Sustainability as Strategic Differentiator: The Promise and the Problems of Using Chicle vs. Petro-Chemicals in Chewing Gum

Abstract

Chewing gum as a commercial product was traditionally based on chicle, mainly harvested by indigenous people from trees in the tropical forest of southeastern Mexico. Chicle gum base has now been replaced by a petro-chemical gum base by the major manufacturers. However, several smaller companies are again attempting to market chewing gum using a chicle gum base. The question raised here is, will the differentiation provided by chicle gum—being natural, organic, and “plastic-free”—provide sufficient differentiation for meaningful competition against the less expensive brands using a petro-chemical gum base? This case provides an interesting application of Michael Porter’s strategy model in which differentiation and value are competing strategies.

1. Introduction

Barriers to green production may occur in unexpected places. For example, in the case of a simple, ordinary product like chewing gum, there is a dependency on petro-chemicals which is largely unrecognized. Newly developed green products in the chewing gum market may offer an advantage to the investor, manufacturer, or consumer who values sustainability, but there are obstacles which make the viability of green production questionable from a strategic perspective. Porter’s classic strategy model [1] suggests that products should be focused either on differentiation or value. A differentiation strategy offers added features that justify higher pricing, while a value strategy offers a simpler product available at a lower price. This study considers whether sustainability provides an adequate differentiation to justify increased cost for consumers for a common consumer product, chewing gum. Chewing gum based on petro-chemicals currently dominates the market, providing an inexpensive product corresponding to the value orientation of the Porter model. However, many smaller companies are now offering a more expensive, chicle-based product and emphasizing sustainability values, which corresponds to the differentiation element of the Porter model.

Chewing gum sales are projected to amount to US$38.6 billion in the United States and US$7 billion globally by the year 2027. There are over one million users of chewing gum in the United States, and many millions globally [2]. Sustainability issues in chewing gum have had little attention. However, fair trade, the well-being of indigenous communities, and biodiversity are at stake. Sustainability is an important concern for many companies and many consumers, but obstacles can arise in operationalization, and these obstacles may provide clues as to difficulties other industries may have in making the transition to sustainability. This study examines several of these issues using the framework of Porter’s model (value vs. differentiation). It is a historical analysis tracing the evolution of commercial chewing gum from sustainability to petro-chemical and, perhaps, back to sustainability.

Chicle is a Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP) that facilitates both social and environmental development in a geographic area where biodiversity thrives [3]. Until the 1990s chewing gum manufacturers used chicle as its base. Then the large, conventional manufacturers transitioned from a “natural” product based on chicle to a product based on petro-chemical production. The “gum base” listed as an ingredient in chewing gum does not distinguish between a chicle-based gum base and a petroleum-based gum base. The large market brands of chewing gum use a gum base made of synthetic rubber, polyvinyl acetate (or vinyl acetate), and other industrially produced materials. Polyvinyl acetate is made from acetic acid and ethylene. Ethylene is based on natural gas or petroleum. Oil, coal, or other hydrocarbons processed into naphtha provides the basis for synthetic rubber. Naphtha is mixed with natural gas to create styrene, isoprene, or other monomers used to make synthetic rubber. Thus, conventional chewing gum becomes a petro-chemical product, with ingredients often used in paints, glues, and adhesives [4].

The advantages of using the petro-chemical product are several. Whenever working with indigenous communities, the question of labor availability is paramount. As youth migrate to cities, traditional skills are lost. “Pirates” invade the tropical forest, harvesting assets with little regard for traditional practices that maintained the viability of the source or its complex ecological setting. Some trees are lost, and genetic diversity declines. To some degree, weather determines the quality and quantity of the harvest. The marketing process is also an obstacle. Intermediaries exploit indigenous communities, underpaying them for valuable resources. Suppliers may add rocks and other impure elements to their harvest, increasing its weight but reducing quality to an uncertain and variable degree. Ownership of the tropical forest and control over the chicle crop are complex and subject to government policy, and policies and enforcement of policies can change over time. All these factors add an element of riskiness to dependence on the natural product, chicle, as opposed to the petro-chemical product, which can be pumped and transported reliably from its sources, and then marketed in huge and reliable volume by established multinational companies.

The industry has undergone consolidation in the 2000s. Wrigley, based in the USA, is the dominant company and owns the subsidiary Joyco which developed in India and caters to the Asian market. Cadbury-Schweppes, a British company now owned by the American company Mondoléz (formerly Kraft), is another major manufacturer, as is Mars. Perfetti, based in Italy, and Hershey, based in the USA, are also important chewing gum companies. All operate internationally, with some of the strongest potential for sales presently occurring in developing countries [5].

