The verdict

The short version, six facts

Everything below comes from pages we read on 5 September 2026, from public registries, or from PubMed records that resolve when you open them. Where the company publishes nothing, the sentence says so. We do not estimate a piece count a company has not stated, and we do not use verdict words about any brand.

1. Two different products share one brand story. The Classic Pack is mastic resin only. The Jawline Gum is a sugar-alcohol gum with three artificial sweeteners and BHT, and its ingredient panel lists no mastic (gumofgods.us/products/jawline-gum, read 5 September 2026).
2. The Jawline page says so in its own code. The HTML source of that page labels its ingredient block with a developer comment: "INGREDIENTS (Cherry-specific, not mastic so full disclosure required)".
3. Price per piece cannot be computed. The company sells 25 g packs and calls them a 30-day supply at one to two pieces a day, but publishes no piece count. Per day, $59.99 works out to $2.00 at one piece and about $4.00 at two.
4. One statistic has no source at all; the other names a journal, not a study. The Classic Pack page states a "38% H. pylori eradication rate" with no citation, and a "9% total cholesterol reduction" tagged only "RCT published in Journal of Ethnopharmacology," with no author, year or link. The nearest human trials we could match: zero of eight patients eradicated for H. pylori, and about 11.5 mg/dl lower total cholesterol in a different, named capsule trial, not gum.
5. The company is young and split across two states. A Florida LLC filed in June 2023; a Better Business Bureau file in Pennsylvania opened in May 2025 with no complaints listed and no rating because of the short operating history; a trademark application for JAWZ GUM.
6. Who it is for. Someone who wants mastic resin for its oral studies should look at the Classic, Premium or Peppermint packs. Someone who wants a jaw workout can get a hard chew from many gums and should read our note on jaw joints first. Someone who wants a sugar alcohol or a mineral active is shopping in a different aisle, and we sell in one of those aisles.

Comparison table

Gum of Gods products, next to the alternatives

"Ingredients as listed" is copied from the company's own pages on 5 September 2026, not from what we assume is inside. Prices are the retail prices shown that day; subscription prices are in the price section. "Evidence status" summarises the PubMed record for the active ingredient, not for the finished product, because no brand in this table has a trial on its own finished gum. The Minvelle row is ours, and the price cell points you to the product page because our brand database excludes prices on purpose.

Sources for the Gum of Gods rows: gumofgods.us/products/gum-of-gods, gumofgods.us/products/jawline-gum and gumofgods.us/pages/ingredients, all read 5 September 2026. Minvelle row: our transparency page. Study identifiers are in the evidence section and the sources block.

The company

Who is behind Gum of Gods, on the public record

A brand review should start with the boring part, because the boring part is where the checkable facts live. We looked for company registrations, a Better Business Bureau file, trademark filings and the founder's own description, and we report each with its source and the date we read it. Where two records could belong to the same business but are not linked by any document we found, we say so rather than joining them up ourselves.

Florida registration. The Florida Division of Corporations lists an entity named GUM GODS LLC, document number L23000272035, filed on 5 June 2023, with status Active and a principal address of 145 Crystal Palm Blvd, Suite 301, Saint Johns, Florida 32259. The Sunbiz detail page itself returned an HTTP 403 to our fetch on 5 September 2026, so these figures are taken from the search index of that page rather than quoted from a document we opened. Treat them as a secondary-indexed registry fact.

Better Business Bureau. The BBB carries a profile for "Gum of Gods LLC" at 107 Wallingford Ave, Wallingford, Pennsylvania 19086, in the candy category. The file was opened on 13 May 2025. The profile states the business is "NOT a BBB Accredited Business" and gives its rating basis as "Length of time business has been operating", which is BBB's way of saying the file is too new to rate. No complaints were listed on 5 September 2026. That is a thin history rather than a clean track record: a file that is sixteen months old cannot have accumulated much of either.

