SYNOPSIS
Excess added sugars, particularly in the form of sugar sweetened beverages, is a leading cause of tooth decay in U.S. children. While added sugar intake is rooted behavioral and social factors, few evidence-based, theory-driven sociobehavioral strategies are currently available to address added sugar intake. Dental health professionals are in a position to help identify and address problematic sugar-related behaviors in pediatric patients and advocate for broader upstream approaches including taxes, warning labels, and policy changes that can help to reduce added sugar intake, prevent tooth decay, and improve health outcomes in vulnerable child populations.
Keywords: Added sugars, Sugar sweetened beverages, Dental caries, Children, Pediatric dentistry, Evidence-based dentistry, Behavioral determinants of health, Social determinants of health, Sugar sweetened beverage tax
Introduction
Dental caries is the most common disease globally and among U.S. children.1,2 The causal relationship between fermentable carbohydrates and caries was first documented in the scientific literature in the 1950s. The Vipeholm study underscored the importance of both frequency of sugar intake and the consistency of sugar consumed.3-6 Until this landmark set of publications, there was no scientific consensus on the link between sugar and caries.4 It is now widely accepted that excess intake of added sugars – defined as sugars found in foods other than grains, vegetables, whole fruit, and milk – leads to dental caries and other systemic health problems including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.7-10
Despite decades of research on sugar as one of the main causes of dental caries, there are currently few evidence-based clinical strategies known to reduce excess added sugar intake in children.11 The goal of this paper is to present national data on the relationship between added sugar and dental caries in U.S. children; identify the sociodemographic, behavioral, and social determinants of added sugar intake in children; review evidence-based strategies that reduce added sugar intake; provide clinicians with chairside strategies to address excess added sugar intake in patients; and outline unresolved challenges, opportunities, and next steps. The goal of this review is to advance the field through promotion of high-quality, evidence-based strategies and policies that address added sugar intake in children, which in turn are expected to prevent oral and systemic diseases, reduce health inequalities, improve quality-of-life, and address other consequences related to excess added sugar intake.
Added sugar and dental caries.
Based on data from the 2011-2012 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between added sugar intake (grams/day) and dental caries (defined as the number of decayed, missing, or filled primary and permanent tooth surfaces as proportion of the total number of tooth surfaces in the mouth) for children ages 18 years and younger (Figure 1). While these data are cross-sectional and do not account for longitudinal or accumulated sugar intake, the noted relationship is consistent with the sugar-mediated pathobiology of dental caries.12
Figure 1.
Plot of Mean Daily Added Sugar Intake and Tooth Decay for U.S. Children Ages 18 Years and Younger (N=3,441). Plot not adjusted for potential outliers.
Data from National Center for Health Statistics. 2011-2012 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for participants ages 18 years and younger with added sugar and caries data. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/Default.aspx?BeginYear=2011
Sociodemographic determinants.
There are four sociodemographic determinants relevant in added sugar intake.13 The first is age. Based on 2011-2012 NHANES data for U.S. children ages 18 years and younger with complete data on added sugar intake and dental caries (N=3,441), added sugar intake increases with age (Figure 2). Added sugar intake ranged from 3.5 grams per day for children under age 1 year to 102.1 grams per day for children age 18 years. Added sugar intake is significantly lower for children under age 6 years than for children ages 6 to 18 years. These data are consistent with findings from other studies examining age-based trends in added sugar intake.14
Figure 2.
Mean Daily Added Sugar Intake by Age Group for U.S. Children Ages 18 Years and Younger (N=3,441).
Data from National Center for Health Statistics. 2011-2012 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data for participants ages 18 years and younger with added sugar and caries data. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/Default.aspx?BeginYear=2011
The second sociodemographic determinant is race and ethnicity. Added sugar intake was highest for non-Hispanic White children ages 18 years and younger (80.3 grams) compared to non-White children (P<0.05 for all comparisons) based on 2011-2012 NHANES data (Figure 3). Added sugar intake for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, other/multiple race, and Asian children was 72.2, 65.4, 57.4, 51.1 grams per day, respectively. Consistent with these data are findings from a study comparing added sugar intake for Black and Hispanic children enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in Chicago.15 Calories from added sugar intake was significantly higher for Black children than for Hispanic children (P<0.01). A study focusing on American Indian preschoolers found that mean added sugar intake for children ages 2 to 3 years and children 4 to 5 years was 54.8 and 59.1 grams, respectively.16 Added sugar intake was measured using 24-hour recalls. Using NHANES data as a historical comparison group, added sugar intake was 17.5% greater for American Indians than intake for White children ages 2 to 3 years but 13.3% lower for American Indians compared to White children ages 4 to 5 years. Another study of Alaska Native children ages 6 to 17 years reported a mean daily added sugar intake of 193 grams per day.17 Added sugar was measured using a hair biomarker validated against 24-hour recalls. Added sugar intake for Alaska Native children was double the mean added sugar intake for White children ages 6 to 17 years in NHANES.
Figure 3.
Mean Daily Added Sugar Intake by Race and Ethnicity for U.S. Children Under Ages 18 Years and Younger (N=3,441). NH = Non-Hispanic.
Data from National Center for Health Statistics. 2011-2012 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data for participants ages 18 years and younger with added sugar and caries data. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/Default.aspx?BeginYear=2011
The third sociodemographic factor is income. The relationship between income and added sugar intake is curvilinear, increasing from the lowest income households to category three, then decreasing among children from the highest income households (Figure 4). Only the difference between categories one and three was statistically significant (P=0.01).
Figure 4.