As the market for green products developed in the 1990s and the 2000s, several producers began offering chewing gum based on chicle rather than petro-chemicals for the base. These producers make claims of sustainability based on fair trade, biodiversity, and the well-being of indigenous communities. The chicle-based brands did not have much success until sustainability concerns became widely accepted roughly dating from about 2010. Since then, several alternative chicle-based brands have developed and have had some degree of market success. In addition to consumer interest in sustainability, new marketing channels enable wider distribution and sales of niche products, such as chicle-based chewing gum. The dominant brands in the chicle-based market are Glee Gum and Pur Gum. Other brands include Quip Gum, Mighty Gum, Run Gum, Chicza, Xylichew, and Real Good Gum [6].

Comparing these two alternative strategies, petro-chemical-based chewing gum vs. chicle-based chewing gum, provides an opportunity to consider the viability of Porter’s strategy model. Petro-chemical production anchors the conventional market, while the chicle-based product strategically depends on the differentiation provided by claims of sustainability. The question raised here is, can natural chewing gum provide sufficient differentiation and market appeal to compete with the value provided by petro-chemical chewing gum that currently dominates the market? In other words, do fair trade, biodiversity, and sustainability values offer sufficient differentiation to appeal to producers and consumers when the less expensive alternative, based on petro-chemicals, is available? This is an important question because it illuminates some of the supply chain and marketing problems that may arise in products depending on claims of sustainability.

A clash between these two strategies is exemplified in the case brought by a producer of petro-chemical-based gum, Perfetti Van Melle USA, Inc., Erlanger, KY, USA, (hereafter called Perfetti), against Mazee LLC (hereafter called Mazee). Perfetti makes many petro-chemical-based products, including Mentos, a leading gum in the USA. Mazee makes Glee Gum, a leading chicle product in the USA. Perfetti brought a charge of misleading advertising against Mazee to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) in 2022. The contested advertising claims of Glee Gum included the terms “made with chicle”, natural”, “eco-friendly”, and “plastic-free”. The verdict of the NAD upheld Mazee’s claim of being “plastic-free” but sided with Perfetti about the other terms. Mazee accepted the verdict and agreed to modify its claims for Glee Gum. Perfetti appealed the verdict even though most of its claims were upheld. Upon appeal, the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) reversed all findings, determining that Mazee had empirical support for its claims of being “plant-based”, “made with chicle”, and “natural”, but that it should not use the phrase “plastic-free” given that it suggested there was something undesirable about chewing gum that had plastic-like components in it rather than chicle [7].

However, Glee Gum, as advertised on the retail giant Amazon, continued to use the phrase “Glee Gum uses only plastic-free gum base…” months after the NARB advisory opinion was issued. Other chicle-based gums also use the term “plastic-free”. This case indicates that manufacturers using the petro-chemical product see a perceived threat to the conventional market if consumers realize that conventional chewing gum is a petro-chemical product containing substances with a chemical composition like plastic.

2. Methods and Materials

This is a descriptive study based on the economic history of the chewing gum industry. Economic history is inherently broad and interdisciplinary [8]. In the management literature, it falls into the category of qualitative research methods, less amenable to statistical analysis than experimental or other quantitative research methods. In historical studies, explicit hypotheses are seldom stated, hence hypotheses testing is elusive. Rather, analysis of available materials and interpretation of data are paramount. Primary, secondary, and even tertiary data sources may be used. This study of chewing gum industry dynamics roughly follows the summary of steps in historical research provided by Berg and Lune [9] (p. 311).

Stinchcombe asserts, “One does not apply theory to history; rather one uses history to develop theory” [10] (p. 1). This paper uses the history of a common, everyday object, chewing gum, to provide insights into under what conditions Porter’s seminal idea on strategy (value vs. differentiation) might be reflected in the real world. Methods used for this article include examination of historical data on the chicle trade and the chewing gum business, review of existing research on chicle and the gum industry, review of industry reports on the current chewing gum market (both petro-chemical-based and chicle-based), review of case studies of indigenous tropical forest communities engaged in chicle harvesting, review of the chemicals and production processes used in making chewing gum, review of the fair trade certification process, and identification of recent industry dynamics in the contest between the two types of production. Secondary sources include reports of fieldwork performed in the tropical rainforest of Mexico, material from certain government documents, and legal statements. A review of the literature includes dissertations and scholarly articles, industry and trade reports, and some popular literature. All materials used are shown in references and are publicly available.

