Or just tax the original sugar production or importation and be done with all the complexity of chasing down a million food companies across thousands of jurisdictions. (Or let people eat whatever they want and stop being a busybody.)
It's not one of the extremely rare Giffen goods which defy the laws of supply and demand. Most alcoholic drinks have a substitute in drinks with less (or no) alcohol in them, competing on price. Moreover, people's consumption is affected by how much is considered "normal" to drink (one of the early, solid findings of alcohol epidemiology), so there's a positive feedback amplifying small changes to consumption habits from other things.
In countries where the alcohol tax is high enough it reduces alcohol consumption but massively increases sales of sugar and yeast.
Take a look at Canada's consumption numbers and see if the "sin tax" accomplished anything.
We don't have that. But we have other countries and times to compare through, and there really is no question that accessibility affects consumption.
The bulk of US sugar comes from "HFCS" (high fructose corn syrup) which is HEAVILY subsidized in the first place.
So taxing something you are subsidizing makes zero sense.
Remove the subsidy and the price of corn will go up, and with it the price of HFCS.
These are massive corporations targeting individuals. If you look at obesity rates people are clearly on the losing side here.