Mean Daily Added Sugar Intake by Income Category for U.S. Children Under Ages 18 Years and Younger (N=3,441). Income categories calculated as poverty to household income ratio.
Data from National Center for Health Statistics. 2011-2012 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data for participants ages 18 years and younger with added sugar and caries data. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/Default.aspx?BeginYear=2011
The fourth sociodemographic factor is health insurance status, a proxy for income. Added sugar intake was highest for children without health insurance (78.9 grams/day), lowest for publicly-insured children (70.9 grams), and intermediate for children with private insurance (74.3 grams). However, none of these differences were statistically significant.
Behavioral determinants.
The behavioral determinants of added sugar intake can be classified into three categories. The first is added sugar source. Four waves of NHANES data indicated that for U.S. children ages 6 to 11 years and ages 12 to 19 years, carbonated beverages, energy drinks, and sports drinks were the main source of added sugars (13% and 27%, respectively), followed by grain-based desserts (8.7% and 7.2%), fruit drinks (9.6% and 8.1%), ready-to-eat cereals (5.8% and 4.8%), and candies (5.7% and 5.4%).18 In another study based on 2009-2012 NHANES data, sugar sweetened beverages (defined as carbonated beverages, fruit drinks, sport and energy drinks, but not including 100% fruit juices) were the most common source of added sugars for U.S. children ages 2 to 18 years.19 Two-thirds of children ages 2 to 18 years consumed at least one sugar sweetened beverage serving per day, and 7.3% of total daily calories were from sugar sweetened beverages.20
The second is parent beliefs and practices. In an online survey of U.S. parents of children ages 2 to 17 years (N=982), parent beliefs that sugary fruit drinks are healthy were significant associated with purchases of sugary fruit drinks.21 Another study of parents of children ages 8 to 14 years in Australia (N=1,302) examined parent attitudes about soft drinks.22 More specifically, attitudes that soft drinks were enjoyable, good, convenient, and good value were associated with increased intake. Similarly, a qualitative study of Hispanic parents of preschool-aged children (N=19) reported convenience, cost, and taste as factors related to parents providing children with sugar sweetened beverages.23
The third is child demand and related factors. Parent intake of sugar sweetened beverages is strongly associated with child intake.24 Another study found a significant association between child and parent sugar sweetened beverage intake in African American children ages 3 to 13 years.25 The previously cited study from Australia found that frequency of soft drink intake was associated with increased demand from children for soft drinks they had seen advertised on television.22 A review of studies on the psychosocial determinants of eating behaviors in children and adolescents identified norms, liking, and preferences as being positively associated with sugar sweetened beverage intake.26 Another study of U.S. adolescents ages 12 to 18 years (N=102) found that adolescents’ subjective norms, defined as the extent to which people important to the adolescent want the adolescent to consume less sugary drinks, were associated with intention to limit sugary drinks.27 A longitudinal observational study of Dutch adolescents ages 12 to 13 years (N=348) found that high perceived behavioral control was associated with decreased sugar sweetened beverage intake over a four-month period in the absence of an intervention.28 Offering sugary snacks to children ages 5 to 10 years during after-school programs increased intake.29 Prospectively restricting sweets among Dutch children ages 5 to 7 years led to a desire for sweets that remained high.30
Social determinants.
The social determinants of added sugar intake can be classified into four categories. The first is socioeconomic disadvantage, for which there are a number of proxy variables. A study based on 2007-2009 NHANES data found that food insecurity was associated with added sugar intake for U.S. children ages 2 to 15 years.31 A study of American Indian children ages 2 to 5 years found that those living in food insecure homes were significantly more likely to consume sodas and sports drinks.32 Other studies on food insecurity arrived at similar findings.33 Another study found that among preschoolers from low socioeconomic households studied longitudinally from birth to age 14 years, externalizing behaviors (defined as angry, aggressive behaviors, including fighting and bullying other children, and physically hitting others) were associated with increased added sugar intake in boys, but lower added sugar in girls.34 Hypothesized mechanisms proposed by the authors for these sex differences included low impulse control among boy and parents pacifying children with foods differentially. This is the age at which girls start dieting because of media influences on body image.35 It is also possible that externalizing behaviors mediate poverty and added sugar intake.36
The second is household dietary habits. Four studies found that in-home availability was associated with increased sugar sweetened beverage intake.23,25,28,37 Healthier snacking and beverage habits were associated with lower added sugar intake for urban Black children ages 8 to 11 years (N=126).38 Similar findings were reported for rural children.39 Stricter family food rules were associated with lower adolescent sugar sweetened beverage intake.28
The third is location of added sugar source. A 2014 study compared places where children ages 2 to 18 years obtained added sugars using 2009-2010 U.S. NHANES data.40 Stores were the most common source of sugar sweetened beverages, compared to schools and fast food restaurants. Another study found that introducing a full-scale supermarket in a former food desert reduced added sugar intake.41 Corner stores were a common source of sugary beverages for children.42
The fourth is peer influence. A study from the U.S. found that adolescent sugar sweetened beverage intake was significantly associated with peer intake.43 A prospective study of 141 Dutch children (mean age: 7.7±1.3 years) found that a peer modeling intervention involving photos, video clips, and interactive activities instructing children not to follow other peers’ food intake behaviors significantly reduced candy intake.44
Evidence-based strategies.
