ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
A quantitative environmental impact assessment of Australian ultra-processed beverages and impact reduction scenarios.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Perspective: Food Environment, Climate Change, Inflammation, Diet, and Health.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Review
- Review
- A quantitative environmental impact assessment of Australian ultra-processed beverages and impact reduction scenarios - ERRATUM.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
- Sustainable diets: where from and where to?Journal of nutritional science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUltra-processed beverages (UPB) have known adverse impacts on health, but their impact on the environment is not well understood across different environmental indicators. This study aimed to quantify the environmental impacts of water-based UPB and bottled waters sold in Australia and assess the impacts of various scenarios which may reduce such impacts in the future.
designThis study presents a quantitative environmental impact assessment of a major sub-category of UPB (water-based UPB, including soft drinks, energy drinks, cordials and fruit drinks) and non-UPB (bottled waters) in Australia. Alternative mitigation scenarios based on existing health and environmental targets were also modelled using sales projections for 2027. Sales data from Euromonitor International were matched with environmental impact data from peer-reviewed lifecycle assessment databases. Environmental impact indicators included greenhouse gas emissions, land use, eutrophication potential, acidification potential, water scarcity and plastic use.
settingThe Australian beverage supply in 2022 and projected sales for 2027.
participantsN/A.
resultsEnvironmental impacts of UPB were higher than bottled waters. UPB accounted for 81-99 % of total environmental impacts, partly driven by the volume of sales. Reformulation, reducing UPB consumption and increasing recycling all led to meaningful reductions in environmental impacts but with diverse effects across different environmental indicators. The largest reductions occurred when policy scenarios were combined to represent a suite of policy actions which aimed to meet health and environmental targets (30-82 % environmental savings).
conclusionsThe results indicate that implementing a suite of policies which act to target multiple drivers of environmental harm are likely to lead to the most environmental benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.