SYDNEY — Australians are drinking fewer sugar-sweetened sodas and other sweetened beverages than a decade ago, with consumption dropping sharply among children, but overall soft drink intake per capita hovers around 82 liters annually as zero-sugar and diet options gain ground, according to the latest government and industry data released in 2025 and early 2026.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in September 2025 that just 28.9% of people consumed sweetened beverages on a given day in 2023, down from 42.2% in 2011–12 and 49.2% in 1995. Among children aged 2 to 17, the figure plummeted from nearly three in four in 1995 to one in four in 2023.
Despite the decline in sugary options, apparent per capita consumption of soft drinks stood at about 164.8 milliliters daily in the 2024 financial year, or roughly 60 liters annually, with industry forecasts projecting a slight rise to 81.7–82 liters per person in 2025–26.
Health experts and public health groups continue to highlight links between even moderate soda consumption and risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental problems, while the industry points to voluntary sugar reductions and a surge in low- and no-sugar varieties now accounting for more than half of sales.
Declining Sugary Drink Consumption Masks Shifts in Preferences
The National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey data showed broad declines across age groups under 50 for soft drinks and flavored mineral waters, which fell from 29.1% of people in 2011–12 to 23.8% in 2023. Cordial consumption dropped even more dramatically, from 16.2% to 3.4%.
Advertisement
Apparent consumption figures from the ABS, tracking sales and supply, revealed soft drinks contributing 169 grams per person daily in 2023–24, up 2.2% from the prior year but part of a mixed picture within the broader non-alcoholic beverages market that reached 4.17 billion liters in Q3 2024.
Low- and no-sugar options drove much of the recent stability or modest growth. The Australian Beverages Council’s sugar reduction pledge, launched in 2018 by major players including Coca-Cola Europacific Partners, Asahi and PepsiCo, targeted a 20% cut by 2025 from 2015 levels and was later upgraded to 25%. By 2023, low- and no-sugar varieties represented 55.5% of sales volumes, up from previous years, with sugar content per 100ml falling to 4.94 grams.
IBISWorld analysts noted a 1.1% rise in soft drink consumption projected for 2025–26, fueled by sugar-free purchases as consumers opt for cheaper non-alcoholic alternatives amid cost-of-living pressures and “mindful drinking” trends. Fast-food combo meals also boosted volumes.
Diet soft drinks specifically showed steady market growth, with revenue projected to reach US$368.9 million by 2025 at a 3.3% compound annual growth rate.
Advertisement
Socioeconomic and Geographic Disparities Persist
Consumption patterns vary significantly by location and disadvantage. New ABS data released in March 2026 showed shoppers in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged 20% of areas purchased 26% more sugar-sweetened drinks than the national average, while those in the least disadvantaged areas bought 29% less.
In very remote areas, soft drink consumption ran 54% higher than in major cities, and bottled water was 74% higher, reflecting differences in access and preferences.
Men, younger adults and those in lower socioeconomic groups remain higher consumers of sugar-sweetened beverages, raising equity concerns for public health interventions.
Health Risks Drive Calls for Stronger Action
Public health organizations link excessive soda consumption to Australia’s obesity rates — about 32% of adults and 8.1% of children classified as obese — and rising chronic disease burdens. Sweetened beverages contribute about one-quarter of free sugars in the diet, with discretionary foods and drinks accounting for 31% of daily energy intake in 2023, down slightly from 35.4% in 2011–12.
Advertisement
A 2025 Monash University-led study following more than 36,000 adults found that drinking one can of artificially sweetened soft drink daily was associated with a 38% higher risk of type 2 diabetes, compared to 23% for sugar-sweetened versions, though the sugar-sweetened link weakened after adjusting for obesity measures.
Globally, sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to millions of new diabetes and cardiovascular cases annually, with Australia’s patterns aligning with broader Western trends of declining but still significant intake.
The Australian Medical Association and Public Health Association of Australia have renewed calls for a health levy on sugar-sweetened beverages, modeled on international examples. A proposed 50 cents per 100 grams of added sugar could add about 20 cents to a standard can. Polling showed 56% public support for such a tax, with even higher backing for better labeling (83%) and marketing restrictions to children (73%).
The federal government has so far resisted a sugar tax, favoring education and industry self-regulation instead. A 2024 parliamentary inquiry into diabetes recommended considering a graduated levy, but no legislation has advanced.