3. Results

3.1. Chewing Gum Based on Chicle

The use of chewing gum dates to prehistoric times, but it became a commercial product in the 1890s with the importation of chicle from Mexico to the United States. Chicle is harvested from the sapodilla tree. It is also known as the Chicozapote tree, or Manilkara zapota, a tropical member of the Sapotaceae family. The origin of sapodilla as we know it is in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and Central America during the pre-Columbian era. Over time, sapodilla was introduced to other parts of the world. Today, commercial production has occurred mainly in the complex ecology of the tropical forest in Southeast Mexico. The sapodilla tree is not amenable to plantation-type cultivation because it requires the ecology of the tropical forest, and it is very slow growing. Its genetic diversity is also diminishing due to a lack of natural harvesting and encroachment of its geographic area by other land uses.

A large amount of the land where the sapodilla tree grows is communally owned. This system of communal ownership dates to concessions made to provide for indigenous communities first by the Spanish rulers, then, after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, by the Mexican government. These communally owned areas are called ejidos. Since 1991 new ejidos have not been created, but the existing ones preserve the property rights of indigenous communities. Foreigners may not take ownership of these properties, and it is generally difficult for anyone to buy or sell this land. Consequently, commercial exploitation is limited [11]. This has resulted in vast territories becoming relatively untended and undeveloped. It is difficult to identify who is in charge. Since no individual has a personal stake in the property, it is difficult to raise capital for communal entities to invest in processing Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). The process of obtaining fair trade certification is similarly difficult due to cost and organizational constraints.

According to Mordor Intelligence [5], “Chewing gum is a recreational food chewed purely out of the instinctual desire to masticate. As consumers become more health conscious, they are looking for functional benefits from chewing gums”. One functional benefit readily apparent is keeping teeth clean from forming plaque, since chewing stimulates saliva production [12]. Many sugarless brands have obtained endorsement from the American Dental Association based on plaque reduction [13]. Chewing gum also can freshen breath, relieve hunger or thirst, and reduce the need to smoke. Chewing gum can relieve stress, and studies show it can improve performance on a variety of tasks, perhaps by relieving boredom. Recent research indicates chewing gum may hasten recovery from abdominal surgery by stimulating the digestive system. A rapidly increasing market is the use of chewing gum as a delivery mechanism for anti-smoking drugs. Some of the more creative uses are in the realm of veterinary medicine, to deliver vitamins or to relieve stress for domestic animals and even for horses [14].

The product itself may have a damaging effect on the environment since the variety based on petro-chemicals is not biodegradable, although the product based on chicle is biodegradable. Chewing gum waste containing petro-chemicals is hard to remove from sidewalks, the underside of school desks, and other places used for sticking old chewing gum pieces. It has been banned from many schools and other public places. Singapore totally banned it in 1992, although this ban was modified to allow medicinal use a few years later.

Chewing gum was commercially developed in the USA in the 1890s, first by the Wrigley Company which still exists as a dominant company. It became a global commodity as it was available to the U.S. military in World Wars I and II, when soldiers traded it to local populations throughout the world or gave it away [15]. It had rapid market growth in the 1960s and 1970s and continues to grow at a more modest rate. Some commentators see a weakening of the market as populations in the developed world age, since young people are the main users [16]. Other analysts project a growing market as the young population in developing countries continues to grow, and as disposable income grows [5]. The largest markets currently are in the USA, Japan, and Europe, but market growth is strong in emerging markets.

3.2. The Substitution of Petro-Chemicals for Chicle

Initially, nearly all commercial chewing gum used chicle for its gum base. Chicle harvesting has traditionally been completed by indigenous people of the Mexican rainforest called chicleros, mainly in the southeastern areas of the country. Harvesting requires advance notice to the government of Mexico [17] (p. 38) and is carried out mainly on communally owned land tracts or ejidos. Chicleros slash the sapodilla tree in a zig-zag pattern to a depth of only 1–2 cm, preserving the integrity of the tree’s cambium. The resin that flows is tapped, and then the tree must lie fallow for 10 years. Traditional harvesting methods do not degrade the rainforest, because the harvesters rotate trees being used to allow an ample recovery period and are skilled at the methods. The income derived from chicle harvesting has provided a useful additional income to indigenous communities. Chicle facilitates both social and environmental development in a geographic area where biodiversity thrives [3].

