Can Soda Cause Cancer? What the Science Says

Drinking soda does not guarantee you will develop cancer, but a growing body of research links regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to a measurably higher risk of several cancer types. The connection runs through multiple pathways, from the metabolic chaos that excess sugar creates to chemical additives lurking in the drink itself. The picture is more complicated than a simple yes or no, and the answer changes depending on whether you are talking about regular soda, diet soda, or the can it comes in.

How the Sugar in Soda Connects to Cancer

The most studied pathway between soda and cancer runs through what sugar does to your body over time, not through any single toxic ingredient. When you drink a can of regular soda, you are consuming roughly 35 to 40 grams of sugar in liquid form. Unlike sugar in solid food, liquid sugar bypasses many of the body’s normal satiety signals. You do not feel as full, so you tend to eat just as much food on top of the soda. Over time, that pattern drives weight gain and excess body fat, which is itself a well-established risk factor for at least a dozen cancer types.

But the cancer link is not just about gaining weight. High sugar intake from beverages triggers a cascade of metabolic effects that promote cancer independently. Visceral fat, the deep abdominal fat that accumulates with heavy sugar consumption, pumps out inflammatory signals at a much higher rate than the fat you can pinch under your skin. That chronic, low-grade inflammation creates an environment where cells are more likely to become cancerous and where existing tumors can grow more easily. On top of that, repeated blood sugar spikes stimulate the production of molecules that damage DNA directly, and they keep insulin and a growth factor called IGF-1 elevated. Both insulin and IGF-1 act as fertilizer for certain tumors.

What Large Human Studies Have Found

The most direct evidence comes from large studies that followed tens of thousands of people over years and tracked what they drank alongside who developed cancer. In the French NutriNet-Santé cohort, which followed over 100,000 participants, each additional 100 milliliters per day of sugary drinks was associated with roughly an 18 percent higher risk of cancer overall and a 22 percent higher risk of breast cancer specifically.

An Australian study of more than 35,000 adults told a similar story from a different angle. People who drank more than one sugar-sweetened soft drink per day had about an 18 percent higher risk of developing an obesity-related cancer compared to people who drank fewer than one per month. That risk climbed in a dose-dependent way, meaning the more people drank, the higher their risk rose.

⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis that pooled data from multiple observational studies found statistically significant associations between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and both breast cancer and prostate cancer. The increases were modest in size, around 14 percent for breast cancer and 18 percent for prostate cancer, but they were consistent across studies. The same analysis also found trends pointing toward higher colorectal and pancreatic cancer risk, though those did not quite reach statistical significance.

⁵

These numbers deserve context. An 18 percent increase in relative risk is not the same as an 18 percent chance of getting cancer. It means your existing risk, whatever it was, goes up by about a fifth. For a disease like breast cancer where a woman’s baseline lifetime risk is already meaningful, that is a clinically relevant bump. For a rarer cancer, the absolute increase is smaller even though the relative increase may be similar.

Can Sugar Feed Tumors Directly?

One of the most striking findings in this area came from a 2019 study in mice that were genetically prone to intestinal tumors. Researchers gave these mice a modest daily dose of high-fructose corn syrup, the sweetener used in most American sodas, in amounts designed to mimic a person drinking about one soda per day. The mice that received the sweetener developed substantially larger and more advanced tumors than those that did not, and this happened without the mice becoming obese or developing metabolic syndrome.

⁶

The mechanism the researchers uncovered was specific: fructose from the corn syrup was converted inside the tumors into a compound that turbocharged the cells’ energy production and fat synthesis, fueling faster growth. This finding matters because it suggests that the sugar in soda may not only create the conditions for cancer through obesity and inflammation but may also directly accelerate tumor growth once a tumor already exists. The caveat is that mouse studies do not always translate to humans. But the biology was compelling enough that it shifted how researchers think about the relationship between sweetened beverages and colorectal cancer in particular.

In human data, the pancreatic cancer story is less clear-cut. Two large U.S. cohort studies combined found no overall significant link between sugar-sweetened soft drinks and pancreatic cancer risk, though there were hints of a modestly higher risk in women and in people who were already overweight. The researchers noted they could not rule out confounding by other lifestyle factors associated with heavy soda consumption.

⁷

Soda and Liver Disease as a Cancer Stepping Stone

There is another indirect path worth understanding. A meta-analysis of observational studies found that people who regularly drank sugar-sweetened soda had about a 53 percent higher risk of developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease compared to those who rarely or never drank it. That finding held even after adjusting for other risk factors.

