5 of 5 in adults reported at least one positive link between sugars and caries. At the under 5% cut-off a significant relationship was seen, but the evidence was very low quality. Data varied too much to pool, and the authors declare no conflicts of interest.
In 39 trials, more sugar raised triglycerides and LDL cholesterol
This meta-analysis covered randomized trials of at least 2 weeks that changed free sugars; 37 reported blood fats and 12 blood pressure. Triglycerides rose 0.11 mmol/L (a unit for blood levels), LDL (“bad”) cholesterol 0.12, total cholesterol 0.16 and HDL 0.02 mmol/L. In trials of 8 weeks or more, systolic pressure was 6.9 mm Hg higher and diastolic 5.6 mm Hg. The links held after weight change, but the trials differed a lot (I² 36 to 75%).
641 children: a sugar-free drink beat a sugary one on weight gain
Mostly normal-weight children aged 4 years 10 months to 11 years 11 months got 250 mL a day through schools for 18 months, double-blind. The drink was sugar-free and sweetened, or a similar sugary one with 104 kcal. Weight rose 6.35 kg on the sugar-free drink and 7.37 kg on the sugary one, and BMI z score 0.02 against 0.15. Twenty-six percent stopped drinking; counting those who left, the BMI z score gap was 0.06 against 0.12, which could be chance. Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others.
23 blinded studies: sugar did not affect children’s behavior or thinking
This meta-analysis of 16 reports (23 within-subject studies) gave children a known amount of sugar or a sweetener placebo, with children, parents and staff blinded. For all 14 measures, the range of likely effects (95% confidence interval) included zero, from −0.14 for direct observation to +0.30 for academic tests. The authors say a small effect, or an effect in some groups of children, cannot be ruled out. They suggest parents’ strong belief may come from expectation.
In healthy adults, fructose swaps did not change liver fat
This meta-analysis covered 13 controlled feeding trials in 260 healthy people, 7 of them at equal energy, where fructose swaps showed no effect. The other 6 added 21 to 35% extra energy as fructose (104 to 220 g a day). These raised liver fat (effect size 0.45) and ALT, a liver enzyme, by 4.94 U/L, perhaps more from the extra energy than the fructose. The trials were small, lasted 4 weeks or less and were of poor quality, and they test fructose, not sugars as a class. Funded by a Canadian grant and by the Calorie Control Council, an industry association.
Overweight teens: cutting sugary drinks lowered BMI at 1 year, not 2
224 overweight and obese teens who drank sugary beverages (1.7 servings a day at the start) were randomized. The test group got noncaloric drinks at home for 1 year, cutting intake to nearly 0, and both groups were followed for a second year. At 1 year, BMI was 0.57 lower and weight 1.9 kg lower; the main outcome, a 2-year BMI gap of 0.3, could be chance. Among 27 and 19 Hispanic participants in the two groups, the BMI gap was −1.79 at 1 year and −2.35 at 2 years. Non-Hispanic participants showed no effect.
Fatty liver: under 3% free sugar cut liver fat 25% to 17%
In this open-label trial, 40 boys aged 11 to 16 with biopsy-confirmed fatty liver disease were randomly assigned for 8 weeks. Meals for the whole household kept free sugars under 3% of calories; on the usual diet, liver fat went from 21% to 20%. The adjusted gap was −6.23%, and ALT fell from 103 to 61 U/L against 82 to 75. Eighteen of 20 boys kept to the diet, and 7 of 12 secondary outcomes were null. It is small and short, the authors call it preliminary, and one author reported personal fees from the Sugar Association.
Overweight adults: a liter of cola daily raised liver and muscle fat
This trial of four drinks at 1 L a day for 6 months had 47 overweight adults. The drinks were sucrose-sweetened cola, semi-skimmed milk with the same calories, aspartame diet cola and water. Against the other drinks, relative changes on regular cola were 132 to 143% higher for liver fat and 117 to 221% for muscle fat. Belly fat changes were 24 to 31% higher, triglycerides 32% and total cholesterol 11%, but total fat mass did not differ. It tests cola at a large dose, not sugar alone.
A review found little evidence that sugar is addictive in people
The authors reviewed work on food and sugar addiction, comparing animal and human brain science on drugs and on sugar. Binge-like eating in animals came with on-and-off access to sweet or very tasty food, not from sugar’s effects on brain chemistry. They argue against putting sugar addiction into science and policy before there is better evidence. They report no conflicts and no financial sponsorship.
73 meta-analyses: sugar linked to many harms, mostly heart and metabolic
This umbrella review (a review of reviews) covered 83 outcomes, 74 from observational meta-analyses and 9 from trials. Harmful links appeared for 18 endocrine or metabolic, 10 cardiovascular, 7 cancer and 10 other outcomes. Only two had moderate-quality support: sugary drinks with body weight, and added sugars with fat in organs. Low-quality evidence tied each 250 mL a day of sugary drinks to 17% more coronary heart disease and 4% higher death from any cause. The authors suggest free sugars under 25 g a day; Chinese public bodies funded it, with no industry ties declared.
US adults: 25% or more added sugar, 2.75 times cardiovascular death risk
This cohort of 11,733 adults from the national NHANES survey was followed a median of 14.6 years, with 831 cardiovascular deaths. Against under 10% of calories from added sugar, the risk was 1.30 times at 10 to 24.9%, and 2.75 times at 25% or more. Added sugar supplied 14.9% of calories on average in 2005 to 2010, and 71.4% of adults took in 10% or more. Diet was self-reported, and cohorts show links, not cause.
