Is sparkling water safe during pregnancy?

Nothing we found suggests plain sparkling water is unsafe in pregnancy, and nobody has tested it directly. We found no randomized trial and no review of plain carbonated water in pregnant women. The closest evidence is two small trials of mineral water. In 102 pregnant women, a daily 3.2 tbsp (48 ml) of an iron-rich still spa water caused no more indigestion than placebo over 6 weeks. In 74 Finnish pregnant women, 1.1 quarts (1 liter) a day of mineral water for 8 weeks, with no adverse outcome reported in the abstract, though that trial was not designed to look for harm.

Unsettled. The answer rests on absence. Neither pregnancy trial used ordinary sparkling water. The first water was still and rich in iron, and the second report does not say whether its water was carbonated. What we can say is that no study we found links plain fizzy water to any harm in pregnancy.

What the trials found

The two pregnancy trials were about something other than fizz. In the iron trial, 102 women at 22 to 28 weeks who had stopped taking iron tablets drank the spa water or a placebo. Ferritin, the body's iron store, fell by 24 percent with the spa water against 51 percent with placebo, and indigestion scores did not differ. In the Finnish trial, both groups drank a liter of mineral water a day and one water was fortified with folate. Red cell folate rose by 360.9 nmol/L in the fortified group and 195.6 nmol/L in the control group.

What carbonation itself does has been measured only in people who were not pregnant. In a crossover trial of 8 healthy volunteers, carbonated water did not change how fast a meal left the stomach. It did keep more of the meal in the upper stomach, 74 percent of the solids against 56 percent with still water.

In a second crossover trial of 13 young women, 8.5 fl oz (250 ml) of carbonated water made them feel fuller and less hungry than the same amount of plain water. The abstract reports this as significant and gives no size for the effect. Both studies were single sessions.

Who should be careful

Three cautions come up in the evidence, and none of them is about plain water.

Sweetened fizzy drinks. In a Danish cohort of 59,334 pregnant women, one or more artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks a day was linked to 38 percent higher odds of preterm delivery (95% CI 1.15 to 1.65). Sugar-sweetened fizzy drinks showed no link in that cohort. In a Norwegian cohort of 60,761 pregnant women, more than one daily serving of artificially sweetened drinks was linked to 11 percent higher odds of preterm delivery (95% CI 1.00 to 1.24), an interval that touches no effect. More than one daily serving of sugar-sweetened drinks was linked to 25 percent higher odds (95% CI 1.08 to 1.45). Women who drank the most were more often smokers and less educated. Flavored sparkling waters with sweeteners sit closer to these drinks than plain sparkling water does.

Heartburn. A 2024 consensus of 11 gastroenterologists and primary care doctors agreed that people with reflux symptoms should limit alcohol, coffee and carbonated drinks. It was not written for pregnancy, and the authors note that the evidence behind diet advice is weak. A Cochrane review of heartburn treatment in pregnancy found no trial that tested diet advice on its own. In one trial of 65 women inside that review, the drug sucralfate gave complete relief 2.41 times as often as diet and lifestyle advice (95% CI 1.42 to 4.07).

Teeth. A meta-analysis of 71 observational studies linked carbonated drinks to 43 percent higher odds of erosive tooth wear (95% CI 1.17 to 1.75), and regurgitation of stomach contents to 2.27 times the odds. These were observational studies of carbonated drinks in general, mostly acidic sodas, and they did not measure plain sparkling water on its own.

Not for everyone. If fizzy water gives you heartburn or bloating in pregnancy, still water does the same job for hydration. If you drink flavored sparkling water, check the label for sweeteners, because sweetened fizzy drinks carry the only preterm signal we found.

What expert bodies say

We found no expert body position on sparkling water in pregnancy. The US Institute of Medicine set the adequate intake of total water at 3.2 quarts (3.0 liters) a day in pregnancy, 10 fl oz (0.3 liters) more than for women who are not pregnant. That total includes moisture from food and every drink, sparkling water among them. In a 2016 survey of about 300 pregnant women in Indonesia, 42 percent fell short of the adequate intake of water from fluids, and the authors note that a link between fluid intake and pregnancy outcome is rarely studied.