Two records, two states. The Florida filing is under "GUM GODS LLC" and the Pennsylvania BBB profile under "Gum of Gods LLC". The company's Instagram bio lists Wallingford, Pennsylvania. We found no document that links the Florida entity to the Pennsylvania address, so we present them as two records and not as one company with two addresses. If the company publishes an imprint or a registration number on its site, that would settle it in a sentence.

Trademark. A United States trademark application for the mark JAWZ GUM, serial number 98343585, names Gum Gods LLC as the applicant, according to the uspto.report index of the USPTO record. We did not find a registered mark for "Gum of Gods" itself in the same index on 5 September 2026; that is a statement about what we found, not proof that none exists.

The founder. The About page on gumofgods.us is written in the first person: "I founded Gum of Gods, in order to connect the best mastic gum on Earth to the people who care about quality", and it signs off as "The founder, Harris." No surname is given, and no other named person appears on the page. That is a stylistic choice, not a red flag in itself; plenty of one-founder brands write that way, and this one does too.

Sourcing. The ingredients page and the company's comparison page both state that the mastic resin comes "from the mastic tree in Greece", with Chios named as the island. We did not see a certificate of origin, a supplier name, or a batch document on any page we read. Chios mastic is a real, protected agricultural product, and resin sold under that name is normally traceable to a cooperative on the island; a brand that publishes that trail would make this paragraph unnecessary.

The labels

Every ingredient list, word for word

The company keeps a single ingredients page for most of its range and a separate panel on the Jawline Gum product page. We copied both on 5 September 2026 and reproduce them here without paraphrase, because paraphrase is where reviews go wrong. If any of these lists changes, the quotation below becomes a historical record, and the date next to it tells you how old it is.

Classic Pack (gumofgods.us/products/gum-of-gods). The product page states "100% Natural" and "Zero additives". The ingredients page lists one line: "Mastic resin from the mastic tree in Greece." The pack is 25 g, described as "approximately a 30-day supply when using 1 to 2 pieces per day". No piece count and no weight per piece are published anywhere we could find.

Premium Pack. "Mastic resin, pine pollen powder, and pine pollen tincture." No amounts are given for the pine pollen components, and the pack is not separately priced on the ingredients page.

Peppermint Pack. "Mastic resin, stevia, and natural peppermint powder." Again no amounts, and no separate price on that page.

Jawline Gum, Cherry Pack (gumofgods.us/products/jawline-gum). The ingredient panel reads: "Xylitol, Sorbitol, Gum Base, D-Mannitol, Maltitol, Less than 2% of: Natural and Artificial Flavors, Glycerin, Aspartame, Acesulfame-K, BHT (to maintain freshness), Sucralose." Below it: "Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine." The pack is 25 g and described as a 30-day supply. There is no mastic resin in that list.

An adjacent product. The same ingredients page lists a mastic toothpaste from the company: "Coconut oil, mastic powder, baking soda, aloe vera juice, bentonite clay, and all natural peppermint flavoring." We mention it only because it shares the page; it is outside the scope of a gum review.

Three things stand out from the lists as a set. First, the mastic packs disclose no dose per piece, which for a single-ingredient resin matters less than it would for a blend, but still leaves you unable to compare a piece of this gum with the 1 g portions used in the studies below. Second, the Jawline Gum carries three high-intensity sweeteners, aspartame, acesulfame-K and sucralose, on top of four sugar alcohols; if aspartame is a concern for you, our aspartame and teeth article covers what the dental literature actually says about it. Third, BHT, a synthetic antioxidant, appears in a product sold by a brand whose flagship page says "Zero additives". Both statements are true of the product each one sits on; a shopper who reads the flagship page and buys the Jawline Gum would not know that.

The Jawline Gum

A jawline gum with no mastic, by its own account

This is the finding that made the review worth writing, so it deserves its own section and its own evidence. Gum of Gods built its name on mastic resin. Its About page says the company exists "to connect the best mastic gum on Earth to the people who care about quality." Its comparison page argues that "cheaper brands cut mastic with xylitol, artificial flavors, and gum base" and that competitors list mastic as "the 5th or 6th ingredient." Those are the company's words on 5 September 2026.