Advertisement
Industry Responds With Reformulation and Innovation
Major manufacturers emphasize progress on the voluntary pledge and innovation in functional and zero-sugar drinks. Coca-Cola Europacific Partners holds about 50% of the Australian soft drink market, with the sector generating billions in revenue and employing thousands.
Carbonated beverages alone were valued at AUD 11.43 billion in 2025, projected to grow at 3.52% annually through 2035. The broader non-alcoholic beverages market is expected to nearly double to USD 47.81 billion by 2033.
Zero-sugar sodas are overtaking full-sugar options in many segments as consumers seek better-for-you choices without sacrificing flavor. Electrolyte and energy drinks showed the fastest growth in recent apparent consumption data.
Critics argue voluntary measures fall short and note the industry’s historical opposition to taxes, including lobbying and policy substitution through pledges.
Advertisement
Outlook: Balancing Taste, Health and Policy
As Australia grapples with high rates of overweight and obesity, soda consumption trends reflect a population increasingly aware of health impacts yet still reaching for convenient, affordable beverages. The shift toward intense-sweetened (artificial) options — 43.1% of soft drink volume in 2023–24 — raises new questions about long-term metabolic effects.
Experts recommend comprehensive strategies: clearer front-of-pack labeling, restrictions on marketing to children, promotion of water as the default, and consideration of fiscal measures proven effective elsewhere.
With the sugar reduction pledge target year of 2025 now passed, stakeholders will watch whether further reformulation occurs or if consumption rebounds with economic pressures.
For now, the data suggests progress in reducing traditional sugary soda intake, particularly among the young, but persistent disparities and emerging risks from alternatives mean the conversation on Australia’s beverage habits is far from over.
Advertisement
Public health advocates stress that even small population-level reductions in free sugars from beverages could yield significant gains against chronic disease.
‘Barron’s Roundtable’ panelists discuss investment opportunities among airline stocks.
A bipartisan pair of senators sent a letter to the CEOs of United Airlines and American Airlines expressing concerns about the possibility of a proposed merger between the two air carriers and requested more information about the impact of a possible deal.
The letter was sent by Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, who wrote that a merger between United and American would “combine two of the ‘Big Four’ U.S. airlines into an ‘industry behemoth,’ controlling nearly half of the U.S. market share of the airline industry and creating the largest airline on the planet by revenue.”
Advertisement
“Any proposed merger between United Airlines and American Airlines raises serious questions under antitrust law and raises the likelihood of harm for American consumers,” Warren and Lee wrote.
The letter comes after a report that United CEO Scott Kirby proposed a merger with American and asked for the blessing of President Donald Trump on the proposed deal at a late February meeting, according to Reuters. The outlet reported that a source close to the White House was skeptical about the deal’s competitive impact and how it would affect consumers.
United Airlines and American Airlines are facing questions from a bipartisan pair of senators amid reports the companies are weighing a merger. (Samuel Corum/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
If a potential merger between the two airlines were to move forward, it would likely invite regulatory scrutiny from federal agencies as well as antitrust panels in Congress, such as the Senate subcommittee chaired by Lee.
Advertisement
In their letter, Warren and Lee expressed a number of concerns surrounding the potential for the combined company to raise prices on consumers, hurt smaller airlines’ ability to compete for gate access, and cut routes – particularly those out of Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
They also raised concerns about job losses at a combined airline and creating monopsony power that results in the company “potentially suppressing wages and benefits industry-wide.”
Warren and Lee asked the CEOs of United and American to provide answers as to whether the companies have discussed a deal directly or with other outside parties. They also asked the airlines to justify how such a merger would be in the public interest, along with specific queries about air fares and fees, job losses and the elimination of routes under a merger.
American said that it’s not interested in a merger with United. (Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images)
American Airlines said in a statement on Friday that it is “not engaged with or interested in” merger discussions with United.
“While changes in the broader airline marketplace may be necessary, a combination with United would be negative for competition and for consumers, and therefore inconsistent with our understanding of the Administration’s philosophy toward the industry and principles of antitrust law,” the carrier said. “Our focus will remain on executing on our strategic objectives and positioning American to win for the long term.”