11 cohorts: most sugary drinks, 26% higher type 2 diabetes risk
This meta-analysis of prospective cohorts had 310,819 participants and 15,043 type 2 diabetes cases. The top group most often drank 1 to 2 servings a day and the lowest none or under 1 a month (relative risk 1.26). For metabolic syndrome, in 19,431 people and 5,803 cases, the pooled risk was 1.20.
17 cohorts: each daily sugary drink, 13% higher type 2 diabetes risk
This meta-analysis had 38,253 cases over 10,126,754 person-years. The rise per daily serving was 18% before adjusting for body fat and 13% after. Fruit juice showed 5% before and 7% after, and no clear link in studies that confirmed diabetes objectively. Assuming cause, the authors estimate that 8.7% of new US cases over 10 years would be due to sugary drinks.
15 cohorts: total sugars, fructose not linked to diabetes; sucrose lower risk
This meta-analysis of 15 prospective cohorts had 251,261 participants and 16,416 type 2 diabetes cases. It compared highest and lowest intakes (median 137 g against 65 g a day for total sugars). Risk ratios were 0.91 for total sugars, 1.04 for fructose and 0.89 for sucrose. The authors judged the estimates limited by inconsistency and imprecision; several disclose research support or fees from food companies, including The Coca-Cola Company.
Two cohorts: two or more sugary drinks daily, 21% higher death risk
The US cohorts, 37,716 men and 80,647 women followed up to 2014, had 36,436 deaths. Against under 1 a month, 2 or more a day went with 1.21 times the risk of death. It was 1.31 for cardiovascular death and 1.16 for cancer death. Diet-drink links were weaker and only at the highest intake. Two authors disclose unpaid expert support for a public-interest group in lawsuits about sugary drinks.
Three cohorts: blueberries, grapes and apples went with less diabetes, juice more
The US cohorts had 66,105 women, 85,104 women and 36,173 men, with 12,198 type 2 diabetes cases in 3,464,641 person-years. Per 3 servings a week, the hazard ratio was 0.98 for total whole fruit, 0.74 for blueberries and 0.88 for grapes and raisins. It was 0.93 for apples and pears, 1.10 for cantaloupe and 1.08 for fruit juice. Associations differed across fruits.
Whitehall II men: top sugar intake, 23% higher odds of mental disorder
Men in the top third of sugar from sweet food and drinks had 23% higher odds of a new common mental disorder 5 years later. The analysis used 23,245 repeated person-observations, food frequency questionnaires and validated mood scales. For recurrent depression, the higher odds in the top third (1.47) could be chance once diet-related factors were included. Mood did not predict later intake, which argues against reverse causation, but residual confounding (other hidden causes) is possible.
A review: tooth decay rises with sugar, even at very low intakes
The authors present dose-response analyses of sucrose and its single sugars against lifetime caries, and describe a log-linear rise. They say processed starches can cause caries when eaten with sucrose, though human data on starch are not clear-cut. They argue that sugars are the only cause of caries, that fluoride and hygiene only modify it, and that industry pressure fed scientific confusion. EFSA’s 2022 opinion was more cautious: sugar is a well-established hazard, but the data did not allow conclusions on the shape of the curve.
62 studies: sugary drink taxes cut sales of taxed drinks by 15%
This review, commissioned by the WHO, found 86 eligible articles and pooled 62. About 82% of the tax reached shelf prices, and demand fell more than in proportion to price (elasticity −1.59). Sales fell by 15% with no sign of a switch to untaxed drinks, and changes in drinking itself were not clear. Tiered taxes went with reformulation and lower sugar content, and local taxes with cross-border shopping; these are real-world evaluations, not trials.
17 evaluations: 10% sugary drink tax, 10% less bought and drunk
This meta-analysis of 17 studies covered 6 jurisdictions; 11 compared before and after a tax and 6 compared taxed with untaxed places. The fall was 10.0%, with large differences between studies (I² = 97%). Untaxed drinks such as water rose by 1.9%, which could be chance.
Drinks levy: obesity fell 1.6 points in girls aged 10 to 11
This time-series analysis used national school measurements in England of over 1 million children, from September 2013 to November 2019. The levy on drink makers was announced in March 2016 and began in April 2018. In year-6 girls, obesity was 1.6 percentage points lower than expected, and 2.4 points lower in the most deprived fifth. Year-6 boys showed no change overall, nor did younger reception-age children, and other changes at the same time cannot be ruled out.
Industry-tied reviews were five times likelier to find no weight link
This review covered 17 systematic reviews of sugary drinks and weight (18 conclusions). Of 12 without disclosed conflicts, 10 (83.3%) said sugary drinks could be a risk factor for weight gain. Of 6 with industry ties, 5 (83.3%) said the evidence was insufficient (relative risk 5.0). Publication bias could not be ruled out, but the authors note that the best large trials also support a link.
Documents: sugar industry paid for a 1965 review that downplayed sugar
This historical analysis used Sugar Research Foundation papers. In 1965 the foundation sponsored its first coronary heart disease project. It was a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that singled out fat and cholesterol and downplayed sucrose. It set the review’s aim, supplied articles and received drafts, and its role was not disclosed. This is history, not evidence about sugar itself, but it is why funding disclosures matter on this page.
Foods high in sugars
Whole fruit leads our USDA ranking, and honey is the one concentrated sweetener in it. Per serving, dates are first with 31.9 g in 2 dates (48 g). Then come grapes (23.4 g in 1 cup) and mango (22.5 g in 1 cup). Cherries, apples and pears follow, and honey gives 17.2 g in 1 tbsp; the ranking below has every amount.
Per 100 g the order changes: honey has 82.1 g and dates 66.5 g, far ahead of figs, grapes, mango, cherries and bananas. Honey looks small per serving only because a tablespoon is small.