There are a number of evidence-based strategies that reduce added sugar intake. A 2015 systematic review concluded that interventions involving physical access to sugary beverage alternatives, like water, plus health education significantly reduce sugared-sweetened beverage consumption in children ages 8 to 18 years.45 However, improvements are not sustained over time. A meta-analysis reported that school-based behavioral interventions resulted in reductions in sugar sweetened beverage intake, but the changes were modest.46 A student-designed and student-led intervention called “sodabriety” was piloted with adolescents ages 12 to 18 years in two Ohio high schools.47 The “30-day challenge” intervention involved a promotional campaign, facts about soda delivered during daily announcements, and promotion of unsweetened beverages like water, unsweetened tea, and diet soda. Pre- and post-intervention daily sugar sweetened beverage intake decreased and water intake increased significantly. A school- and community-based water intervention in the Netherlands significantly reduced sugar sweetened beverage intake for children ages 6 to 12 years (N=1,288).48 Another systematic review found that home-based interventions are more effective than school-based interventions for children.49
One study evaluating state bans on sodas in school vending machines to address “pouring rights” revealed increased intake of sport drinks, energy drinks, sweetened coffees and teas, and other sugar sweetened beverages among 9th to 12th grade students, if these other beverages remained available to students.50 Intake of non-soda sugar sweetened beverages did not increase if these other beverages were also removed from the school. This study highlighted the possibility of unhealthy substitution effects associated with soda bans in schools.
To evaluate the effects of warning labels, an online randomized trial involved a hypothetical vending machine task with adolescents ages 12 to 18 years (N=2,202). Participants who received beverages with one of three safety warning labels significantly reduced hypothetical purchase of sugar sweetened beverages compared to participants who received beverages with no warning label.51 The warning label for which there was no significant difference included the words “obesity” rather than “weight gain” and “diabetes” rather than “type 2 diabetes” as noted consequences of drinking sugary beverages.
Sugar sweetened beverage taxes have significantly reduced per capita intake of sugary beverages in places like New York City,52 Berkeley, California,53 Mexico,54 and Brazil.55 At least one study from Chile reported modest beverage intake changes associated with sugar sweetened beverage taxes.56
Clinical strategies to address excess added sugar intake.
Evidence-based clinical strategies to address added sugar intake i have yet to be developed and refined. In the meantime, the following strategies can be used by dental health professionals to address added sugar intake in children.
1. Collect and record added sugar intake. A routine caries risk assessment should include data collection on the source, amount, and frequency of added sugars consumed by the child.57 These data should be collected using standardized questions administered at each dental recall visit. Responses should be recorded in the patient’s chart and reviewed at subsequent visits to track trends.
2. Deliver health education consistent with professional guidelines. Sugar sweetened beverages are one of the main sources of added sugars in children.58 Parent preferences for sugar sweetened beverages and availability are strong predictors of child preferences and intake. Dental professional should provide education regarding 100% fruit juices that is consistent with the American Academy of Pediatric guidelines.59 Children under age 1 year should not be given any fruit juice unless indicated by a health professional. Daily intake should be limited to 4 ounces per day for children ages 1 to 3 years, 4 to 6 ounces per day for children ages 4 to 6 years, and no more than 8 ounces per day (1 cup) for children ages 7 years and older. Furthermore, the American Heart Association recommends that children consume no more than 25 grams of sugar per day or 6 teaspoons from all dietary sources.60 This means that ideally children should not consume any sugar sweetened beverages. Plain water and milk are the healthiest beverages. However, restricting sugary beverages for children who are used to sweet drinks or encouraging water intake are not feasible or effective long-term strategies. For children who demand sugary beverages, sugar-free alternatives are an option. Currently, there is no evidence that sugar-free sweeteners are unsafe for children when consumed in small amounts. Sugar-free sweeteners like sucralose (e.g., Splenda) and acesulfame-potassium (e.g., Sunett, Sweet One) are well established as safe, based on extensive toxicological safety data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies worldwide.61-65 Particularly when weighed against the known adverse consequences associated with extreme added sugar intake, including tooth decay and other systemic diseases, the potential benefits of sugar-free beverages outweigh the risks.
3. Assess readiness to change. Before an attempt is made to help change problematic added sugar behaviors, the caregiver’s and/or child’s readiness to change should be assessed. The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) posits that there are five stages of an individual’s readiness to change: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.66 Attempts at behavior change for individuals in the precontemplation stage may need to be delayed until there is self-motivation and social supports in place to facilitate behavior change. Research on the TTM and dietary change has identified additional processes that facilitate movement between the stages that could help interested individuals engage in healthier behaviors.67
4. Use behavioral methods to supplement health education. Research has shown that health education alone is insufficient in changing health behaviors.68 Attempts to change patient behaviors should be based on health behavior theories.69,70 For instance, interventions incorporating concepts from motivational interviewing may help clinicians work with patients to set and monitor health behavior goals.71 Studies on motivational interviewing in dentistry have yielded mixed results,72 but other specialties within pediatric medicine have reported success with motivational interviewing-based approaches.73-75 Other relevant behavioral approaches have been documented, including application of the Theory of Planned Behavior, which focuses on modifying an individual’s intention to take action.27,75
5. Reply on non-dental health colleagues. For patients that cannot be managed in a dental setting, dental professionals should work with nutritionists to help patients address excess added sugar intake.76 The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment (SBIRT) model can be used to systematically refer patients who require specialty care in addressing added sugar intake.77
6. Promote preventive oral health behaviors. For children at increased risk for dental caries, especially for whom added sugar intake is a significant risk factor, dental professionals should reinforce the importance of fluorides. Use of fluoridated water, toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste, and professional fluoride varnish treatments should be recommended. Particular attention should be given to identify caregivers who refuse fluoride, especially among caregivers with children at high caries risk.78,79
Challenges, opportunities, and next steps.
The following section outlines current challenges of addressing added sugar intake in children. The goal is to highlight opportunities and provide recommendations on future steps.
