Close
today i learned (til)

Should I Quit Chewing Gum?

April 2, 2023

In 24 days, or a little over 3 weeks, I chewed 171 pieces of gum. That’s between 10 and 12 packs of gum (depending on whether it was a 14 or 16 count). Sure, that doesn’t seem like much, but during these three weeks, I was trying to cut down. On a bad day, I could tear through an entire pack in an afternoon. I wish I could say that with age, I learned how to control my gum-chewing as a result of witnessing the dent my wallet takes after every trip to the grocery store, but to be completely honest, it shows no sign of stopping.

You hear a lot about the benefits of chewing gum to relax your mind or help you remember what you’ve studied (Sasaki-Otomaru et al., 2011), but I’ve always wondered — can an excessive amount of something that’s supposedly good for your health be harmful?

The NHS describes addiction as “not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you… it’s possible to be addicted to just about anything” (“Addiction: what is it?,” n.d.). By that definition, “too much of a good thing” applies to every activity you could dream up.

Investigating Ingredients

Several artificial sweeteners are added to gum — xylitol being at the top of the ingredient list. Xylitol is a sugar alcohol, used to replace sugar, that naturally occurs in vegetables and fruits (Hester, 2022).

  • Xylitol is behind why gum chewing is recommended 30 minutes after a meal — it can’t be broken down into the acids that wear away teeth.
  • Although xylitol is easily absorbed by bacteria like sugar, once absolved, the bacteria will use their energy to expel the xylitol instead of reproducing, making it less able to stick to your teeth and causing them to die off. (Hester, 2022)
  • By neutralizing acids in the mouth, acid reflux and erosion of enamel, the hard mineralized substance that protects the surface of the teeth, are minimized.
  • Chewing gum also boosts saliva production, helping to wash away food particles from the teeth as well as digestive acids. (“Sugar-free gum – is it bad for me?,” 2012)
  • The saliva produced when you chew gum is stimulated saliva, which has a higher concentration of the proteins your teeth need to defend against the erosive acids in food and drinks (Hester, 2022).
  • To summarize, xylitol doesn’t spike blood sugar or insulin, starves the plaque-producing bacteria, and feeds microbes in the digestive system (Gunnars, 2018).

But how do the rest of the ingredients line up?

 

Next on the list is sorbitol.

  • Similar to xylitol, sorbitol is a naturally occurring sweetener extracted from glucose. Consuming sorbitol is what gives you that cooling sensation in the mouth. 
  • Sorbitol has been declared safe by a number of studies. However, the suggests that if daily intake exceeded 30g, it may result in nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain.
  • In larger quantities, sorbitol actually acts as a laxative. It does not get completely digested — the small intestine absorbs sorbitol in small amounts, which are then converted to fructose. The presence of excess remaining sorbitol may result in diarrhea, gas, bloating, and cramping (“Sorbitol research and safety,” 2022).
    • As it moves through the GI tract, it acts as a sponge by pulling water out of the intestinal walls, creating an excess of fluid in the bowels and these unpleasant symptoms (Johnson, 2010). 

As you can probably guess, the other main ingredients like mannitol & maltitol, have almost identical descriptions — a sugar alcohol recognized as safe by the FDA that may cause bloating, gas, or diarrhea when overconsumed.

 

Finally, I’ll discuss a bit about maltodextrin, a highly processed artificial sweetener made from corn, rice, potato starch, or wheat.

  • Maltodextrin’s high glycemic index means it can cause spikes in blood sugar.
  • Studies have suggested that it can change your gut bacteria composition in a way that makes you more susceptible to disease. 
    • Maltodextrin can suppress the growth of probiotics in your digestive system, increasing the growth of bacteria such as E.coli, which is associated with autoimmune disease.
    • It may also impair intestinal mucus release, raising the risk of colitis (inflammation of the large intestine).
  • However, there’s also evidence that maltodextrin is effective for preventing colorectal cancer and had positive effects on overall digestion (Shaefer, 2022).

A Conclusion That’s Hard to Swallow

Well, it seems the health effects of chewing gum are pretty insignificant. After all, a piece of gum is usually no more than a couple of grams.

But you know what isn’t? The residue it leaves behind. Chewing gum is made of “non-biodegradable hydrophobic polymers together with artificial sweeteners” (Roy, 2011). Since gum is an oil base synthetic polymer, it’s remnants are just like plastic. Gum products, then, are not broken down by natural processes, which produces pollution destined to exist for much, much longer than the amount of time it took to chew (Jones, 2019). Unsurprisingly, valuable time and money must be spent to clean up unsightly and bacteria-saturated chewed gum from the streets.

As gross as it sounds, all the gum we’ve chewed probably still exists somewhere. It’ll be near excruciating to curb my chewing, but I’d like to think that the environment (and my wallet) will thank me.

 

Resources

Gunnars, K. (2018, October 4). Xylitol: Everything you need to know. Healthline. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/xylitol-101#bottom-line

Hester, J. (2022, June 17). Surprising dental health benefits of sugar-free gum. Dental Depot. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://dentaldepot.net/surprising-benefits-of-sugar-free-gum/

Johnson, C. (2010, July 26). Too much sugarless gum can hurt you. UF Health Podcasts. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://podcasts.ufhealth.org/too-much-sugarless-gum-can-hurt-you/

Jones, D. (2019, November 16). Chewing gum – 100,000 tonnes of plastic pollution every year. Just One Ocean. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://justoneocean.org/chewing-gum

NHS. (n.d.). Addiction: what is it? NHS choices. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/addiction-support/addiction-what-is-it/

Roy, A. S. (2011, November 30). Improper disposal of non-biodegradable chewing gum is one of the biggest threats to our ecology: A Review. Current World Environment. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://www.cwejournal.org/vol16no3/improper-disposal-of-non-biodegradable-chewing-gum-is-one-of-the-biggest-threats-to-our-ecology–a-review

Sasaki-Otomaru, A., Sakuma, Y., Mochizuki, Y., Ishida, S., Kanoya, Y., & Sato, C. (2011). Effect of regular gum chewing on levels of anxiety, mood, and fatigue in healthy young adults. Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158435/

Shaefer, A. (2022, September 23). Is maltodextrin bad for me? Healthline. Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/is-maltodextrin-bad-for-me#alternatives

Sorbitol research and safety. News. (2022, December 29). Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://www.news-medical.net/health/Sorbitol-Research-and-Safety.aspx

Sugar-free gum – is it bad for me? Go Ask Alice! (2012, December 7). Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/sugar-free-gum-it-bad-me/ 

0Likes
About Author

Hi everyone. My name is Julia, and I am a second year CS major. I joined StemComm and the Charged team to share my interests in food science, psychology, and computing!

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Tech is in Bloom for Spring!
today i learned (til)
Legend of Sumeria – Exploring science in a new way
today i learned (til)
The Effects of Various Amino Acid Side Chains on B – Lactam Antibiotic Resistance
today i learned (til), vintage science
What’s The Connection Between Complex Chemistry and Islamic Medieval Architecture?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.