The value of the harvested chicle depends on many elements. In addition to the quality and accessibility of the sapodilla trees, the quality and availability of the requisite labor force with traditional skills are important. As young people leave indigenous communities and migrate to urban areas in search of jobs and other opportunities, these skills grow scarcer. In fact, chicle harvesting by “pirate harvesters” ignoring the requirements for sustainable harvest and often lacking the necessary skills has become a problem. As trees are damaged and the tropical forest is infringed upon for other uses (or neglected as a resource), the genetic diversity of the sapodilla species is diminished. The result is diminished biodiversity and the reduced possibility of supplemental income for indigenous communities, furthering the incentives for members of those communities to relocate to other locations where economic opportunities are greater. The value of intangibles such as the contribution made by the sapodilla species (and other species it may support in the complex ecology of the tropical forest) to carbon sequestration, recreational values, watershed functions, and the inherent value of species preservation is hard to quantify [18]. Certain advantages of species preservation are known, such as the contribution of tropical species to past and current pharmaceutical advances [19], but other benefits that future generations may experience probably come in the category of “the unknown unknown” [20].

The value of indigenous communities is similarly hard to know and impossible to quantify. The World Bank [21] asserts:

While Indigenous Peoples own, occupy, or use a quarter of the world’s surface area, they safeguard 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity. They hold vital ancestral knowledge and expertise on how to adapt, mitigate, and reduce climate and disaster risks. Much of the land occupied by Indigenous Peoples is under customary ownership, yet many governments recognize only a fraction of this land as formally or legally belonging to Indigenous Peoples. Even when Indigenous territories and lands are recognized, protection of boundaries or use and exploitation of natural resources are often inadequate. Insecure land tenure is a driver of conflict, environmental degradation, and weak economic and social development. This threatens cultural survival and vital knowledge systems—loss in these areas increasing risks of fragility, biodiversity loss, and degraded One Health (or ecological and animal health) systems which threaten the ecosystem services upon which we all depend.

Around 10% of the Mexican population is estimated by the government to be indigenous, and this is probably an underestimate. In addition to the difficulties of enumerating people living in remote areas with little accessibility, children under 6 years of age are not counted in the Mexican census. In the southeastern part of Mexico where the chicle tree flourishes, the percent of the population identified as indigenous is 35–40% [22]. According to Pérez Velasco Pavón [23]:

In fact, evidence indicates that indigenous individuals are more often self-employed than non-indigenous individuals. Since indigenous people have worked on a small scale for centuries, they do not think about small-scale labor as a temporary trend or the result of some structural variable; small-scale work is part of their culture, as are communal resources, self-governance and the prevalence of non-dominant groups, to mention a few of the most important cultural characteristics.

Chicle harvesting provides a source of cash income to indigenous communities, otherwise mainly dependent on subsidence agriculture. However, it has traditionally been controlled by the limited issuance of government permission to harvest, regulated by a complex quota system. Chicleros were also exploited by middlemen who could dictate the price paid for chicle with the actual harvesters having little access to communication and transportation resources for getting their product to market. Overall, both the chicle harvesting process and the marketing system have not worked to the advantage of either chicleros or manufacturers who require a reliable supply of a necessary ingredient for chewing gum production.

3.3. The Turn to Petro-Chemicals

The very popularity of chewing gum created problems with the supply side of chicle. Chicle exports from Mexico to the United States increased from 4.2 tons in 1885–1886 to 1633 tons in 1995–1996 [24], and chicle supply remained variable and of uncertain quality. Producers turned to industrial chemicals as an alternative for the gum base that their product required. Petro-chemical gum base provided a less expensive, more reliable supply than naturally produced, indigenously harvested chicle. Most consumers remained unaware that commercial chewing gum was using a gum base containing ingredients, such as synthetic rubber and polyvinyl acetate (a derivative of vinyl acetate), also used in adhesives, paints, and other industrial chemicals. In chewing gum labeling, the term “gum base” covered either the natural, chicle-based type or the petro-chemical type, obscuring the difference.

The actual harmfulness of the chemicals included in conventional chewing gum has never been established. The product is not designed to be swallowed, although it often is. If swallowed, theoretically it might pass through the digestive system without absorption. Canada, the United States, and Europe have all considered the potential health effects of these petro-chemicals and declined to categorize them as toxic or carcinogenic as used in chewing gum. However, vinyl acetate, the precursor to polyvinyl acetate, can be harmful to those exposed to it directly, for example, in the workplace, usually through paint, adhesives, or other solvents. A wide list of potentially adverse reactions can be found, yet no official categorization has called it unsafe for use in chewing gum or other consumer products [25].