ServisFirst Bancshares, Inc. (SFBS) Q1 2026 Earnings Call April 20, 2026 5:15 PM EDT
Company Participants
Davis Mange – Vice President Investor Relations Accounting Manager Thomas Broughton – Chairman, President & CEO Jim Harper – Senior VP & Chief Credit Officer David Sparacio – Executive VP & CFO
Conference Call Participants
Advertisement
Stephen Scouten – Piper Sandler & Co., Research Division Stephen Moss – Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division David Bishop – Hovde Group, LLC, Research Division
Presentation
Operator
Advertisement
Greetings, and welcome to the ServisFirst Bancshares First Quarter Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. It’s now my pleasure to turn the call over to Davis Mange, Director of Investor Relations. Davis, please go ahead.
Davis Mange Vice President Investor Relations Accounting Manager
Good afternoon, and welcome to our first quarter earnings call. We’ll have Tom Broughton, our CEO; Jim Harper, our Chief Credit Officer; and David Sparacio, our CFO, covering some highlights from the quarter and then take your questions. I’ll now cover our forward-looking statements disclosure.
Advertisement
Some of the discussion in today’s earnings call may include forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ from any projections shared today due to factors described in our most recent 10-K and 10-Q filings. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and ServisFirst assumes no duty to update them. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Tom.
Thomas Broughton Chairman, President & CEO
Davis, thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining our first quarter conference call. We’re really pleased with our start to the year, and I’m going to highlight a few things before I turn it over to Jim Harper to give credit update.
Advertisement
On the loan side, we had pretty solid loan growth for the quarter. Loan growth is usually not very robust in the first quarter, but we did see
The Gaydon-based luxury marque is pressing ahead with trademark action against the Chinese conglomerate that owns a sizeable slice of its share register, in a dispute that underscores the delicate politics of cross-border automotive investment.
Aston Martin Lagonda has launched legal proceedings against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the Hangzhou-headquartered motor group that holds a 17 per cent stake in the British carmaker, over a winged emblem the luxury marque claims is too close for comfort to its own storied badge.
The case, which pits Britain’s most famous sports car manufacturer against one of its largest shareholders, centres on a logo Geely intends to roll out on vehicles produced by its London EV Company (LEVC) subsidiary, the Coventry-based maker of the capital’s black cabs. The design features a horse’s head set within a pair of outstretched wings, and Aston Martin contends that the overall impression sails far too close to the slender winged motif that has adorned its bonnets since 1927.
The row is not a new one, Aston Martin first raised objections in 2022, when Geely sought to register the marks with the UK Intellectual Property Office. The Gaydon firm formally opposed the application the following year, arguing infringement, only for the hearing officer to side with the Chinese group on the basis that consumers were unlikely to mistake an electric taxi for a £150,000-plus grand tourer.
LEVC logo
That ruling did little to cool tempers at Aston Martin, and the latest legal salvo suggests the board is prepared to press the point despite the awkward shareholder dynamic. Geely acquired its 17 per cent holding for roughly $310m (£245m) in 2023, making it one of the marque’s most significant backers alongside executive chairman Lawrence Stroll’s Yew Tree consortium and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
For Geely, the London taxi business is a strategically important British asset. The group has been quietly assembling a portfolio of UK marques over the past decade, with Lotus now firmly in its stable alongside LEVC. Its involvement at Aston Martin was initially welcomed as a source of both capital and potential manufacturing expertise at a moment when the British firm has been burning through cash to fund its electrification programme.
Advertisement
The dispute also comes at a bruising time for Aston Martin’s brand stewardship. The company recently saw 007 defect to the silver screen behind the wheel of a BYD, a coup for the rival Chinese electric-vehicle maker and a blow to a marque whose cultural cachet has long been bound up with the James Bond franchise.
In public, both parties are playing down the significance of the row. Aston Martin has declined to comment further on live proceedings, while Geely has characterised the matter as a routine trademark dispute and insisted it remains committed to a professional working relationship with the Gaydon marque as both business partner and investor.
Trademark lawyers watching the case note that the outcome will hinge on whether the courts accept that the average buyer, whether of an Aston Martin DB12 or an LEVC electric cab, could be confused or whether Aston’s goodwill in the wings motif is being unfairly exploited. What is already clear is that having a Chinese partner on the share register is no guarantee of a quiet life in the intellectual property courts.
Paul Jones
Harvard alumni and former New York Times journalist. Editor of Business Matters for over 15 years, the UKs largest business magazine. I am also head of Capital Business Media’s automotive division working for clients such as Red Bull Racing, Honda, Aston Martin and Infiniti.