Our ranking counts total sugars. It cannot tell added sugars from the natural ones inside a fruit, and that matters. The sugar in a whole piece of fruit is outside the WHO guideline, while the sugar in juice and honey is inside it.
Most added sugar in the United States does not come from fruit. In the national survey behind the 2020 to 2025 Dietary Guidelines, sugar-sweetened beverages gave the largest share (24%). Desserts and sweet snacks gave 19%, sweetened coffee and tea 11% and candy 9%. The chart in “How sugars work” shows all of them.
Per serving. No daily amount is set, so bars compare each food with the top food.
Per 100 g. No daily amount is set, so bars compare each food with the top food.
Per serving. Bars show the share of the EU Reference Intake (90 g a day).
Per 100 g. Bars show the share of the EU Reference Intake (90 g a day).
Per 100 kcal: the same calories of each food, for a fair comparison. Bars compare each food with the top food.
- 1.
DatesFruits · per 2 dates (48 g)31.9 g100% of the top food35% of the Reference Intake
- 2.
GrapesFruits · per 1 cup (151 g)23.4 g73% of the top food26% of the Reference Intake
- 3.
MangoFruits · per 1 cup (165 g)22.5 g71% of the top food25% of the Reference Intake
- 4.
CherriesFruits · per 1 cup (154 g)19.7 g62% of the top food22% of the Reference Intake
- 5.
ApplesFruits · per 1 medium (182 g)18.9 g59% of the top food21% of the Reference Intake
- 6.
PearsFruits · per 1 medium (178 g)17.4 g54% of the top food19% of the Reference Intake
- 7.
HoneyMisc · per 1 tbsp (21 g)17.2 g54% of the top food19% of the Reference Intake
- 8.
FigsFruits · per 2 medium figs (100 g)16.3 g51% of the top food18% of the Reference Intake
- 9.
PineappleFruits · per 1 cup (165 g)16.3 g51% of the top food18% of the Reference Intake
- 10.
BlueberriesFruits · per 1 cup (148 g)14.7 g46% of the top food16% of the Reference Intake
- 1.
HoneyMisc82.1 g100% of the top food91% of the Reference Intake
- 2.
DatesFruits66.5 g81% of the top food74% of the Reference Intake
- 3.
FigsFruits16.3 g20% of the top food18% of the Reference Intake
- 4.
GrapesFruits15.5 g19% of the top food17% of the Reference Intake
- 5.
MangoFruits13.7 g17% of the top food15% of the Reference Intake
- 6.
CherriesFruits12.8 g16% of the top food14% of the Reference Intake
- 7.
BananasFruits12.2 g15% of the top food14% of the Reference Intake
- 8.
ApplesFruits10.4 g13% of the top food12% of the Reference Intake
- 9.
BlueberriesFruits9.96 g12% of the top food11% of the Reference Intake
- 10.
PlumsFruits9.92 g12% of the top food11% of the Reference Intake
- 1.
HoneyMisc27 g100% of the top food
- 2.
DatesFruits24 g89% of the top food
- 3.
CantaloupeFruits23.1 g86% of the top food
- 4.
MangoFruits22.8 g84% of the top food
- 5.
GrapesFruits22.4 g83% of the top food
- 6.
FigsFruits22 g81% of the top food
- 7.
GrapefruitFruits21.8 g81% of the top food
- 8.
PlumsFruits21.6 g80% of the top food
- 9.
WatermelonFruits20.7 g77% of the top food
- 10.
CherriesFruits20.3 g75% of the top food
Sources
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. FoodData Central. Values as shown in the ranking above (total sugars; 106 foods in our database contain sugars).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th edition, 2020 (previous edition). Figure 1-10: top sources and average intakes of added sugars, ages 1 and older, NHANES 2013 to 2016.
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 101.9, nutrition labeling of food. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21.
How sugars work
Most of what is known about how the body handles sugars comes from physiology and chemistry. Human studies cover the health outcomes on the cards above. Four ideas cover it.
Sugars are one or two sugar units. Enzymes and carriers in the gut move them into the blood, and the liver takes up most fructose and turns galactose into glucose. In the mouth, bacteria turn sugars into acid. Energy, more than any special sugar effect, ties the rest together.
Sugars are one or two sugar units
Carbohydrates are grouped by chain length. Sugars have one or two units, short chains of 3 to 9 units are oligosaccharides, and chains of 10 or more are polysaccharides. That group includes starch and the non-starch polysaccharides behind fiber.
Sugars are digested in the small intestine, except lactose in people with low lactase activity. Food labels count them at 4 kcal per gram.
Glucose and fructose are common in fruit, berries, some vegetables and honey. Sucrose comes from sugar cane and sugar beet, and is also in many fruits and vegetables. Lactose is found only in milk and dairy, and maltose in germinating grain and glucose syrups.
The family of sugars. Teal is glucose, orange is fructose and magenta is galactose. Trehalose, a fourth double sugar made of two glucose units, is a minor food sugar and is left out. Not to scale.
Enzymes split double sugars and carriers move single sugars
Enzymes on the gut lining cut double sugars into single ones, and the cells lining the small intestine take those up. Glucose and galactose enter through a carrier called SGLT1, and fructose through a different one, probably GLUT5. They leave toward the blood through GLUT2 and GLUT5.
Mutations in SGLT1 cause a major defect in glucose and galactose absorption. The result is severe watery diarrhea that is fatal if untreated, which shows how much the body depends on that carrier.