How we searched

What would change this answer

• A randomized trial or a large cohort that measures plain carbonated water in pregnancy against heartburn, nausea or birth outcomes. We found none registered.
• A trial that tests avoiding fizzy drinks on its own as advice for heartburn in pregnancy.

More on sparkling water itself, including minerals and teeth: Sparkling water.

Sources

1. ev-spwp-01 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial · n = 102
   During the trial period, mean ferritin levels fell by 24% in the Spatone Iron-Plus group compared with a mean fall of 51% in ferritin levels among the control group, P = 0.016.
   
   Who: low-risk antenatal patients noncompliant with ferrous sulfate tablets, 22 to 28 weeks gestation
   Effect: ferritin fall 24% (mineral water) vs 51% (placebo), P = 0.016; dyspepsia scores did not differ; compliance 57% vs 67%, P = 0.22
   Certainty: Still iron-rich spa water (about 5 mg iron per 24 ml sachet), not ordinary sparkling water; small trial, 6 weeks.
   Clin Lab Haematol, 2003 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
2. ev-spwp-02 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · randomized controlled double-blind parallel-group trial · n = 74
   The erythrocyte folate concentrations increased in the study group by 360.9 nmol/L and in the controls by 195.6 nmol/L (P=0.004) and serum homocysteine concentrations fell by 1.1 micromol/L and by 0.3 micromol/L, respectively (P<0.05).
   
   Who: pregnant women in Finland from week 11, two-week run-in then eight-week intervention
   Effect: erythrocyte folate +360.9 vs +195.6 nmol/L (P = 0.004); serum folate +10.3 vs -2.7 nmol/L; homocysteine -1.1 vs -0.3 micromol/L (P < 0.05)
   Certainty: Both arms drank 1 L/day of mineral water with pregnancies monitored; the abstract reports no adverse outcome but the trial was not powered for safety. Carbonation of the water is not stated.
   J Perinat Med, 2007 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
3. ev-spwp-03 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · randomized crossover trial · n = 8
   However, the proximal stomach contained a greater proportion of solids (74 +/- 7% vs 56 +/- 8%, P < 0.05) and liquids (43 +/- 5% vs 27 +/- 4%, P < 0.05) with carbonated water as opposed to still water.
   
   Who: healthy volunteers, radiolabelled mixed meal with carbonated or still water
   Effect: proximal stomach solids 74% vs 56%, liquids 43% vs 27% (P < 0.05); overall gastric emptying and lag phase identical
   Certainty: Not in pregnant women; tiny sample.
   Dig Dis Sci, 1997 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
4. ev-spwp-04 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · randomized crossover trial with modified sham feeding · n = 13
   After ingestion, significantly increased fullness and decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW group.
   
   Who: young women after an overnight fast, 8.5 fl oz (250 ml) at 15 C
   Effect: significantly increased fullness and decreased hunger ratings after carbonated water vs water
   Certainty: Not pregnant; single session; no effect size beyond significance reported in the abstract.
   J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo), 2017 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
5. ev-spwp-05 · Observational data · prospective cohort · n = 59334
   In comparison with women with no intake of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks, the adjusted odds ratio for women who consumed ge 1 serving of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.65).
   
   Who: women of the Danish National Birth Cohort (1996-2002), intake assessed in midpregnancy
   Effect: OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.65) for at least 1 serving/day; OR 1.78 (1.19 to 2.66) for at least 4 servings/day; no association for sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks
   Certainty: Observational; concerns sweetened soft drinks, not plain sparkling water. Flavored sparkling waters with sweeteners fall closer to this exposure.
   Am J Clin Nutr, 2010 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
6. ev-spwp-06 · Observational data · prospective cohort · n = 60761
   Drinking >1 serving of SS beverages per day was also associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery (adjusted OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.45).
   