1. There is a dearth of theory-driven sociobehavioral interventions to address added sugar intake. Interventions in dentistry continue to focus almost exclusively on tooth-level strategies (e.g., fluoride varnish treatments, sealants, restorative dental treatment) rather than upstream sociodemographic, behavioral, and social determinants of health behaviors that are the root causes of added sugar intake and dental diseases. Fields outside of dentistry, like psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics, have developed novel theoretical perspectives that could be used to derive potential solutions in dentistry. Dental researchers should continue working with social and behavioral scientists to develop and test interventions rooted in health behavior theories. When developing and refining interventions, end-users from the target community or patient population should be involved to optimize intervention relevance and feasibility.80 Given the complex etiology of dietary behaviors, interventions should incorporate behavior change at multiple levels relevant for the target population (e.g., home, school, community) and address dental as well as non-dental disease outcomes using a common risk factors approach.81,82 Measurement bias in assessing added sugar intake can be minimized by adopting subjective (e.g., 24-hour recalls) as well as objective (e.g., biomarkers) measures. Sustainability should be part of the intervention planning process to ensure that effective programs can continue without requiring ongoing external resource investments.83 Attention to sustainability can also ensure that such programs are more easily disseminated to new communities and populations.
2. Public health programs need to focus on the highest risk children. One of the potential unintended consequences of public health programs is widening disparities,84 especially when the most vulnerable participants are unable to benefit from the program compared to less vulnerable program enrollees. From a health equity perspective, interventions should focus on child subgroups with disproportionately higher levels of dental disease. For instance, based on the sociodemographic factors associated with added sugar presented earlier, one subgroup that might be logically targeted for an added sugar intervention is White children. However, U.S. data indicate caries rates are significantly higher for non-White minority children.85 Thus, an intervention aimed at reducing added sugar intake should focus on minority children to address the highest need subgroup and reduce oral health disparities. There is current intervention work in Alaska Native communities to address sugared fruit drinks and unhealthy foods using community-based approaches appropriate for local populations.86,87 Both interventions focus on dietary behavior change, though at least one will include caries as an outcome measure.
3. Local beverage taxes are effective and are part of the solution. Sugar sweetened beverage taxes reduce intake and may also prevent chronic diseases like obesity.88 However, depending on local politics, beverage taxes may not be a feasible solution and in cases like Chicago’s soda tax are easily repealed.89,90 Federal legislation prevents point-of-sale taxes on beverages purchased through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the beverage industry continues to resist local efforts to pass taxes.91,92 Federal legislation is needed to counter the influence of the beverage industry.93 Similar to the passing of cigarette taxes to prevent youth tobacco use, beverage taxes should be viewed as part of a multi-pronged approach to address sugar sweetened beverage intake in children.94
4. Current sugar intake benchmarks may not be sufficient in preventing caries. The World Health Organization has set the recommended threshold for sugar intake at 10% of total energy intake.95 Based on 2011-2012 U.S. NHANES data, sugar comprises 17% of total energy of U.S. children.96 Data from Japan on the longitudinal relationship between sugar intake and caries suggests that sugar intake needs to be below 3% or at most 5% of total energy to prevent caries.97,98 These stringent benchmarks are not likely to be achieved using current approaches. Rather than being based on what is realistically achievable, dietary benchmarks should be set on meaningful disease prevention outcomes. The hope is that these benchmarks will encourage researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and others to develop collaborative, holistic, and novel approaches in addressing sugar intake.
5. Corporate industries are motivated by profits and self-interest. The sugar industry has been likened to Big Tobacco.99 Corporate industries that support the marketing and distribution of sugar products include food and beverage companies, advertising agencies, and grocers. In addition, schools, hospitals, community centers, and other public spaces where child-related activities and business take place have been complicit in perpetuating access to and consumption of sugars. Beverage labels are difficult for consumers to interpret and studies show that labels on nearly a quarter of foods and beverages marketed to children overestimate or underestimate the product’s listed sugar content by 10%.100,101 Despite laws allowing industries to self-regulate, advertisers routinely target sugary products to children102,103 and adverse advertising disproportionately targets low-income and minority children.104 In addition, there are data exposing the sugar industry’s role in suppressing science on the adverse effects of sugar,105,106 funding studies with null results associated with sugar intake,107 and influencing the research priorities of federal agencies and public policies.108,109 As a recent example, the role of the alcohol industry’s influence on a study funded by the National Institutes of Health has been publicized.110
Government regulation and oversight are needed to hold industries and corporations accountable for inaccurate product labeling, illegal advertising, and unethical influence pedaling.111 To educate the public on the risks associated with sugar, positive and negative front-of-pack labels should be added to sugar sweetened beverages and public health awareness campaigns should be promulgated.112,113 Efforts to address pouring rights in schools should ensure that sodas as well as all other sugary beverages are removed from vending machines to avoid substitution effects.50
6. Out-of-date government nutrition programs continue to subsidize the consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages among vulnerable populations. The U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allows sugar sweetened beverage purchases and the Women, Infant, Children (WIC) program’s allowable food list includes 100% fruit juices, which may inadvertently convey the message that these beverages are healthy. Legislation is required to restrict SNAP purchases, but political and logistic complexities make such legislation unlikely in the near future.114 In addition, ethical concerns have been raised about restricting choice in vulnerable populations.115 In the meantime, plausible solutions include incentive-based approaches that allow government nutrition program beneficiaries more flexibility in how funds are spent (e.g., Electronic Benefits Transfer use at farmer’s markets) or subsidies to encourage healthy spending.116-119
In conclusion, sugar sweetened beverages are a major contributor to dental caries in U.S. children. Future intervention research should account for relevant sociodemographic, behavioral, and social determinants of added sugar intake, which will enable the field to develop and refine evidence-based strategies to prevent dental caries. Dental health professionals are in a position to implement clinical strategies that can help to reduce added sugar intake in patients and should advocate for broader policy-based solutions.