3.4. Back to Sustainability, with Caveats

Beginning in the 1990s, and increasing in the 2000s, several small manufacturers sought to develop and bring to market chewing gums using chicle harvested in the tropical forests of Mexico. As the market for natural products grew in the 2000s, and as major retailers noticed the potential impact of green consumers and to carry these chicle-based brands, these brands appeared to have viable economic potential. Some brands using sustainability as a value attempted to signify differentiation by using terms including “natural” “eco-friendly”, and “plastic free”. As noted above, Glee Gum, claiming to be “plastic-free”, “natural”, and “eco-friendly”, faced a challenge made in the Better Business Bureau (BBB) by Perfetti, a producer of petro-chemical brands, such as Mento. Perfetti alleged that the use of advertising phrases such as “plant-based and plastic-free”, “Glee Gum uses only plastic-free gum base”, and “All-natural Plastic-free gum base delicious chewing gum” carried the implication that conventional chewing gum was made of plastic. Perfetti also charged that Glee Gum’s advertising implied other petro-chemical-based brands might contain phthalates which were associated with health risks and early death. The National Advertising Division (NAD) came to a split decision, with all but one charge decided in favor of the petro-chemical manufacturer, Perfetti. Consequently, Mazee, the manufacturer of the chicle-based product, agreed to limit its claims in conformance with the decision. However, it was still able to use the claim of being “plastic-free”. Perfetti appealed the decision, asking the review board, the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), to also declare the claim that Glee Gum was “plastic-free” as inappropriate, due to the negative aspersions the claim cast on conventional chewing gum. When the NARD reviewed the case, they reversed all elements of the prior decision by the NAD. “Plastic-free” was deemed not justified, but all the other terms were judged acceptable [7]. For this one conventional producer at least, the threat of being seen as containing plastics, or substances close to plastics, was significant enough to merit the complaint process and then the appeal using the system of the BBB.

This development is interesting because it represents a new step in the acknowledgement of the potential for chicle-based gum to threaten the market position of petroleum-based manufacturers. However, it may be too late for the petro-chemical-based manufacturers to forestall the use of the “plastic-free” label as a differentiating factor by the chicle-based producers. A current examination of Glee Gum’s marketing materials shows that they continue to use the “plastic-free” term in 2023, a year after the case began. Moreover, a simple internet search reveals “plastic-free” to be advertised by many other companies making chicle-based gum, including the following brands: Nuud, Oh My Gum!, Forest Gum, Simply, Georganics, Epic, Chicza, Chewsy, Honest, Humble, True Gum, and Bonsai. These brands all appear to be manufactured by small companies with limited marketing resources, so their assertions of being natural, pure, sustainable, or plastic-free may not ever reach most consumers. Yet the potential is there for considerable market growth, if those values become sufficiently prevalent among gum chewers to drive purchases even at the considerably higher price required using chicle.

4. Discussion

Porter puts forth a theoretical basis for strategy based on the idea that a product can be differentiated sufficiently to justify a higher price, as would be consistent with chicle-based chewing gum in the contemporary market. This is known as a differentiation strategy. Alternatively, a product can be produced with enough economy and efficiency that its appeal is based on a value strategy, with a lower price for a product that is less differentiated or differentiated in a way that does not require a higher price. This study applies Porter’s model to a familiar yet mostly taken-for-granted product enjoyed by millions of consumers—chewing gum. “Green” consumers, valuing organic, natural, “plastic-free” goods, might logically be inclined to purchase chicle-based gum, provided they knew about its special qualities. However, there is a considerable difference in price, with the chicle-based product costing about twice as much or more compared to the petro-chemical-based product.

Consideration of this product, and this industry, brings to light some of the practical problems that arise as society attempts to move beyond its current reliance on petro-chemical products in manufacturing, marketing, and consumption [26]. One problem with chicle and other Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) is variation in supply. Chicle availability and quality are dependent on elements of nature, such as weather, disease, insects, and the total ecological complex. Additionally, the availability of harvesters is not entirely reliable. For sustainable harvesting of forest products, it is necessary for vital skills to be transmitted to younger generations who remain in indigenous communities located where the natural resources grow. But in developing countries throughout the world, young people are drawn to the urban environment where greater economic opportunity exists. Even when indigenous harvesters are available, the supply of chicle varies in quantity and quality from harvest to harvest and is subject to adulteration by foreign material to increase the weight of products then sold. Harvesters also remain subject to exploitation by middlemen who aggregate the product for sales and distribution. If free trade, organic, or other external certification of the product is obtained, the costs must be absorbed by either the indigenous community, whose means are limited, or the manufacturer whose return on investment remains speculative for some time in the production cycle. Marketing the product is an added challenge, as government policies on labeling obscure the details of the ingredients of gum base, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish between gums that are petro-chemical-based and those that are chicle-based. The differentiation of the chicle-based product is further obscured by the American Dental Association’s labeling of sugar-free gums using petro-chemical gum with their “Seal of Acceptance” implying healthful benefits.