The company's own Jawline Gum, on the same day, listed xylitol first, gum base third, artificial flavors in the under-2-percent group, and mastic nowhere. By the test the company sets for other brands, its Jawline Gum would fail, and would fail harder than the competitors it describes, because those at least list mastic somewhere. We are not the ones drawing that comparison; the company's comparison page draws it, and its own ingredient panel completes it.

There is a second piece of evidence, and it comes from the page's source code rather than its visible text. The HTML of the Jawline Gum product page, as fetched on 5 September 2026, contains a developer comment immediately above the ingredient block. It reads, character for character: <!-- INGREDIENTS (Cherry-specific, not mastic so full disclosure required) -->. Whoever built the page knew that this product was "not mastic" and that a full ingredient disclosure was therefore required. That is, to be fair, the right instinct. The disclosure is there. It is simply not next to the jawline claims that sell the product.

Those claims are specific. The Jawline Gum page's FAQ describes the gum as "10x harder than regular gum" and promises visible definition in "60 to 90 days". We read those claims as applying to the Cherry Pack, because they sit on its product page. The Classic Pack page carries its own, parallel set of hardness and health claims for the mastic product. So the brand runs two claim sets in parallel, one for a resin and one for a conventional sugar-free gum, under a shared jawline story.

What we cannot tell you is how hard the Jawline Gum actually is, because no hardness measurement is published and we did not put it through a texture analyser. Whether a sugar-alcohol gum base can be made very firm is a manufacturing question with a plausible yes; whether firmness alone changes the shape of a face is the evidence question, and it is taken up below.

Price

What a day of Gum of Gods costs, with the arithmetic shown

We usually compute a price per piece, because a piece is the unit you actually consume. Gum of Gods does not publish a piece count for its 25 g packs, and a resin that arrives as irregular tears may not have a fixed one, so we cannot compute it here and we will not estimate it. What the company does publish is a pack weight, a price and a supply claim, which is enough for a price per day.

Classic Pack at retail. $59.99 for 25 g, "approximately a 30-day supply when using 1 to 2 pieces per day". At one piece a day, $59.99 across 30 days is $2.00 a day. At two pieces a day the same 25 g is used up in about 15 days, which is about $4.00 a day. The supply claim hides that doubling by giving one number of days for two rates of use.

Classic Pack on subscription. The product page offers a "90-Day Protocol" at $38.99 a month, described as 35 percent off, and a monthly subscription at $44.99, described as 25 percent off. Across 30 days, $38.99 is about $1.30 a day and $44.99 is about $1.50 a day, at one piece a day; double both at two pieces.

The company's own per-day figure. The comparison page at gumofgods.us/pages/masticvsothers states "Price per day ~$0.80" for its subscription against "~$2.80" for "Other 'Mastic' Brands", and says the competitor figure is based on "average ingredient panels from top-selling mastic gums on Amazon (April 2026)". We could not reproduce $0.80 from any published price: $38.99 a month would need to last about 49 days to reach it, and the page does not show its working. We also could not check the $2.80 figure, because the brands behind the average are not named. Both numbers are therefore recorded here as company statements, not as facts we verified.

Jawline Gum. $19.99 for 25 g, a 30-day supply, which is about $0.67 a day at one piece. The 90-Day Protocol price is $13.99 a month and the monthly subscription $14.99. For a xylitol and sorbitol gum with artificial sweeteners, that is in the range of ordinary sugar-free gum from a supermarket, which is consistent with what the ingredient panel says it is.

What a fair comparison looks like. Mastic resin is expensive as a raw material, and a single-ingredient product has nowhere to hide cost. $2.00 a day is not out of line for a Chios mastic product sold in small packs. The comparison we would want, and could not make, is milligrams of resin per piece against the roughly 1 g doses used in the human studies below; without a piece count, neither we nor the buyer can make it.