Genetic sucrase-isomaltase deficiency shows the same for the enzyme that digests sucrose. It was once thought to be a rare condition of infants. But it can also appear later in life, with symptoms that overlap irritable bowel syndrome.
How the gut and liver handle sugars, simplified from human physiology reviews. Not to scale.
The liver takes up most fructose and converts galactose
Fructose is almost completely taken up by the liver, which quickly turns it into glucose, glycogen, lactate and fat. This fits what is seen in people: a lot of fructose can raise blood fats while hardly moving blood glucose.
A review judged that very high fructose intake can harm humans as it does rodents, and that evidence for moderate doses is weak. It found no direct evidence that high-fructose corn syrup does more harm than sucrose.
Galactose is almost completely converted into glucose in the liver by a four-enzyme route, the Leloir pathway. A defect in it causes galactosemia.
Mouth bacteria turn sugars into acid
Plaque bacteria break dietary sugars down to organic acids, and the acids dissolve tooth enamel and dentine. EFSA calls this mechanism well established.
Sucrose also helps build plaque, and there is some evidence that it causes more decay than other sugars. But EFSA found too little evidence to rank sugars, or to say that swapping one for another would help.
The Vipeholm study suggested the pattern of eating matters. Sticky sugary foods between meals caused a lot of decay, while non-sticky sugar at meals had little effect in that supervised group.
Excess energy is the main route to weight
EFSA names excess energy and weight gain as the main way dietary sugars may contribute to chronic disease in free-living people. The review of weight trials fits that. Swapping sugars for other carbohydrates at the same energy did not change body weight (0.04 kg). Eating freely with less or more sugar moved weight by about 0.8 kg.
Mechanisms specific to sugars may also play a role when energy balance is positive. Examples are making fat in the liver, insulin resistance in the liver and higher uric acid.
What has been seen in people
In the United States, sweetened drinks are the biggest single source of added sugar, ahead of desserts, coffee and tea. The chart puts the sources on one scale.
Share of added sugars eaten in the United States by food group, ages 1 and older, drawn to scale. Within sugar-sweetened beverages, soft drinks are 16 points, fruit drinks 5, sport and energy drinks 2 and other drinks 1. Average intake was 266 kcal a day.
Intakes in surveys sit above most official limits. The next chart puts the limits and the measured intakes side by side.
Sugar limits and average intakes as a share of energy, drawn to scale. Teal bars are official limits (the US bar is the previous 2020 to 2025 edition; the 2025 to 2030 edition gives no percent), magenta bars are measured intakes (surveys, not limits). Limits cover free sugars (WHO, SACN) or added sugars (US, National Academies), so the bars are close but not identical measures.
Putting the cards together: sugar is clearly linked to tooth decay. Sugary drinks cause weight gain in trials, and are linked to diabetes and a higher risk of death in cohorts. Trials show higher triglycerides and blood pressure with more sugar, and small trials show less liver fat when free sugar is cut.
For total sugar in mixed foods, and for whole fruit, the cohort evidence is weaker or points the other way. Most trials tested drinks or whole diets, not a single sugar. Several had food-industry funding or industry-linked authors, which we flag on the cards.
Sources
- EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA). Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022.
- Cummings JH, Stephen AM. Carbohydrate terminology and classification. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007.
- Levin RJ. Digestion and absorption of carbohydrates: from molecules and membranes to humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994.
- Wright EM, Martín MG, Turk E. Intestinal absorption in health and disease: sugars. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2003.
- Koepsell H. Glucose transporters in the small intestine in health and disease. Pflugers Arch. 2020.
- Danialifar TF, Chumpitazi BP, Mehta DI, Di Lorenzo C. Genetic and acquired sucrase-isomaltase deficiency: a clinical review. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2024.
- Tappy L, Lê KA. Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity. Physiol Rev. 2010.
- Newbrun E. Frequent sugar intake: then and now. Interpretation of the main results of the Vipeholm study. Scand J Dent Res. 1989.
- Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ. 2012.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th edition, 2020 (previous edition). Figure 1-10.
- Yang Q, Zhang Z, Gregg EW, et al. Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2014.
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Carbohydrates and health. UK government. 2015.
- Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. National Academies Press. 2005. The upper limit of 25% of energy for added sugars is as described in the EFSA opinion above.
How much sugar is too much?
No daily amount of sugar is needed from food, and no authority has set a safe upper level. The WHO advises under 10% of energy from free sugars, with a conditional further cut to under 5%. On a 2,000 kcal day that is about 50 g and 25 g (our arithmetic).
The current US Dietary Guidelines (2025 to 2030) say no amount of added sugars is recommended. They add that one meal should contain no more than 10 g of added sugars. The previous edition (2020 to 2025) said under 10% of calories from added sugars from age 2.
EFSA could set no upper level and advises added and free sugars “as low as possible” within a nutritionally adequate diet.
Sugars: recommended intake per day
US: FDA Daily Value (21 CFR 101.9). EU: Reference Intake, the nutrient reference value of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.
| Age and sex | US (DV) | EU (RI) |
|---|---|---|
| Adults and children 4+ (food labels) | None set | 90 g |
These are the reference values used on food labels: % Daily Value in the US, % Reference Intake in the EU. Intakes by age, sex and life stage are being added.