SoftBank-backed digital-commerce ecosystem AceVector Ltd has filed updated draft papers with markets regulator Sebi for an initial public offering (IPO), which will include a fresh issue of shares worth Rs 300 crore.
In addition to the fresh issue, the IPO will also involve an offer-for-sale (OFS) of 6.38 crore shares by existing shareholders, according to the updated draft red herring prospectus (UDRHP).
As part of the OFS, promoter Starfish I Pte Ltd and other shareholders Nexus, Wonderful Star Pte Ltd, Kenneth Stuart Glass, Jason Ashok Kothari, Priyanka Shreevar Kheruka, Rupen Investment and Industries, and Centaurus Trading and Investments will offload their holdings.
Despite the share sale by several investors, AceVector’s promoters and founders Kunal Bahl and Rohit Bansal, who together hold a 23.56 per cent stake, will not participate in the OFS. However, another promoter entity Starfish, which owns 30.68 per cent stake in the company, will be divesting part of its stake.
Advertisement
The company plans to use the IPO proceeds to strengthen technology infrastructure, support marketing and business promotion for Snapdeal, pursue inorganic growth through acquisitions, and meet general corporate requirements.
Live Events
The Gurugram-based company operates Snapdeal, a value-focused lifestyle e-commerce marketplace; Unicommerce, an e-commerce enablement SaaS platform; and Stellaro Brands, an omnichannel consumer brands arm. Financially, AceVector reported operating revenue of Rs 244 crore in H1 FY26, up 34 per cent from Rs 181 crore in H1 FY25. During the same period, its adjusted EBITDA loss narrowed significantly to Rs 9.2 crore from Rs 28 crore a year earlier.
AceVector had initiated its IPO journey earlier this year by filing confidential draft papers with Sebi in July and subsequently securing approval in November. By opting for the confidential pre-filing route, the company gained the flexibility to delay public disclosure of IPO details until the later stages.
Warren Buffett and Michael Burry, two investors closely watched across global markets, are taking diametrically opposite positions on the artificial intelligence frenzy, setting up a rare, high-stakes clash over whether Silicon Valley’s hottest trade is a once-in-a-generation opportunity or a bubble waiting to burst. Their positions, revealed in recent disclosures and letters, come as concerns about an AI bubble gain mainstream attention while investors continue pouring capital into the sector.
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway last month unveiled a large new stake in Alphabet, instantly propelling the Google parent into Berkshire Hathaway’s top 10 holdings. The move is widely seen as an endorsement of Alphabet’s heavy AI investments and the market’s view of the company as a frontrunner in the AI race.
The investment comes at a moment of transition for Berkshire. Buffett announced in May that he will step down as CEO at the end of this year, though he will retain his stock, handing the reins to vice chairman Greg Abel after decades at the helm of a company that began as a Nebraska textile mill and grew into one of the most influential conglomerates in American finance.
Burry doubles down on his skepticism
Michael Burry, however, is moving in the opposite direction. The investor who famously profited from betting against the U.S. housing market in 2008 has taken new short positions in Palantir and Nvidia, two of the highest-profile beneficiaries of the AI boom.He has been particularly critical of accounting practices across Big Tech, arguing that companies “have been systematically increasing the useful lives of chips and servers, for depreciation purposes, as they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in graphics chips with accelerating planned obsolescence.”
Advertisement
Live Events
Burry is also in a period of transition. Scion Asset Management, his hedge fund, will close by year-end. In a recent investor letter, he wrote that his “estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets.” He has since launched a financial newsletter, Cassandra Unchained, where he continues to express skepticism about the AI boom.
A market split as AI hype peaks
Their opposing moves come as even industry leaders begin to acknowledge stretched expectations. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has voiced concerns about the pace and scale of speculative fervor surrounding artificial intelligence. Still, capital continues to flood the sector, and the disagreement between two investors of such high reputation underscores the uncertainty in the market. Buffett turned Berkshire Hathaway into one of the most recognizable names in American investing, while Burry inspired Michael Lewis’s The Big Short and the film adaptation starring Christian Bale.Now, with both navigating turning points in their own careers, the divergence in their AI positions is emerging as one of the most closely watched splits in the market—one that could signal whether the boom is built on solid ground or heading toward another historic correction.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login