⁸

This matters for cancer because fatty liver disease, if it progresses through inflammation and scarring, can eventually lead to liver cancer. The progression takes years and does not happen to everyone, but it represents a well-documented pipeline from chronic soda consumption to a life-threatening malignancy. The same meta-analysis found that artificially sweetened soda did not carry the same fatty liver risk, based on the limited data available, which suggests this particular pathway is about the sugar itself rather than about carbonation or other soda ingredients.

Is Diet Soda Any Safer?

If sugar is the main villain, switching to diet soda seems like an obvious fix. The reality is murkier. In 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified aspartame, the most widely used artificial sweetener in diet sodas, as a Group 2B agent, meaning “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” That sounds alarming, but the classification reflects the quality of the evidence, not the size of the risk. IARC noted that while a handful of studies suggested a link between aspartame and liver cancer, the agency could not rule out that chance, bias, or confounding explained the findings.

⁹

A dose-response meta-analysis of artificially sweetened beverages found one concerning signal: a 15 percent increase in leukemia risk for each additional daily serving. That association was statistically significant, but it came from a limited number of prospective studies, and the authors emphasized the need for more research before drawing firm conclusions.

¹⁰

Beyond sweeteners themselves, there is emerging interest in what artificial sweeteners do to the gut. Preclinical research has shown that some non-nutritive sweeteners can alter the composition and function of gut bacteria, reducing microbial diversity and promoting inflammatory patterns. Whether those changes translate into meaningful cancer risk in humans is an open question. The research has linked sweetener-driven microbiome shifts to impaired gut-barrier function, but no study has yet connected that chain all the way to tumor development in people.

¹¹

So diet soda likely carries less cancer risk than regular soda because it sidesteps the sugar-obesity-inflammation pathway entirely. But “less risk” is not the same as “no risk,” and the artificial sweetener story is still being written.

Chemical Contaminants You Did Not Order

Sugar and sweeteners are not the only concern. Several chemicals present in soda or its packaging have their own cancer-related profiles.

Caramel color, the additive that gives colas their brown hue, contains a byproduct called 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MEI. California lists 4-MEI as a carcinogen, and a quantitative risk assessment found that the concentrations varied enormously across brands. Some beverages had 4-MEI levels nearly 100 times higher than others. The estimated lifetime excess cancer risk from the highest-concentration beverages was small in absolute terms but not trivial across a population of millions of regular drinkers.

¹²

Benzene, a known human carcinogen, can form at trace levels in soft drinks that contain both benzoate preservatives and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). When these two common ingredients react, particularly under heat or UV light, they can produce benzene. The amounts are typically tiny, measured in parts per billion, but benzene has no safe threshold for cancer risk, so even small exposures add up over a lifetime of daily drinking.

¹³

Then there is the container itself. A 2025 study found that drinking soda from aluminum cans led to about 22 percent higher urinary levels of bisphenol A (BPA) compared to drinking the same soda from plastic bottles. BPA leaches from the epoxy resin lining inside cans, and while debate continues over exactly how much BPA exposure matters for cancer specifically, the compound acts as an endocrine disruptor and has been linked to hormone-sensitive cancers in animal models.

¹⁴

Where the Evidence Goes Against Expectations

Not every finding points in the direction you might expect. A large case-control study looking specifically at carbonated soft drink consumption and esophageal cancer found that people who drank the most soda actually had a lower risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, the cancer type whose incidence had been rising for decades. The inverse association was driven mainly by diet soda, and it held up even after the researchers accounted for factors like smoking, alcohol, and body weight.

¹⁵

That finding was explicitly contrary to the hypothesis the researchers set out to test. One theory is that carbonation might slightly alter the acid environment of the lower esophagus in a way that is protective, or that people who drink soda have different eating patterns that indirectly lower risk for this particular cancer. Either way, the result is a reminder that the relationship between soda and cancer is not uniform across every organ. Some sites may see increased risk while others do not, and a blanket statement that “soda causes cancer” would overstate what the evidence actually shows.

The Confounding Problem

Virtually all of the human evidence linking soda to cancer comes from observational studies, which means researchers watched what people ate and drank and then tracked who got sick. The perennial challenge with this type of research is confounding: people who drink a lot of soda also tend to eat more processed food, exercise less, smoke more, and have lower incomes. Researchers use statistical adjustments to try to isolate the soda effect, but they can never be completely sure they have accounted for everything.