| Source | Group | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| WHO 2015 | Adults and children | Free sugars: under 10% of total energy (strong recommendation); a further reduction to under 5%, roughly 25 g (6 teaspoons), is conditional | About 50 g and 25 g on 2,000 kcal. The guideline does not refer to sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables or in milk. |
| US Dietary Guidelines 2025 to 2030 (current) | General advice; infancy and early childhood | No amount of added sugars is recommended or considered part of a healthy diet; one meal should contain no more than 10 g of added sugars; avoid added sugars in infancy and early childhood | Also advises avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, fruit drinks and energy drinks, and limiting low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners. Sugars naturally in fruit and plain milk are not counted as added sugars. |
| US Dietary Guidelines 2020 to 2025 (previous edition) | Age 2 and older; under age 2 | Added sugars: under 10% of calories a day from age 2; avoid foods and beverages with added sugars under age 2 | About 50 g on 2,000 kcal. The guidelines note that most Americans have less than 8% of calories left for added sugars after meeting food group needs in nutrient-dense forms. |
| FDA | Food labels | Daily Value for added sugars: 50 g. No Daily Value for total sugars | Labels show “Includes X g Added Sugars” under Total Sugars. The Daily Value predates the 2025 to 2030 guidelines and still applies to labels. |
| EU Regulation 1169/2011 | Adults, labels | Reference intake for sugars: 90 g a day | A labeling reference for all sugars, not a target. As listed in the intake table above. |
| EFSA 2022 | General population | No tolerable upper level or safe level could be set; added and free sugars “as low as possible” | Across European surveys, the lowest and highest adult means were 6 to 15% of energy for free sugars and 5 to 10% for added sugars. |
| UK SACN 2015 | Population, age 2 and older | Free sugars: no more than 5% of dietary energy | About 25 g on 2,000 kcal (our arithmetic). |
| National Academies 2005 | Adults | Suggested upper limit for added sugars: 25% of energy | About 125 g on 2,000 kcal (our arithmetic). Suggested because some US subgroups above this level had micronutrient intakes below the DRI; the Institute found the data too thin to set a tolerable upper level. |
| American Heart Association 2009 and 2017 | Women and men; children age 2 and older | Most women no more than 100 kcal and most men no more than 150 kcal a day from added sugars; children no more than 25 g, none under age 2 | 100 kcal is about 25 g and 150 kcal about 37.5 g (our arithmetic). |
Typical intakes are above these limits. US adults took in 14.9% of calories from added sugar on average in 2005 to 2010. In the 2020 to 2025 guidelines (the survey data behind the previous edition), added sugars supply more than 13% of calories. That is about 266 kcal a day across the population.
In Europe the mean adult intake of free sugars ranged from 6% to 15% of energy across surveys. Sugary drinks, sweets, desserts and coffee and tea with sugar carry most of it, so those are the first place to look.
Sugar has no deficiency state to describe. The 130 g carbohydrate RDA (recommended dietary allowance) of the National Academies covers carbohydrate from any source. We found no deficiency disease linked to eating no added sugar, so this page has no deficiency section.
Sources
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. January 2026 (current edition).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th edition, 2020 (previous edition).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Daily Value on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels.
- European Parliament and Council. Food information to consumers. Annex I (definition of sugars) and Annex XIII (reference intakes). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, retained text.
- EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA). Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022.
- Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Carbohydrates and health. UK government. 2015.
- Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. National Academies Press. 2005. Values as described in the EFSA opinion above and in a summary of the carbohydrate report.
- Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009.
- Vos MB, Kaar JL, Welsh JA, et al. Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017.
- Yang Q, Zhang Z, Gregg EW, et al. Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2014.
Forms of sugar: absorption and effects
Sugar comes as table sugar, brown sugar, syrups, honey, juice and whole fruit. Chemically, most of them are mixtures of glucose and fructose. The head-to-head trials that exist found small differences between them, next to the amount eaten and what the sugar comes in.
The WHO counts honey, syrups, fruit juice and fruit juice concentrates as free sugars. The FDA counts syrups, honey and juice concentrates as added sugars, so none of them is outside the limits.
Where trials exist the doses are large. They include 50 g of carbohydrate a day from honey, sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for 2 weeks. Another gave 10 to 25% of energy as HFCS drinks for 2 weeks, and another 5% of calories from maple syrup for 8 weeks.
We found no trial showing honey, maple syrup, brown sugar or agave beat sugar for a hard outcome such as diabetes or heart attack. Studies of fruit juice and whole fruit are mostly cohorts.
| Form | What it is | What studies show | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Table sugar (sucrose) | One glucose and one fructose unit joined; made from sugar cane or sugar beet | In a 2-week crossover trial it had effects similar to honey and HFCS55, and all three raised triglycerides. In cohorts, higher sucrose intake went with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (risk ratio 0.89), which cannot show cause. | 1, 4, 5 |
| Brown sugar | A sweetener sold as an alternative to refined white sugar | One lab assay put its antioxidant capacity between 0.2 and 0.7 mmol FRAP per 100 g, far above refined sugar (under 0.01). We found no trial of brown against white sugar for any health outcome. | 8 |
| Honey | Bee-made syrup, a free sugar under WHO and EFSA definitions; 82.1 g of sugars per 100 g in our ranking | A meta-analysis of 18 trials found small gains in fasting glucose and blood fats, with low certainty. A direct 2-week trial against sucrose and HFCS55 found similar effects. “Honey is healthier than sugar” is only partly supported. | 2, 4, 6, 17 |
| Maple syrup | Tree-sap syrup, a free sugar | One 8-week crossover trial of 42 adults found a slightly lower glucose response and systolic blood pressure than sucrose syrup. It is the only trial we found. | 2, 7 |
| Agave syrup | Syrup from agave sap, described as fructose-rich | Almost no antioxidants in the lab assay. In 18 mice it gave less weight gain and lower glucose than sucrose. A 2022 review says more research on human metabolism is needed to back health claims. We found no human trial against sugar. | 8, 9, 10 |
| High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) | A glucose and fructose liquid sweetener; HFCS55 has 55% fructose | Similar to honey and sucrose in a 2-week trial. In young adults, drinks at 10%, 17.5% and 25% of energy raised triglycerides and uric acid in steps. Reviews found no direct evidence that it does more harm than sucrose. | 4, 11, 12, 13 |
| Fruit juice concentrate | Concentrated juice used as a sweetener | Counted as free sugar by WHO and EFSA, and as added sugar by the FDA when it exceeds what the same volume of 100% juice would hold. We found no trial of juice concentrate as a sweetener alone. | 1, 2, 3 |
| 100% fruit juice | Juice from fruit, with no sugar added | In cohorts, a daily serving went with a higher BMI change in children and, in adults, with weight change that depended on whether energy was adjusted. It went with a higher diabetes risk in two cohort analyses (hazard ratio 1.08 per 3 servings a week; 7% per daily serving after adjusting for body fat). | 14, 15, 16 |
| Whole fruit | Sugar inside intact fruit, outside the WHO guideline | Total whole fruit went with a slightly lower diabetes risk (hazard ratio 0.98 per 3 servings a week). Blueberries, grapes and apples were lower, cantaloupe higher. | 2, 15 |
Here are the form-specific studies, strongest evidence first, seven in all.