   Who: pregnant women in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study, carbonated and noncarbonated beverages by FFQ in midpregnancy
   Effect: artificially sweetened >1 serving/day OR 1.11 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.24); sugar-sweetened >1 serving/day OR 1.25 (1.08 to 1.45)
   Certainty: Observational and borderline for sweetened drinks; heavy drinkers were more often smokers and less educated. Unsweetened sparkling water was not the exposure.
   Am J Clin Nutr, 2012 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
7. ev-spwp-07 · Observational data · systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies · n = 71 studies
   Meta-analyses revealed significant associations between erosive tooth wear and male gender (padj.<0.001; OR=1.30, 95 % CI: 1.16-1.44), regurgitation (padj.=0.033; OR=2.27, 95 % CI: 1.41-3.65), digestive disorders (padj.<0.001; OR=1.81, 95 % CI: 1.48-2.21), consumption of acidic foods (padj.=0.033; OR=2.40, 95 % CI: 1.44-4.00), seasoning sauces (padj.=0.003; OR=1.28, 95 % CI: 1.13-1.44), nutritional supplements (padj.=0.019; OR=1.73, 95 % CI: 1.28-2.35), and carbonated drinks (padj.=0.019; OR=1.43, 95 % CI: 1.17-1.75).
   
   Who: observational studies of erosive tooth wear in permanent dentition
   Effect: carbonated drinks OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.75); regurgitation OR 2.27 (1.41 to 3.65); acidic foods OR 2.40 (1.44 to 4.00)
   Certainty: Carbonated drinks were mostly acidic sodas; plain sparkling water is far less erosive.
   J Dent, 2024 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
8. ev-spwp-08 · Position of an expert body · Delphi consensus statement · n = 11 experts
   Eleven statements achieved the strongest (100%) agreement: five are related to diet and include identification and avoidance of dietary triggers, limiting alcohol, coffee and carbonated beverages, and advising patients troubled by postprandial symptoms not to overeat; the remaining six statements concern advice around smoking cessation, weight loss, raising the head-of-the-bed, avoiding recumbency after meals, stress reduction and alginate use.
   
   Who: patients with reflux-like symptoms (heartburn and regurgitation)
   Effect: statement reached 100% agreement; 21 consensus statements in total
   Certainty: Expert consensus, not pregnancy-specific, and the authors note low-quality evidence behind diet advice.
   Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2024 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
9. ev-spwp-09 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials · n = 65
   More women in the sucralfate group experienced complete relief of heartburn compared to women who received advice on diet and lifestyle choices (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.07; participants = 65; studies = one).
   
   Who: pregnant women with heartburn; nine RCTs with 725 women, four contributing data
   Effect: complete relief RR 2.41 (95% CI 1.42 to 4.07) sucralfate vs diet and lifestyle advice, one study
   Certainty: Diet advice, including avoiding fizzy drinks, has never been tested on its own in pregnant women; one small trial.
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
10. ev-spwp-10 · Position of an expert body · reference values cited in the introduction of a cross-sectional survey · n = —
    The AI was set at 3.0 L/day for pregnant women and 3.8 L/day for breastfeeding women, which is an increase of 0.3 L/day and 1.1 L/day, respectively, compared to non-pregnant/non-breastfeeding women [13].
    
    Who: pregnant and breastfeeding women; reference values cited in a 2016 Nutrients survey
    Effect: AI total water 3.0 L/day pregnant (+10 fl oz (0.3 L)), 3.8 L/day breastfeeding (+1.2 quarts (1.1 L)), IOM
    Certainty: Total water includes food moisture and all drinks, sparkling water included. EFSA original opinion not opened (403), so its figure is not carded.
    Nutrients, 2016 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the fulltext
11. ev-spwp-11 · Observational data · cross-sectional survey · n = 299
    Non-adherence to the AI was observed among 42% of the total sample of pregnant women.
    
    Who: pregnant women in Java, Indonesia, 7-day fluid-specific record
    Effect: 42% of pregnant women below the AI of water from fluids (18% Jakarta to 54% Surabaya)
    Certainty: One country; fluid adequacy not linked to any outcome. The authors write that a direct link between fluid intake and pregnancy outcome is rarely investigated.
    Nutrients, 2016 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the fulltext