Claims vs evidence

What the company claims, and what PubMed holds

Every study below carries a PubMed identifier that resolved on the National Library of Medicine's records on 5 September 2026, and each summary is written from the record itself. Where the company states a number without a source, we say so and put the closest real trial beside it. Our longer treatment of the whole mastic literature is in Mastic gum benefits: what the evidence actually supports; this section covers only the claims Gum of Gods makes.

Claim 1: "38% H. pylori eradication rate"

This figure appears on the Classic Pack page with no citation. The idea that mastic acts against Helicobacter pylori is real and old: Huwez FU and colleagues reported in a 1998 letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that mastic gum killed H. pylori in the laboratory (PMID 9874617). That was a test-tube result, and it is where the claim lineage starts.

The human follow-up is the part the product page leaves out. Bebb JR and colleagues gave H. pylori-positive patients 1 g of mastic four times a day for 14 days and measured the bacterial load by breath test. In the eight patients who completed the protocol, the breath-test value went from 19.1 to 18.7, which is no change (p=0.8), and zero of eight were eradicated. The paper's title states the result plainly: "Mastic gum has no effect on Helicobacter pylori load in vivo" (Bebb JR et al., Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2003, PMID 12888582). A later laboratory study by Miyamoto T and colleagues identified the components of mastic essential oil active against drug-resistant H. pylori strains in vitro (PMID 25089241); it is a mechanism paper, not a trial in people.

We did not find a PubMed-indexed human study reporting a 38 percent eradication rate for mastic gum, and the company does not point to one. The one human trial we found reports zero percent. If Gum of Gods has a source for its figure, publishing it next to the number would take a line.

Claim 2: "9% total cholesterol reduction"

On the Classic Pack page this figure is tagged "RCT published in Journal of Ethnopharmacology", a journal named, not a study: no author, year, title or link, so it still cannot be checked directly. The best placebo-controlled trial we located on this question is CHIOS-MASTIHA, a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot by Kartalis A and colleagues published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology in 2016 (PMID 26311707). It enrolled 156 people with total cholesterol above 200 mg/dl and gave the active group 1 g a day of crude mastic in capsules for eight weeks. Total cholesterol fell by about 11.5 mg/dl relative to placebo and glucose by about 4.5 mg/dl; LDL, HDL and triglycerides did not change significantly.

Three things follow. The effect is real but smaller than the company's figure: 11.5 mg/dl on a baseline above 200 mg/dl is roughly five percent, not nine. The delivery form was a swallowed capsule, not a chewed gum, so the trial says nothing about how much of that effect survives chewing and spitting. And the lipid that matters most to cardiologists, LDL, did not move. A claim built on this trial would read "about 5 percent lower total cholesterol in capsules, no LDL change", which is a less exciting sentence and a more accurate one.

Claim 3: oral bacteria, plaque and gum health

Here the company is on its firmest ground, and the evidence is specific to gum as a delivery form. Takahashi K and colleagues ran a pilot in the Journal of Periodontology in 2003 with 20 participants (PMID 12747455). Mastic gum reduced salivary bacteria over four hours compared with a placebo gum, and over seven days the plaque index was 2.69 against 3.15 (p=0.001) and the gingival index 0.44 against 0.66 (p=0.021). Small, short, and real.

Aksoy A and colleagues followed in Archives of Oral Biology in 2006 (PMID 16343417). In the laboratory, mastic produced inhibition zones of 9 to 27 mm against mutans streptococci; in 25 people, chewing mastic gum lowered Streptococcus mutans counts in saliva compared with a placebo gum. That is the study to cite if a brand wants to say mastic gum acts on the bacteria most associated with tooth decay, and we would expect Gum of Gods to cite it. It does not, on the pages we read.

Neither study measured cavities, gum disease outcomes over months, or anything about the shape of a jaw. Both used mastic gum of a type and dose that Gum of Gods does not state its product matches. And, once more, both concern mastic, so they do not transfer to the Jawline Gum at all.