All 7 studies, strongest evidence first
18 trials: honey slightly lowered fasting glucose and blood fats
This meta-analysis of trials of at least 1 week had 33 comparisons and 1,105 people. Honey lowered fasting glucose 0.20 mmol/L, total cholesterol 0.18, LDL 0.16, triglycerides 0.13 and ALT 9.75 U/L, all on low-certainty evidence. It raised HDL by 0.07 mmol/L, with high certainty, and robinia, clover and raw honey showed the benefits. A Canadian public body funded the review, and one author reports research support from the National Honey Board.
In children, daily 100% juice went with 0.03 higher BMI change
This meta-analysis of 42 studies had 17 cohorts in children (45,851 children), and 6 cohorts and 19 trials in adults. In adult cohorts not adjusted for energy, a serving a day went with 0.21 kg more weight; adjusting for energy turned it to −0.08 kg. That suggests calories carry the effect, and adult trials against no-calorie controls found −0.53 kg, with a wide range, so no clear change. One author’s fellowship was co-funded by the Canadian Sugar Institute, and others report support from food groups.
55 adults: all three sweeteners had similar effects over 2 weeks
28 adults with normal and 27 with impaired glucose tolerance ate 50 g of carbohydrate daily from honey, sucrose or HFCS55, in random order. After 2 weeks on each, with 2-to-4-week breaks, fasting glucose, insulin, insulin resistance and glucose tolerance did not differ, nor did weight. All three raised triglycerides, and an inflammation marker (hsCRP) rose in the impaired group. HFCS55 is high-fructose corn syrup with 55% fructose; a US government research service funded it, according to PubMed’s grant data.
Overweight adults: maple syrup gave a slightly lower glucose response than sucrose
42 overweight adults with mild metabolic changes swapped 5% of calories from added sugars to maple syrup or artificially flavored sucrose syrup, 8 weeks each. Maple syrup lowered the glucose area under the curve in an oral glucose test. It also lowered android (belly) fat mass and systolic blood pressure (−2.72 against 0.87 mm Hg). Blood lipids did not change. This is one small trial with borderline P values, and both syrups are free sugars.
Young adults: HFCS drinks at 10%, 17.5% or 25% raised blood fats
Adults aged 18 to 40 drank HFCS at 0% (aspartame-sweetened, 23 people), 10% (18), 17.5% (16) or 25% (28) of energy for 13 outpatient days. Within 2 weeks, after-meal triglycerides rose step by step, by 22, 25 and 37 mg/dL, against 0 in the 0% group. Fasting LDL rose by 7.4, 8.2 and 15.9 mg/dL, and 24-hour uric acid by 0.15, 0.30 and 0.59 mg/dL. The double-blind study was not randomized, and it tests HFCS in drinks, not sucrose or other sugars.
Lab test: refined sugar, corn syrup and agave had almost no antioxidants
Researchers measured total antioxidant capacity (FRAP) in major US brands of 12 sweetener types, plus refined sugar and corn syrup. Refined sugar, corn syrup and agave nectar were under 0.01 mmol FRAP per 100 g, and raw cane sugar was 0.1. Maple syrup, brown sugar and honey had 0.2 to 0.7, and dark and blackstrap molasses had the most, 4.6 to 4.9. No health outcome was measured, so this shows what the products contain, not what they do in the body.
18 mice: agave gave less weight gain and lower glucose than sucrose
Male mice ate equal-energy diets with 20% carbohydrate from raw agave nectar (6 mice) or sucrose (12 mice) for 34 days. Weight gain was 4.3 against 8.4 g and plasma glucose 77.8 against 111.0 mg/dL; fat pad weight and insulin were also lower on agave. Cholesterol and triglycerides did not differ. The authors call for larger animal studies and human studies; we found no human trial of agave nectar against sugar.
Sources
- EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA). Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022.
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 101.9, nutrition labeling of food. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21.
- Raatz SK, Johnson LK, Picklo MJ. Consumption of honey, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup produces similar metabolic effects in glucose-tolerant and -intolerant individuals. J Nutr. 2015.
- Tsilas CS, de Souza RJ, Mejia SB, et al. Relation of total sugars, fructose and sucrose with incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. CMAJ. 2017.
- Ahmed A, Tul-Noor Z, Lee D, et al. Effect of honey on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev. 2023.
- Morissette A, Agrinier AL, Gignac T, et al. Substituting refined sugars with maple syrup decreases key cardiometabolic risk factors in individuals with mild metabolic alterations: a randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial. J Nutr. 2024.