Chicle-based gum manufacturers face an uphill road in developing a market for their product, yet they have some possibilities. Chicle-based gum made by relatively small companies can be bought through several large retailers in the USA, including Home Depot, Amazon, Target, and Wal-Mart. Internet shopping makes it easy for consumers to find the product if they know about it and want it. The current market dominance of petro-chemical-based gum and its price advantage seem to be the major obstacles to market growth for the chicle-based product. However, the use of the “plastic-free” claim in advertising has the potential to threaten the dominance of the petro-chemical-based brands, as is illustrated by the action brought by Perfetti, maker of Mentos, against Mazoo, maker of Glee Gum. Porter [1] suggests a possible third way for a company to strategize, based on focus. If a focused market can be acquired, this complicates the presumed trade-off between value and differentiation. The possibility of green consumers forming a strategic focus should not be overlooked. Organic, natural, sustainable, “plastic-free” consumables would seem to appeal to these consumers, offering the possibility of significant market growth for chicle-based gum in the future.

Future research should consider the problems encountered when products are developed with an emphasis on sustainability values, such as being natural, organic, or plastic-free. The intensity of social support for sustainability ideals, and the scientific need for reducing the petro-chemical imprint on the world, may obscure the practical problems involved in the transition to a reduced carbon footprint economy and society. If substantial obstacles impede the recognition of the viability of chicle-based chewing gum, imagine what constraints there might be with larger, more essential products and services.

5. Practical Implications for Sustainability Policies and Practices

At first glance, chewing gum may seem to be a relatively innocuous product in the realm of sustainability studies. Compared to extractive industries, energy policy, and similarly large-scale problems, chewing gum poses little danger to the environment or the well-being of future generations. Yet precisely because of its apparent insignificance, it dramatically illustrates just how pervasive petro-chemicals are in our environment and our material surroundings. It also shows how difficult it is to challenge the market position of established companies even if they theoretically could be replaced by more sustainable goods. This case also illustrates the rigidity of government policies, for example, by obscuring the difference between petro-chemical-based chewing gum and chicle-based chewing gum by using the term “gum base” to encompass both. The role of the industry organization, the Better Business Bureau (BBB), also reinforces the existing market domination of the petro-chemical-based chewing gum manufacturers. Another contribution of this study is the recognition of the very significant practical difficulties of using natural or organic products whose sources come from remote locations or indigenous communities.

This study focuses on the commercial potential of chicle-based chewing gum when the market is already dominated by an inexpensive, widely accepted alternative, petro-chemical-based chewing gum. The basic ingredient required, chicle, is harvested in remote tropical forests by indigenous workers. Their communities, their way of life, and their skills may be on the decline. Preservation of indigenous communities is difficult. At first glance, this looks like a nearly hopeless proposition. And yet, many new brands of chicle-based chewing gum have developed and been brought to market over the past 20 years. Evidently, there is a class of entrepreneurs who deem the demand for a natural, plastic-free alternative to traditional chewing gum sufficient to justify the investment. Counter space has been gained in major retailers such as Home Depot, and Amazon provides access to consumers even for niche products like chicle-based chewing gum. What is missing may be a widespread consumer understanding of the reality of the petro-based gum base. Evidently, one major manufacturer considers this a significant threat, hence the challenge by Peretti in the Better Business Bureau complaint process.

The challenge might be for several small manufacturers to work together to publicize the “plastic” contained in regular chewing gum. Ongoing scientific research indicates that plastic particles are a significant impediment to sustainability. Plastic particles are now found all over the earth, in the air [27], in the soil [28], deep in the ocean [29], in human breastmilk [30], and even in human placental tissue [31]. One possibility to enhance the appeal of chicle-based gum might be to lobby the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop more rigid guidelines for the ingredients to be declared unfit for inclusion in the chewing gum base. Already the FDA has an extensive list of ingredients with advisories relating to chewing gum base. Not all the following products are considered toxic, but they are in some way restricted or observed:

• BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole)—AOX/FS, GRAS, 0.02%—Of fat or oil content, incl essential (volatile) oil, or food, incl oleomargarine—Part 166, Margarine; AOX, REG, 10 ppm, alone or w/BHT—In potato granules—172.110; 32 ppm—In mixed diced, glazed fruits—172.110; 50 ppm, alone or w/BHT—In dry breakfast cereals, sweet potato flakes, dehydr potato flakes or shreds—172.110; 90 ppm in mix or <2 ppm in prep food—In dry mixes for beverages and desserts—172.110; 200 ppm alone or w/BHT—In emulsion stabilizers for shortenings; 0.1%—In active dry yeast −172.110; AOX, REG, 0.1% alone or w/BHT and/or propyl gallate—In chewing gum base—172.615; AOX, REG, 0.1% of defoamer—For proc. Beet sugar & yeast—173.340; AOX, REG, 0.5% of essential volatile oil—For use in flavoring substances—172.515; AOX, REG, In mastitis form, for dairy cattle—526.82
• BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene)—AOX, GRAS, 0.02%—Of fat or oil content, incl essential oil, of food, incl oleomargarine Part 166—Margarine; FS, 33 ppm in rice—In enriched parboiled rice—Part 137.350; FS, <0.02% in oleomargarine—In any animal fat ingredient permitted in oleo-margarine not to exceed 0.02% by wt of such animal fat content, Part 166—margarine; AOX, REG, 10 ppm alone or w/BHA—In potato granules—172.115; 50 ppm alone or w/BHA—In dry breakfast cereals, sweet potato flakes, dehydr potato flakes or shreds—172.115; 200 ppm alone or w/BHA—in emul stab for shortenings—172.115; REG, 0.1% alone or w/BHA and/or propyl gallate—In chewing gum base—172.615; REG, 0.1% of defoamer—For Proc. Beet sugar & yeast—173.340; REG, In mastitis form, for dairy cattle—526.820
• Butadiene styrene rubber—MISC, REG, In chewing gum base—172.615
• Butyl rubber—MISC, REG, Component of chewing gum base—172.615
• Chewing gum base—MISC, REG, GMP, Chicle, chiquibul, crown gum, gutta hang kang, jelutong, massaranduba balata, massaranduba chocolate, nispero, lechi caspi, pendare, perillo, rosidinha, Venezuelan chicle, Leche de vaca, Niger gutta, tunu, chilte, natural rubber, glycerol ester of tall oil resin, etc.—172.615
• Chicle—MISC, REG, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615
• Chilte—MISC, REG, Chewing gum base—172.615
• Chilquibul—MISC, REG, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615
• GGums (natural) of vegetable origin—MISC, REG, GMP, Chewing gum base—172.615
• Guta Hang Kang—MISC, REG, GMP, Chewing gum base—172.615
• Glycerol—See glycerin
• Glycerol ester of gum rosin—MISC, REG, ≤100 ppm in beverages—172.735; GMP, Softener for chewing gum base (See specs in 172.615)
• Glycerol ester of partially dimerized rosin—MISC, REG, GMP, Comp of chewing gum base (See specs in 172.615)
• Glycerol ester of partially hydrogenated gum or wood rosin—MISC, REG, GMP, Comp of chewing gum base (See specs in 172.615)
• Glycerol ester of polymerized rosin—MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum base (See specs in 172.615)
• Glycerol ester of tall oil rosin—MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum base (See specs in 172.615)
• Isobutylene-isoprene copolymer—MISC, REG, GMP, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615
• Isobutylene resin, polyisobutylene—MISC, REG, GMP, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615
• Lanolin—MISC, REG, GMP, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615
• Malic acid, L-malic acid—MISC, GRAS/FS, GMP −184.1069; <3.4%—Nonalcoholic Beverages; <3.0% Chewing Gum; <0.8%—Gelatins, Puddings & Fillings; <6.9%—Hard Candy; <2.6%—Jams & Jellies; <3.5% Processed Fruits & Juices; <3.0%—Soft Candy; <0.7% -All other food; 131.144, Acidified Skim Milk; 146.113, Cnd Fruit Nectars; Part 150 (150.141, 150.161), Fruit Pdts; Part 169 (169.115, 169.140, 169.150), Dressings & Flavorings; Part 582—Animal feeds
• Mannitol—NUTR, GRAS/INTERIM, < 98.0%—Pressed Mints; <5.0%—Hard Candy; <31.0%—Chewing Gum; <40.0%—Soft Candy; <8.0%—Frostings; <15.0%—Jams & Jellies; <2.5%—all other food; Label “Excess consumption may have laxative effect” if daily ingestion <20 g mannitol, In foods—180.25
• Polydextrose—MISC, REG, GMP, As bulking agent, formulation aid, humectant, & texturizer in baked goods & baking mixes (fruit, custard, & pudding filled pies, cakes, cookies, & similar baked pdt only), chewing gums, confections, frostings & salad dressings, frozen dairy desserts & mixes, gelatins, puddings, fillings, hard & soft candy, film coating on single and multiple vitamin and mineral supplement tablets, where standards permit, pdts w/single serving ctg <15 g polydextrose should have warning label for sensitive individuals to laxation effect—172.841
• Propyl gallate—AOX, GRAS, AOX content <0.02% of fat or oil content incl essential oil content of food—184.1660; Margarine—166.110; REG, 0.1% alone or/BHA/BHT—Comp of chewing gum base—172.615; Pressure-sensitive adhesives used as the food contact surface of labels &/or tapes applied to food—175.125
• Rice bran wax—CTG/MISC, REG, <50 m—Ctg for candy—172.890; <50 ppm—Ctg for fresh fruits & vegs—72.890; <2.5%—In chewing gum as plasticizing material—172.890, 172.615
• Rosin, gum or wood, pentaerythritol ester, partially hydrogenated pentaerythritol ester, or partially hydrogenated glycerol ester—MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum—172.615
• Rosin, methyl ester, partially hydrogenated—MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum—172.615; SY/FL—172.515
• Rosin, polymerized glycerol ester, partially hydrogenated glycerol ester, or partially dimerized glycerol ester—MISC, REG, Softener for chewing gum—172.615
• Rosin, tall oil, glycerol ester-MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum—172.615
• Rosin, wood, glycerol ester—MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum—172.615; MISC, REG—172.735
• Rubber (natural) smoked sheet and latex solids—MISC, REG, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615
• Stearic acid—MISC, REG, GMP, Comp of chewing gum—172.615; REG, X-ref wi fatty acids—172.860; GRAS, GMP, 184.1090
• Tall oil rosin, glycerol ester of—MISC, REG, GMP, Softener for chewing gum—172.615 Tunu—MISC, REG, Comp of chewing gum base—172.615 [32].