Claim 4: fresh breath

The mastic bad-breath evidence is thinner than a product page implies. Sterer N and colleagues tested a palatal tablet containing sage, echinacea, lavender and mastic against placebo in the Journal of Dentistry in 2008 and found lower malodour scores (p<0.001) and lower volatile sulphur compounds (p=0.013); mastic on its own showed laboratory activity against three oral pathogens in the same paper (PMID 18468761). The malodour result belongs to a four-herb tablet, not to mastic alone and not to a gum. If bad breath is the reason you are shopping, our best gum for bad breath guide sorts the options on that question alone.

Claim 5: jawline and facial definition

The Jawline Gum page promises visible definition in 60 to 90 days from a gum "10x harder than regular gum". We searched PubMed for a controlled trial that measured facial or jawline appearance after a period of chewing a commercial gum and did not find one, and the company cites none. That is a statement about what exists, not a finding that the claim is false: the masseter is a muscle, muscles respond to load, and nobody has run the trial that would tell you whether gum-level load changes the look of a face in three months.

Two practical notes belong here. The first is that any hard gum loads the masseter; hardness is not a property of mastic or of this brand. The second is that the joint doing the work is the temporomandibular joint, and people who already click, lock or ache there should read our TMJ and jaw clicking article before adopting a 20-to-40-minute hard-chewing habit. For the wider "facial structure" conversation these products sit in, our mewing and orthodontic research piece covers what the orthodontic literature does and does not show.

Claim 6: gut health and skin health

The company's Amazon listings, as read on 5 September 2026, carry titles that combine "Premium Mastic Gum", "Jawline Gum", "Enhances Gut Health" and "Improves Skin Health" in a single line. We did not locate a human clinical study on either gut health or skin health for a mastic chewing gum, and none is cited on the listings or on the company's site. The only gastrointestinal human trial we found is the H. pylori study above, which reported no effect.

Reviews

What reviewers say, and what we could not verify

We looked for the three places where independent buyer sentiment usually lives: Trustpilot, Amazon and the BBB. What we found was thinner than the marketing suggests, and we would rather tell you what is missing than fill it in.

Trustpilot. We could not locate a live Trustpilot page for gumofgods.us on 5 September 2026; the search index showed none. A customer rating that appears in the brand's own marketing and social posts is not, as far as we could establish, backed by a page on an independent review platform, so we do not repeat the figure. A secondary aggregator site lists a small number of reviews for the domain; aggregators are not primary sources, so that figure is not used here either.

Amazon. The company sells through Amazon listings whose titles bundle the mastic-specific claims and the jawline claim with "Enhances Gut Health" and "Improves Skin Health". That bundling is itself the review-relevant fact: a buyer at the point of sale sees the mastic story and the jawline story as one thing, and the ingredient panel that separates them is on a different page. We do not quote individual Amazon reviews, because we cannot verify who wrote them.

Subscription complaints. A web search for jawline-gum subscription problems turns up complaints, but the ones we read trace to other jawline-gum brands, not to Gum of Gods. We have no verified complaint about this company's subscription handling and do not imply one. What we can say from its own pages is that the cheaper prices are subscription prices, and that a 90-Day Protocol is by name a multi-month commitment; read the cancellation terms before you take the discount.

BBB. No complaints listed, on a file opened in May 2025 that BBB has not rated because the business is too new. That is the most independent signal available and it is, honestly, not much of one in either direction.

Who it is for

Mastic, xylitol or hydroxyapatite, by what you actually want

Functional gums are sold as if they competed with each other, but most of them are answering different questions. Sorting by the question is the fastest way to decide whether Gum of Gods belongs in your basket at all.

You want mastic resin itself. Then the Classic, Premium or Peppermint packs are the products to look at, and the honest case for them is the two small oral studies above: less plaque and lower gingival scores over a week in 20 people, and fewer mutans streptococci in saliva in 25. You are paying for a single-origin resin, chewed hard and long, at about $2.00 a day retail. Look for a dose per piece or a piece count before you buy, because that is the number that lets you compare it with the studies. If the company publishes it, this review will update.