- Phillips KM, Carlsen MH, Blomhoff R. Total antioxidant content of alternatives to refined sugar. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009.
- Saraiva A, Carrascosa C, Ramos F, Raheem D, Raposo A. Agave syrup: chemical analysis and nutritional profile, applications in the food industry and health impacts. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022.
- Hooshmand S, Holloway B, Nemoseck T, et al. Effects of agave nectar versus sucrose on weight gain, adiposity, blood glucose, insulin, and lipid responses in mice. J Med Food. 2014.
- White JS. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008.
- Tappy L, Lê KA. Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity. Physiol Rev. 2010.
- Stanhope KL, Medici V, Bremer AA, et al. A dose-response study of consuming high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages on lipid/lipoprotein risk factors for cardiovascular disease in young adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015.
- Nguyen M, Jarvis SE, Chiavaroli L, et al. Consumption of 100% fruit juice and body weight in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2024.
- Muraki I, Imamura F, Manson JE, et al. Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies. BMJ. 2013.
- Imamura F, O’Connor L, Ye Z, et al. 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. BMJ. 2015.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. FoodData Central. Honey value as shown in the ranking above.
Is sugar bad for you? Limits and who should watch it
Sugar in the amounts found in whole foods is not a safety problem for most people. An American Heart Association (AHA) statement on children says added sugars can most likely be safely eaten in low amounts in a healthy diet. The concern is the amount, and above all the form.
No authority sets a tolerable upper level. EFSA could not find an intake at which the risk of tooth decay or chronic disease is not raised, across the range people eat. It advises added and free sugars as low as possible.
- Teeth. Sugar is the one clearly established cause on this page. Cavity risk depends on how often and how long teeth are exposed. A 1989 review of the Vipeholm study notes that sticky sugary foods between meals are the highest risk. The EU’s tooth-mineralization claim applies to replacing sugar, in foods that do not lower plaque pH below 5.7.
- Sugary drinks. They are the form with the most evidence of harm: weight gain in trials, and higher diabetes and death risk in cohorts. EFSA rates the certainty as high for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. But diet drinks showed similar links to the last two.
- Inherited sugar disorders. In hereditary fructose intolerance, fructose, sucrose and sorbitol cause low blood sugar and vomiting. Untreated cases can lead to liver and kidney failure, and honey, agave syrup, HFCS and molasses are on the avoid list. In classic galactosemia, infants need a lactose-restricted diet; started in the first ten days of life, it usually prevents the severe early complications. Inherited sucrase-isomaltase deficiency and glucose-galactose malabsorption also limit specific sugars. Families should follow their metabolic team.
- Diabetes, fatty liver and children. If you have diabetes or liver disease, ask your care team how to fit sugars into meals. The current Dietary Guidelines say to avoid added sugars in infancy and early childhood. The AHA statement for children recommends no more than 25 g of added sugars a day from age 2, and none before age 2. One small trial in boys with fatty liver found liver fat fell when free sugar was cut sharply.
- Sugar substitutes. The 2025 to 2030 Dietary Guidelines advise limiting low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners as well as added sugars. The previous edition said they may cut calories in the short term, but left questions about long-term weight control. In the diabetes cohort analysis, diet drinks and juice were unlikely to be healthy swaps for sugary drinks, though the findings involved bias.
How to eat less sugar
- Start with drinks. The 2025 to 2030 Dietary Guidelines say to avoid sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, fruit drinks and energy drinks. They say to choose water and unsweetened drinks. Sweetened drinks were 24% of US added sugars in the earlier survey. In adults, taking them out gave 0.49 kg of weight loss in trials.
- Read the label for added sugars. A US label lists “Includes X g Added Sugars” (Daily Value 50 g), and syrups, honey and concentrated juice count. The current Dietary Guidelines add: look for names with “sugar” or “syrup” or ending in “-ose”. On an EU label the sugars line is total sugars, so check the ingredient list for syrups and honey.
- Keep whole fruit, cut sweet extras. The WHO guideline leaves out the sugar in fresh fruit, and whole fruit was linked to slightly lower diabetes risk. Desserts and sweet snacks supply 19% of US added sugar, so they are the next place to cut.
Sources
- EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA). Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. January 2026 (current edition).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th edition, 2020 (previous edition).
- Vos MB, Kaar JL, Welsh JA, et al. Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017.
- Newbrun E. Frequent sugar intake: then and now. Interpretation of the main results of the Vipeholm study. Scand J Dent Res. 1989.
- Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union. 2012.
- Nguyen M, Jarvis SE, Tinajero MG, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023.
- Imamura F, O’Connor L, Ye Z, et al. 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. BMJ. 2015.
- Schwimmer JB, Ugalde-Nicalo P, Welsh JA, et al. Effect of a low free sugar diet vs usual diet on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in adolescent boys: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019.
- Gaughan S, Ayres L, Baker PR II. Hereditary fructose intolerance. In: GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle. Updated 2021.
- Berry GT. Classic galactosemia and clinical variant galactosemia. In: GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle. Updated 2021.
- Danialifar TF, Chumpitazi BP, Mehta DI, Di Lorenzo C. Genetic and acquired sucrase-isomaltase deficiency: a clinical review. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2024.
- Levin RJ. Digestion and absorption of carbohydrates: from molecules and membranes to humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Daily Value on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 101.9, nutrition labeling of food. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21.
- European Parliament and Council. Food information to consumers. Annex I (definition of sugars) and Annex XIII (reference intakes). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, retained text.