If the endeavor to publicize the additives and plastics in petro-based chewing gum were to take place, it would require the cooperation of several small companies whose present margins may not support the lobbying effort that would be required. One possibility might be for larger companies to acquire the chicle-based chewing gum companies and to incorporate these brands as part of their portfolio, just as Coca-Cola offers many different drink alternatives, including those with and without sugar, and even water. The example of stevia might be instructive. Stevia is a sugar substitute that comes from the leaves of a plant native to countries, such as Brazil and Paraguay. It appeals to consumers wanting to limit sugar consumption but needing a “natural” sweetener. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it was a very scarce, hardly known product, but in the next 20 years, it became a viable commercial product, supported by major companies, such as the agricultural goods producers Cargill and Archer Daniels. Even Coca-Cola, with its corporate identity heavily based on sugar products, has a large line of stevia products. Another interesting parallel is the organic cosmetics industry. “Green” cosmetics have developed a focus within the larger industry by developing special certifications that enable consumers to recognize their emphasis on sustainability [33]. Yet another possibility for market development might be built on anti-pollution or anti-littering values, especially if formalized into regulatory constraints. Chicle-based chewing gum is biodegradable, in contrast to petro-chemical-based chewing gum. Chewing gum litter is one of the main contributors to pollution generally, and especially in urban environments [34].

6. Study Limitations

Chicle production is difficult to study, as its location is remote and the indigenous people who are most knowledgeable about it are often reticent to communicate with strangers. Modern manufacturing methods are in many ways difficult to reconcile with natural, tropical forest, non-plantation products. “Mother nature” subjects the natural product to risks, including weather, disease, pests, and human damage. This study uses field studies not necessarily designed around the issue of chicle production. Nevertheless, to the extent that sustainability depends on the preservation of species, remote locations and natural products are of inestimable value, as are the indigenous communities that support them and are in turn sustained by their bounty.

7. Future Research

Future research should consider the problems encountered when products are developed with an emphasis on sustainability values, such as being natural, organic, or plastic-free. The intensity of social support for sustainability ideals, and the scientific need for reducing the petro-chemical imprint on the world, may obscure the practical problems involved in the transition to a reduced carbon footprint. If substantial obstacles impede the recognition of the viability of chicle-based chewing gum, imagine what constraints there might be with larger, more essential products and services.

An extensive review of the literature shows that there has not yet been a study of the chewing gum industry, and this would be an interesting project for future research, as would a study of the stevia industry. An exploration of the sources of capital for these recently developed companies would be interesting. Another angle might be how the production and marketing of chicle, the raw material, is now being completed given the problems inherent in getting supplies from tropical forests and indigenous communities.

8. Conclusions

Sustainability values can be an effective differentiator for consumables like chewing gum, but only if sufficient visibility is achieved among consumers.

“Natural”, “organic”, and “plastic-free” are terms which manufacturers of consumables dependent on petro-chemicals are likely to protest with well-developed communications departments.