KEY POINTS.
Added sugar intake is strongly associated with tooth decay in U.S. children.
Sugar sweetened beverages are the main source of added sugars. Health education is necessary but insufficient in improving beverage behaviors.
Social factors like socioeconomic disadvantage, household habits, and availability through local stores influence added sugar intake.
Sociobehavioral interventions are relatively uncommon but are a promising approach in reducing added sugar intake and preventing tooth decay in children.
Upstream approaches like sugar sweetened beverage bans in schools, warning labels, and taxes can further reduce excess added sugar intake.
There is a dearth of evidence-based clinical strategies, but dental health professionals can adopt systematic clinical practices to identify and address excess added sugar intake in pediatric patients.
There is a need for additional sociobehavioral intervention research, public health programs that target the highest-risk children, and health policy changes.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors have nothing to disclose.
References
- 1.Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Flaxman A, Naghavi M, Lopez A, Murray CJ. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. J Dent Res 2013;92(7):592–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chi DL, Herzog K, Scott JM. Tooth decay in U.S. children: what can we do to meaningfully prevent the most common pediatric disease? JAMA Pediatrics 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hojer JA, Maunsbach AB. The Vipeholm dental caries study: purposes and organisation. Acta Odontol Scand 1954;11(3-4):195–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gustafsson BE. The Vipeholm dental caries study: survey of the literature on carbohydrates and dental caries. Acta Odontol Scand 1954;11(3-4):207–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gustafsson BE, Quensel C, Swenander Lanke L, Lundqvist C, Grahnén H, Bonow BE, Krasse B. 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;11(3-4):232–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Krasse B The Vipeholm dental caries study: recollections and reflections 50 years later. J Dent Res 2001;80(9):1785–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.World Health Organization (WHO). Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children. 2015. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fidler Mis N, Braegger C, Bronsky J, Campoy C, Domellof M, Embleton ND, Hojsak I, Hulst J, Indrio F, Lapillonne A, Mihatsch W, Molgaard C, Vora R, Fewtrell M; ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition. Sugar in infants, children and adolescents: a position paper of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Committee on Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017;65(6):681–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Vos MB, Kaar JL, Welsh JA, Van Horn LV, Feig DI, Anderson Cam, Patel MJ, Cruz Munos J, Krebs NF, Xanthakos SA, Johnson RK; American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Functional Genomics and Translational Biology; and Council on Hypertension. Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017;135(19):e1017–e34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Marshall TA. Nomenclature, characteristics, and dietary intakes of sugars. J Am Dent Assoc 2015;146(1):61–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Al Rawahi SH, Asimakopoulou K, Newton JT. Theory based interventions for caries related sugar intake in adults: systematic review. BMC Psychol 2017;25;5(1):25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Touger-Decker R, van Loveren C. Sugars and dental caries. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78(4):881S–92S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt MK, Barbeau E, Goldman R, Peterson K, Kuntz K, Stoddard A, Berkman L. Model for incorporating social context in health behavior interventions: applications for cancer prevention for working-class, multiethnic populations. Prev Med 2003;37(3):188–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Eicher-Miller HA, Zhao Y. Evidence for the age-specific relationship of food insecurity and key dietary outcomes among US children and adolescents. Nutr Res Rev 2018;31(1):98–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kong A, Odoms-Young AM, Schiffer LA, Berbaum ML, Porter SJ, Blumstein L, Fitzgibbon ML. Racial/ethnic differences in dietary intake among WIC families prior to food package revisions. J Nutr Educ Behav 2013;45(1):39–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.LaRowe TL, Adams AK, Jobe JB, Cronin KA, Vannatter SM, Prince RJ. Dietary intakes and physical activity among preschool-aged children living in rural American Indian communities before a family-based healthy lifestyle intervention. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110(7):1049–57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chi DL, Hopkins S, O'Brien D, Mancl L, Orr E, Lenaker D. Association between added sugar intake and dental caries in Yup'ik children using a novel hair biomarker. BMC Oral Health 2015;15(1):121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Drewnowski A, Rehm CD. Consumption of added sugars among US children and adults by food purchase location and food source. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;100(3):901–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bailey RL, Fulgoni VL, Cowan AE, Gaine PC. Sources of added sugars in young children, adolescents, and adults with low and high intakes of added sugars. Nutrients 2018;10(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Rosinger A, Herrick K, Gahche J, Park S. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among U.S. youth, 2011-2014. NCHS Data Brief 2017;(271):1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Munsell CR, Harris JL, Sarda V, Schwartz MB. Parents' beliefs about the healthfulness of sugary drink options: opportunities to address misperceptions. Public Health Nutr 2016;19(1):46–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pettigrew S, Jongenelis M, Chapman K, Miller C. Factors influencing the frequency of children's consumption of soft drinks. Appetite 2015;91:393–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tipton JA. Caregivers' psychosocial factors underlying sugar-sweetened beverage intake among non-Hispanic black preschoolers: an elicitation study. J Pediatr Nurs 2014;29(1):47–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mazarello Paes V, Hesketh K, O'Malley C, Moore H, Summerbell C, Griffin S, van Sluijs EM, Ong KK, Lakshman R. Determinants of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in young children: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2015;16(11):903–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Harris TS, Ramsey M. Paternal modeling, household availability, and paternal intake as predictors of fruit, vegetable, and sweetened beverage consumption among African American children. Appetite 2015;85:171–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.McClain AD, Chappuis C, Nguyen-Rodriguez ST, Yaroch AL, Spruijt-Metz D. Psychosocial correlates of eating behavior in children and adolescents: a review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009;6:54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Riebl SK, MacDougal C, Hill C, Estabrooks PA, Dunsmore JC, Savla J, Frisard MI, Dietrich AM, Davy BM. Beverage choices of adolescents and their parents using the theory of planned behavior: a mixed methods analysis. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016;116(2):226–39.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ezendam NP, Evans AE, Stigler MH, Brug J, Oenema A. Cognitive and home environmental predictors of change in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents. Br J Nutr 2010;103(5):768–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Beets MW, Tilley F, Kyryliuk R, Weaver RG, Moore JB, Turner-McGrievy G. Children select unhealthy choices when given a choice among snack offerings. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014;114(9):1440–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Jansen E, Mulkens S, Emond Y, Jansen A. From the Garden of Eden to the land of plenty. Restriction of fruit and sweets intake leads to increased fruit and sweets consumption in children. Appetite 2008;51(3):570–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Rossen LM, Kobernik EK. Food insecurity and dietary intake among US youth, 2007'2010. Pediatr Obes 2016;11(3):187–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tomayko EJ, Mosso KL, Cronin KA, Carmichael L, Kim K, Parker T, Yaroch AL, Adams AK. Household food insecurity and dietary patterns in rural and urban American Indian families with young children. BMC Public Health 2017; 17(1):611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sharkey JR, Nalty C, Johnson CM, Dean WR. Children's very low food security is associated with increased dietary intakes in energy, fat, and added sugar among Mexican-origin children (6-11 y) in Texas border Colonias. BMC Pediatr 2012;12:16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Comeau J, Boyle MH. Patterns of poverty exposure and children's trajectories of externalizing and internalizing behaviors. SSM Popul Health 2017;4:86–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Luff GM, Gray JJ. Complex messages regarding a thin ideal appearing in teenage girls' magazines from 1956 to 2005. Body Image 2009;6(2):133–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jansen EC, Miller AL, Lumeng JC, Kaciroti N, Brophy Herb HE, Horodynski MA, Contreras D, Peterson KE. Externalizing behavior is prospectively associated with intake of added sugar and sodium among low socioeconomic status preschoolers in a sex-specific manner. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017;14(1):135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Santiago-Torres M, Adams AK, Carrel AL, LaRowe TL, Schoeller DA. Home food availability, parental dietary intake, and familial eating habits influence the diet quality of urban Hispanic children. Child Obes 2014;10(5):408–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Ritchie LD, Raman A, Sharma S, Fitch MD, Fleming SE. Dietary intakes of urban, high body mass index, African American children: family and child dietary attributes predict child intakes. J Nutr Educ Behav 2011;43(4):236–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Jackson JA, Smit E, Manore MM, John D, Gunter K. The Family-Home Nutrition Environment and Dietary Intake in Rural Children. Nutrients 2015;7(12):9707–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Poti JM, Slining MM, Popkin BM. Where are kids getting their empty calories? Stores, schools, and fast-food restaurants each played an important role in empty calorie intake among US children during 2009-2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014;114(6):908–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Dubowitz T, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Cohen DA, Beckman R, Steiner ED, Hunter GP, Florez KR, Huang C, Vaughan CA, Sloan JC, Zenk SN, Cummins S, Collins RL. Diet and perceptions change with supermarket introduction in a food desert, but not because of supermarket use. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34(11):1858–68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Lent MR, Vander Veur S, Mallya G, McCoy TA, Sanders TA, Colby L, Rauchut Tewksbury C, Lawman HG, Sandoval B, Sherman S, Wylie-Rosett J, Foster GD. Corner store purchases made by adults, adolescents and children: items, nutritional characteristics and amount spent. Public Health Nutr 2015;18(9):1706–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Watts AW, Miller J, Larson NI, Eisenberg ME, Story MT, Neumark-Sztainer D. Multicontextual correlates of adolescent sugar-sweetened beverage intake. Eat Behav 2018;30:42–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bevelander KE, Engels RC, Anschütz DJ, Wansink B. The effect of an intervention on schoolchildren's susceptibility to a peer's candy intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 2013;67(8):829–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Avery A, Bostock L, McCullough F. A systematic review investigating interventions that can help reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in children leading to changes in body fatness. J Hum Nutr Diet 2015;28 Suppl 1: 52–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Abdel Rahman A, Jomaa L, Kahale LA, Adair P, Pine C. Effectiveness of behavioral interventions to reduce the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev 2018;76(2):88–107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Smith LH, Holloman C. Piloting "sodabriety": a school-based intervention to impact sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in rural Appalachian high schools. J Sch Health 2014;84(3):177–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.van de Gaar VM, Jansen W, van Grieken A, Borsboom G, Kremers S, Raat H. Effects of an intervention aimed at reducing the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages in primary school children: a controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014;11:98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Vargas-Garcia EJ, Evans CEL, Prestwich A, Sykes-Muskett BJ, Hooson J, Cade JE. Interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages or increase water intake: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2017;18(11):1350–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Taber DR, Chriqui JF, Vuillaume R, Kelder SH, Chaloupka FJ. The association between state bans on soda only and adolescent substitution with other sugar-sweetened beverages: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015;12 Suppl 1:S7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.VanEpps EM, Roberto CA. The influence of sugar-sweetened beverage warnings: a randomized trial of adolescents' choices and beliefs. Am J Prev Med 2016;51(5):664–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Kansagra SM, Kennelly MO, Nonas CA, Curtis CJ, Van Wye G, Goodman A, Farley TA. Reducing sugary drink consumption: New York City's approach. Am J Public Health 2015;105(4):e61–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, Poti JM, Popkin BM. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: a before- and-after study. PLoS Med 2017;14(4):e1002283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Colchero MA, Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Rivera JA. Beverages sales in Mexico before and after implementation of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. PLoS One 2016;11(9):e0163463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Claro RM, Levy RB, Popkin BM, Monteiro CA. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Brazil. Am J Public Health 2012;102(1):178–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Caro JC, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Silva A, Popkin B, Taillie LS. Chile's 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages: An observational study in an urban environment. PLoS Med 2018; 15(7):e1002597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Caries-risk assessment and management for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent 2017;39(6):197–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Health and Medicine Division, Food and Nutrition Board. Strategies to limit sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in young children: proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press; 2017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Heyman MB, Abrams SA; Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; Committee on Nutrition. Fruit juice in infants, children, and adolescents: current recommendations. Pediatrics 2017;139(6). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Vos MB, Kaar JL, Welsh JA, Van Horn LV, Feig DI, Anderson CAM, Patel MJ, Cruz Munos J, Krebs NF, Xanthakos SA, Johnson RK; American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Functional Genomics and Translational Biology; and Council on Hypertension. Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017;135(19):e1017–e34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Panel on Macronutrients, Panel on the Definition of Dietary Fiber, Subcommittee on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients, Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes Institute of Medicine (IOM)>. Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. National Academies Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 62.Magnuson BA, Carakostas MC, Moore NH, Poulos SP, Renwick AG. Biological fate of low-calorie sweeteners. Nutr Rev 2016;74(11):670–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Magnuson BA, Roberts A, Nestmann ER. Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose. Food Chem Toxicol 2017;106(Pt A): 324–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Sylvetsky AC, Rother KI. Nonnutritive sweeteners in weight management and chronic disease: a review. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2018;26(4):635–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Prochaska JO, Redding Ca Evers KE. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. In Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons; 2008. p. 97–122. [Google Scholar]
- 66.Horwath CC, Schembre SM, Motl RW, Dishman RK, Nigg CR. Does the transtheoretical model of behavior change provide a useful basis for interventions to promote fruit and vegetable consumption? Am J Health Promot 2013;27(6):351–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Ferris FD, von Gunten CF, Emanuel LL. Knowledge: insufficient for change. J Palliat Med 2001;4(2):145–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Bartholomew LK, Mullen PD. Five roles for using theory and evidence in the design and testing of behavior change interventions. J Public Health Dent 2011;71 Suppl 1:S20–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Chi DL. Injecting theory into the dental behavior intervention research process. J Public Health Dent 2011;71 Suppl 1:S35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Ige TJ, DeLeon P, Nabors L. Motivational interviewing in an obesity prevention program for children. Health Promot Pract 2017;18(2):263–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Chi DL. Motivational interviewing-based approaches in dental practice settings may improve oral health behaviors and outcomes. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2017;17(4):420–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Nansel TR, Laffel LM, Haynie DL, Mehta SN, Lipsky LM, Volkening LK, Butler DA, Higgins LA, Liu A. Improving dietary quality in youth with type 1 diabetes: randomized clinical trial of a family-based behavioral intervention. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015;12:58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Mallonee LF, Boyd LD, Stegeman C. A scoping review of skills and tools oral health professionals need to engage children and parents in dietary changes to prevent childhood obesity and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. J Public Health Dent 2017;77 Suppl 1:S128–S35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Dooley D, Moultrie NM, Sites E, Crawford PB. Primary care interventions to reduce childhood obesity and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption: Food for thought for oral health professionals. J Public Health Dent 2017;77 Suppl 1:S104–S27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Zoellner J, Estabrooks PA, Davy BM, Chen YC, You W. Exploring the theory of planned behavior to explain sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Nutr Educ Behav 2012;44(2):172–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Touger-Decker R, Mobley C; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: oral health and nutrition. J Acad Nutr Diet 2013; 113(5):693–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Cuevas J, Chi DL. SBIRT-based interventions to improve pediatric oral health behaviors and outcomes: considerations for future behavioral SBIRT interventions in dentistry. Curr Oral Health Rep 2016;3(3):187–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Chi DL. Parent refusal of topical fluoride for their children: clinical strategies and future research priorities to improve evidence-based pediatric dental practice. Dent Clin North Am 2017;61(3):607–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Chi DL, Basson A. Surveying dentists’ perceptions of caregiver refusal of topical fluoride. JDR Clin Trans Res 2018;(3):314–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.D’Alonzo KT. Getting started in CBPR: lessons in building community partnerships for new researchers. Nurs Inq 2010;17(4):282–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Chi DL. Reducing Alaska Native paediatric oral health disparities: a systematic review of oral health interventions and a case study on multilevel strategies to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage intake. Int J Circumpolar Health 2013;72:21066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Chi DL, Luu M, Chu F. A scoping review of epidemiologic risk factors for pediatric obesity: Implications for future childhood obesity and dental caries prevention research. J Public Health Dent 2017;77 Suppl 1:S8–S31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Scheirer MA. Linking sustainability research to intervention types. Am J Public Health 2013;103(4):e73–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Raittio E, Aromaa A, Kiiskinen U, Helminen S, Suominen AL. Income-related inequality in perceived oral health among adult Finns before and after a major dental subsidization reform. Acta Odontol Scand 2016;74(5):348–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Herzog K, Scott J, Chi DL. Children’s oral health inequalities: intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and income. Am J Public Health. 2018. Under review. [Google Scholar]
- 86.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reporter. NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Project Information Grant Number 1R56DE025813-01A1. 2018a. Reducing sugared fruit drinks in Alaska Native children. Available at: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/. Accessed on July 15, 2018.