You want a jaw workout. Then you want a hard gum, and hardness is available from many products, including the company's own non-mastic Jawline Gum at a third of the price. The evidence that a hard gum changes how a face looks does not exist in the peer-reviewed record we searched, so treat the 60-to-90-day promise as marketing and set your own expectations. If your jaw joint already complains, read the TMJ article first and consider not doing this at all.

You want the saliva and sugar-alcohol effect. Then you want a xylitol gum, and you can get one for a fraction of either Gum of Gods price. The xylitol literature is large and mixed: the 2015 Cochrane review by Riley P and colleagues (PMID 25809586) found no eligible randomized trial at all that tested xylitol chewing gum against a no-treatment or non-cariogenic control (the existing gum studies were excluded for design problems), and its only positive finding across every xylitol product was a fluoride toothpaste with 10% xylitol, which cut caries by 13% over 2.5 to 3 years in children. Our xylitol gum research summary walks through the individual trials, and our best xylitol gum 2026 guide compares the products. Note that the Jawline Gum is, by its ingredient panel, a xylitol and sorbitol gum, and our ranking of sugar substitutes for teeth explains why the sorbitol matters.

You want a mineral active for enamel. Then you want a hydroxyapatite gum, and this is where we stop being a neutral guide, because Minvelle is one. The gum-format evidence for hydroxyapatite is two small studies, neither on our product: a 2014 double-blind trial by Porciani PF and colleagues of a calcium hydroxyapatite gum with dentin hypersensitivity as the outcome (PMID 25122980), and a 2023 in situ study by Hassani AR and colleagues that measured enamel mineral content after chewing a hydroxyapatite gum (PMID 37852085). Neither measured cavities. Our check of nine brands' hydroxyapatite doses and our citation audit apply to that category exactly the tests this review applies to Gum of Gods.

You read "Jawline Gum" and expected mastic. Then you are the reader this review was written for. The product named Jawline Gum is, by its own ingredient panel on 5 September 2026, not a mastic product. The mastic products are the other three packs. If the company later reformulates or relabels, the date on this page will tell you whether what you are reading is still current.

Fairness

We sell a competing gum, so hold us to the same test

Minvelle is my company. It sells a sugar-free chewing gum with nano-hydroxyapatite as its active, in the same broad "functional gum" category as Gum of Gods, and it is listed in the table above. There is no way to write a review of a competitor that is free of that conflict, so here it is in the first sentence of the section rather than in a footer. There is a second, smaller conflict: our gum base includes Chios mastic as one of fourteen ingredients, so we are not neutral on mastic either. We use it as a base, not as an active, and we make no mastic claims.

How to audit us with the same tools. Open the transparency page. All fourteen ingredients are listed by weight with per-piece amounts for the sweeteners and the active: 5.7 mg of nano-hydroxyapatite in a 1.9 g piece, 817 mg xylitol, 285 mg erythritol, 18 pieces per box, one a day. The safety data sheet and the batch certificates are downloadable, with the manufacturer's name redacted and the redaction disclosed; if that redaction bothers you, count it against us. Every study we cite carries a PubMed number, including the two hydroxyapatite gum studies above, and we say on every page that neither used our product. We do not claim a cure and we do not claim a caries outcome, and the transparency page says so in as many words.

What we did not do. We did not buy and chew the products for this review; every fact here comes from the company's published pages, public registries and PubMed. We did not measure hardness, piece count or resin purity. We did not contact the company before publishing; we would rather they correct us in public, and the address for that is max@minvelle.com. If Gum of Gods publishes a piece count, a dose per piece, a source for its 38 percent and 9 percent figures, or a certificate of origin for its resin, we will add them with the date.

Accuracy and dating. Every negative fact about Gum of Gods on this page is attributed to a specific page, record or study, and dated 5 September 2026. We did not use verdict words about the company, and if you find one, tell me and it comes out. Prices, formulas, claims and registry records change; the "Last reviewed" date at the top is the date this page was last true to our knowledge, and anything after that date is unverified until we re-check.

FAQ

Questions people ask about Gum of Gods