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- Muraki I, Imamura F, Manson JE, et al. Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies. BMJ. 2013.
History of sugar research
The Vipeholm dental caries study, reported in 1954, followed 436 people for five years while the amount and form of their carbohydrate intake was varied. Its main finding is generally accepted: sugary foods eaten in a sticky form often between meals cause a lot of tooth decay. The study has also been criticized on ethical grounds.
Early warning signs of a heart-disease risk from sucrose appeared in the 1950s. Cristin Kearns and colleagues analyzed documents from the sugar industry. They show that in 1965 the Sugar Research Foundation paid for a literature review in the New England Journal of Medicine. The review played down sucrose and pointed to fat and cholesterol, and the funding was not disclosed.
The same group found that the foundation ended an animal project on sugar and blood fats (Project 259, 1967 to 1971) without publishing its results. And when the US dental institute planned its 1971 National Caries Program, 78% of the sugar industry’s submission was written into the call for research.
In 1976 the US Sugar Association won a public-relations award for a campaign that, the authors say, limited the spread of policies to restrict sugar. Funding still shapes the field. A 2013 review found that reviews of sugary drinks and weight were five times likelier to find no link when the authors had industry conflicts.
Sugar is now in most of the food supply. A 2016 analysis reported that 74% of products in the US food supply contain caloric or low-calorie sweeteners.
Policy has moved. The WHO published its free sugars guideline on 4 March 2015, and US labels now list added sugars. EFSA’s 2022 opinion, requested by five Nordic countries in 2016, found no safe level. Most of the evidence on this page is newer than the debate it follows.
Sources
- Gustafsson BE, Quensel CE, Lanke LS, et al. The Vipeholm dental caries study: the effect of different levels of carbohydrate intake on caries activity in 436 individuals observed for five years. Acta Odontol Scand. 1954.
- Newbrun E. Frequent sugar intake: then and now. Interpretation of the main results of the Vipeholm study. Scand J Dent Res. 1989.
- Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016.
- Kearns CE, Apollonio D, Glantz SA. Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: an historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Biol. 2017.
- Kearns CE, Glantz SA, Schmidt LA. Sugar industry influence on the scientific agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: a historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Med. 2015.
- Kearns CE, Glantz SA, Apollonio DE. In defense of sugar: a critical analysis of rhetorical strategies used in The Sugar Association’s award-winning 1976 public relations campaign. BMC Public Health. 2019.
- Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2013.
- Popkin BM, Hawkes C. Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016.
- World Health Organization. WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children. News release, 4 March 2015.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 101.9, nutrition labeling of food. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21.
- EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA). Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. EFSA J. 2022.
Frequently asked questions about sugars
Is natural sugar better than added sugar?
Not as molecules, but the food around them matters. The WHO guideline does not refer to sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables or in milk, because no adverse effects have been reported for them. In three US cohorts, every 3 weekly servings of whole fruit went with a hazard ratio of 0.98 for type 2 diabetes, juice 1.08. Honey, syrups and juice are free sugars, so they count toward the limit.
Does sugar cause diabetes?
Sugary drinks are linked to it: across 17 cohorts, each daily serving went with 13% higher risk after adjusting for body fat. Sugar in general is less clear: across 15 cohorts, total sugars were not linked (risk ratio 0.91). EFSA rates the certainty as low for added and free sugars and type 2 diabetes in trials, and high for sugar-sweetened beverages in cohorts. Extra energy and weight gain look like the main route.
Does sugar make children hyperactive?
Not in blinded studies. A meta-analysis of 23 studies found no effect of sugar on behavior or thinking, with the confidence interval for all 14 measures including zero. The authors suggest parents’ strong belief may come from expectation, though a small effect, or an effect in some children, cannot be ruled out.
Is sugar addictive?
A 2016 review found little evidence for sugar addiction in humans. Bingeing in animals appeared with intermittent access to sweet or very tasty food, rather than from sugar’s effects on the brain’s chemistry. The authors argue against adding sugar addiction to policy until there is better evidence.
Is honey or brown sugar healthier than white sugar?
At best only slightly. In a 2-week trial, 50 g of carbohydrate a day from honey, sucrose or HFCS55 had similar effects, and all three raised triglycerides. A meta-analysis of 18 trials found small gains in fasting glucose and blood fats with honey, on low-certainty evidence. Brown sugar had more antioxidant capacity than refined sugar in a lab assay, but we found no trial of it. All of these count as free or added sugars.
Is fruit juice as bad as soda?
Not quite, but it is not a free pass. Per daily serving, sugary drinks went with 13% higher diabetes risk after adjusting for body fat, and fruit juice with 7%. In children each daily serving of 100% juice went with a 0.03 higher BMI change, against 0.07 kg/m² for sugary drinks. In cohort studies, EFSA found moderate certainty that fruit juice raises the risk of type 2 diabetes, and high certainty for sugary drinks.
Do sugar taxes work?
They reduce purchases of taxed drinks: a WHO-commissioned review of 62 studies found a 15% fall in sales, with no clear switch to untaxed drinks. A smaller review put a 10% tax at a 10% fall in purchases and intake. After England’s soft drinks levy, obesity fell by 1.6 percentage points in 10-to-11-year-old girls but not in boys or younger children. Other changes at the time cannot be ruled out.
What does “added sugars” on a label mean?
It means sugar put in during processing or packed as an ingredient. The FDA rule counts syrups, honey and the sugars of concentrated fruit or vegetable juice beyond what 100% juice would hold. US labels show it under total sugars as “Includes X g Added Sugars”, with a Daily Value of 50 g. EU labels give total sugars, with an EU Reference Intake of 90 g.