- 87.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reporter. NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Project Information Grant Number 1R01NR015417-01A1. 2018b. Back to basics: addressing childhood obesity through traditional foods in Alaska. Available at: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/. Accessed on July 15, 2018.
- 88.Cabrera Escobar MA, Veerman JL, Tollman SM, Bertram MY, Hofman KJ. Evidence that a tax on sugar sweetened beverages reduces the obesity rate: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.KYUK Archives. Talk Line. January 11, 2013. Program. Available at: http://archive.kyuk.org/talk-line-listen-here-to-jan-11-program/. Accessed on July 15, 2018.
- 90.Dewey C Washington Post. Why Chicago’s soda tax fizzled after two months — and what it means for the anti-soda movement. October 10, 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/10/why-chicagos-soda-tax-fizzled-after-two-months-and-what-it-means-for-the-anti-soda-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dfa5fab81244. Accessed on July 15, 2018.
- 91.Du M, Tugendhaft A, Erzse A, Hofman KJ. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: industry response and tactics. Yale J Biol Med 2018;91(2): 185–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Pomeranz JL. Implications of the supplemental nutrition assistance program tax exemption on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes. Am J Public Health 2015;105(11):2191–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Leung CW, Blumenthal SJ, Hoffnagle EE, Jensen HH, Foerster SB, Nestle M, Cheung LW, Mozaffarian D, Willett WC. Associations of food stamp participation with dietary quality and obesity in children. Pediatrics 2013;131(3):463–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Lewit EM, Hyland A, Kerrebrock N, Cummings KM. Price, public policy, and smoking in young people. Tob Control 1997;6 Suppl 2:S17–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Sugars Moynihan P. and dental caries: evidence for setting a recommended threshold for intake. Adv Nutr 2016;7(1):149–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Powell ES, Smith-Taillie LP, Popkin BM. Added sugars intake across the distribution of US children and adult consumers: 1977-2012. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016; 116(10):1543–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Sheiham A, James WP. A reappraisal of the quantitative relationship between sugar intake and dental caries: the need for new criteria for developing goals for sugar intake. BMC Public Health 2014;14:863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Sheiham A, James WP. A new understanding of the relationship between sugars, dental caries and fluoride use: implications for limits on sugars consumption. Public Health Nutr 2014;17(10):2176–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Taubes G The case against sugar. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 100.Vanderlee L, Goodman S, Sae Yang W, Hammond D. Consumer understanding of calorie amounts and serving size: implications for nutritional labelling. Can J Public Health 2012;103(5):e327–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Walker RW, Goran MI. Laboratory determined sugar content and composition of commercial infant formulas, baby foods and common grocery items targeted to children. Nutrients 2015;7(7):5850–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Chaloupka FJ. Nutritional content of food and beverage products in television advertisements seen on children's programming. Child Obes 2013;9(6):524–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Hingle MD, Castonguay JS, Ambuel DA, Smith RM, Kunkel D. Alignment of children's food advertising with proposed federal guidelines. Am J Prev Med 2015;48(6):707–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Powell LM, Wada R, Kumanyika SK. Racial/ethnic and income disparities in child and adolescent exposure to food and beverage television ads across the U.S. media markets. Health Place 2014;29:124–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176(11):1680–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.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;15(11):e2003460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Litman EA, Gortmaker SL, Ebbeling CB, Ludwig DS. Source of bias in sugar-sweetened beverage research: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2018:1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.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;12(3):e1001798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Kearns C, Schmidt L, Apollonio D, Glantz S. The sugar industry's influence on policy. Science 2018;360(6388):501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Wadman M NIH pulls the plug on controversial alcohol trial. Science Magazine. 2018. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/nih-pulls-plug-controversial-alcohol-trial. Accessed on July 15, 2018.
- 111.Popkin BM, Hawkes C. Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: patterns, trends, and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016;4(2):174–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Pomeranz JL, Mozaffarian D, Micha R. Can the government require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage advertisements? JAMA 2018;319(3):227–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Boles M, Adams A, Gredler A, Manhas S. Ability of a mass media campaign to influence knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about sugary drinks and obesity. Prev Med 2014;67 Suppl 1:S40–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Food and Nutrition Service. Implications of restriction the use of food stamp benefits. 2007. Available at http://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf. Accessed on July 1, 2018.
- 115.Chrisinger BW. Ethical imperatives against item restriction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Prev Med 2017;100:56–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Robles B, Montes CE, Nobari TZ, Wang MC, Kuo T. Dietary behaviors among public health center clients with electronic benefit transfer access at farmers' markets. J Acad Nutr Diet 2017;117(1):58–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Richards MR, Sindelar JL. Rewarding healthy food choices in SNAP: behavioral economic applications. Milbank Q 2013;91(2):395–412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Ammerman AS, Hartman T, DeMarco MM. Behavioral economics and the supplemental nutrition assistance program: making the healthy choice the easy choice. Am J Prev Med 2017;52(2S2):S145–S50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Epstein LH, Finkelstein E, Raynor H, Nederkoorn C, Fletcher KD, Jankowiak N, Paluch RA. Experimental analysis of the effect of taxes and subsides on calories purchased in an on-line supermarket. Appetite 2015;95:245–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]