This does not mean the findings are unreliable. The consistency of the signal across different countries, different study designs, and different cancer types makes it harder to dismiss as pure confounding. And the mouse study on high-fructose corn syrup provided a controlled experiment showing a direct biological mechanism. Still, the honest framing is that soda consumption is associated with higher cancer risk, not that it has been proven to cause cancer in humans with the certainty of, say, the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.

How Much Soda Is Too Much?

Most of the cohort studies that found elevated cancer risk were comparing heavy drinkers, roughly one or more servings per day, to people who rarely drank soda at all. The dose-response relationship in the Australian cohort showed that risk climbed steadily with consumption frequency, suggesting there is no hard threshold below which soda is risk-free, but rather a gradient where less is better.

⁴

The NutriNet-Santé data showed meaningful risk increases per 100 milliliters per day, which is less than half a standard can.

That finding suggests even moderate daily consumption, not just extreme intake, shifts risk upward. The practical takeaway is not that an occasional soda will harm you, but that making it a daily habit adds a real, measurable increment to your lifetime cancer risk on top of whatever else your diet, genetics, and environment contribute.

What a Soda Tax Could Change

Researchers have modeled what would happen if the United States implemented a national penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The estimated impact was striking: over a lifetime, the tax would prevent roughly 22,000 new cancer cases and avert about 13,500 cancer deaths. The benefits were not distributed evenly. Low-income adults, who tend to drink more soda, would see about 4,800 more cancer cases prevented and 3,100 more cancer deaths averted than higher-income adults, meaning the tax would also reduce health disparities.

¹⁶

Several U.S. cities and over 50 countries have already enacted some form of sugary drink tax, and early data from places like Mexico and Berkeley, California, show that the taxes do reduce consumption. Whether the long-term cancer reductions predicted by the models actually materialize will take decades to confirm, but the modeling gives a sense of how seriously public health researchers take the soda-cancer connection. These are not fringe estimates; they appeared in a peer-reviewed cancer journal and used conservative assumptions about how much people would reduce their drinking in response to higher prices.

Fruit Juice and the “Natural” Assumption

One common misconception is that swapping soda for fruit juice eliminates the cancer concern. The meta-analysis that found links between sugar-sweetened beverages and cancer also found that fruit juice consumption was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in prostate cancer risk. Trends toward higher breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer risk with fruit juice intake were present as well, though they fell short of statistical significance.

⁵

This makes biological sense. A glass of orange juice delivers roughly the same amount of sugar as a glass of soda, and your body processes that sugar through the same metabolic pathways. The fructose hits your liver in the same way, the blood sugar spikes similarly, and the insulin response is comparable. Juice does contain vitamins and polyphenols that soda lacks, and those may offer some counterbalancing benefit, but the sugar load itself carries similar metabolic consequences. If the cancer risk from soda is primarily driven by its sugar content rather than by carbonation or artificial additives, then juice is not the free pass many people assume it is.

1
PubMed Central. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review
2
Frontiers. Sugar sweetened beverages, natural fruit juices, and cancer: what we know and what still needs to be assessed
3
PubMed. Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
4
Public Health Nutrition. Consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of obesity-related cancers
5
PubMed Central. Consumption of Sweet Beverages and Cancer Risk. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
6
PubMed Central. High-fructose corn syrup enhances intestinal tumor growth in mice
7
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. Sugar-Sweetened Soft Drink Consumption and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Two Prospective Cohorts
8
Oxford Academic (QJM: An International Journal of Medicine). Associations of sugar- and artificially sweetened soda with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
9
PubMed Central. Perspectives on recent reviews of aspartame cancer epidemiology
10
PubMed Central. Artificially Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Cancer Risk: A Comprehensive Dose–Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies
11
Frontiers in Nutrition. Non-nutritive sweeteners, the gut microbiome, and tumor immunity: evidence hierarchy and a sucralose-centered translational model
12
PubMed Central. Caramel color in soft drinks and exposure to 4-methylimidazole: a quantitative risk assessment
13
PubMed. Survey results of benzene in soft drinks and other beverages by headspace gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
14
Scientific Reports. Urinary bisphenol levels and blood pressure after soda consumption from cans, PET and glass bottles
15
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. Carbonated soft drink consumption and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma
16
PubMed Central. Cost-Effectiveness of a National Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Reduce Cancer Burdens and Disparities in the United States