The short version, before the detail

Here is what the labels, the registry and the brand's own pages support, and what they do not. Every fact below carries the page it came from and the date we read it, which was 5 September 2026 unless stated otherwise.

• Company: True. ApS, CVR 38460161, Formervangen 13, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark, founded 2017; the address is on the Danish environmental register as an active food-processing site.
• Label: Mint has seven ingredient groups, White (peppermint) has seven, Raspberry and Vanilla has eight. Xylitol is the first sweetener in all three; two also list steviol glycosides.
• Base: labelled "plastic-free gum base" on the brand's site and "chicle gum base" on a UK retailer's listing of the same product; the FAQ says "we use sap from gum trees".
• Price: €45.00 for 24 packs of 21 g on the brand's site, so €1.875 per pack; £1.90 per pack at Planet Organic. Pieces per pack are not stated on the product pages.
• Environmental claims: quoted below as True Co's own, including a 100,000-tonnes-a-year litter figure that carries no visible source on the page. We did not verify any of them.
• Teeth: sugar-free, so saliva stimulation applies; no active ingredient; no dental claim made by the brand; two PubMed-linked sources explain what that means.
• Open questions: pieces per pack, xylitol per piece, country of production (three retailers give two different answers), decomposition time of the brand's own gum.

That is a clean natural gum with a thin data sheet. Whether that is enough depends on why you are buying it, and the section on who it is for takes that seriously rather than dodging it.

Three flavours, label by label

Every cell below is transcribed from the brand's own product pages on truecompany.com as read on 5 September 2026. Where a flavour's label does not list a category, the cell says "none listed" rather than assuming. The nutrition panel figures are the brand's per-100 g numbers; we have not converted them to per-piece values because the brand does not state a piece weight or a piece count.

Sources: truecompany.com/products/mint-gum-box, truecompany.com/products/white-gum-box-24-packs, truecompany.com/products/raspberry-vanilla-gum-box-24-packs, all fetched 5 September 2026. Prices are the brand's list prices on that date and will drift.

One line of that table deserves its own note. The base is worded "plastic-free gum base" on the brand's site, but Planet Organic's UK listing of the Mint flavour writes the ingredient list as "Sweeteners (Xylitol; Steviol glycosides); chicle gum base; natural mint flavour and other natural flavourings; humectant (glycerol); stabiliser (gum arabic); carthamus extract and spirulina extract; glazing agent (carnauba wax)". Same product, same order, different name for the base. The brand's own FAQ bridges the two with "we use sap from gum trees". We read that as one ingredient described two ways for two markets, not as a contradiction, but it is why the table says "as worded on truecompany.com" rather than simply "chicle". Gum of Gods gets the same label read in our Gum of Gods review.

True Gum next to Minvelle, on what each publishes

This is not a ranking and it is not a fair fight, because the two products are trying to do different things. It is here so a reader who arrived from a search comparing the two can see the categories side by side before deciding which comparison even applies. The True Gum column comes from the brand's pages and the Planet Organic listing; the Minvelle column comes from our transparency page, and we sell Minvelle.

True Gum cells: truecompany.com product pages and planetorganic.com, 5 September 2026. Minvelle cells: minvelle.com/pages/transparency, same date. "None found" means we did not find it on the pages we read, not that it does not exist.

The only row where the two are genuinely alike is the sweetener row, and even there the comparison is lopsided: we publish the milligrams and True Co publishes a per-100 g figure without a piece weight to divide it by. Everything else is a category difference, which is the point of the table.

Who makes True Gum, from the registry up

Brand pages tell you a story; registries tell you an address. Both are useful, and the registry goes first because it is the part the brand cannot edit. The "About True Gum" page on truecompany.com names the legal entity as True. ApS, gives the address as Formervangen 13, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark, and prints the Danish company number, CVR 38460161. Glostrup is a suburb west of Copenhagen. We read that page on 5 September 2026.

The same address appears on the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's Digital MiljøAdministration, the public register of supervised sites, at dma.mst.dk. The entry describes the site as food processing based on vegetable raw materials, in Danish "fødevareforarbejdning baseret på vegetabilske råvarer", under branch code 108200, supervised by Albertslund Kommune, with P-number 1022239712 and a last physical inspection dated 18 October 2022. That is a government record saying there is a real, inspected food production site at the registered address. It does not say what is made there, in what volume, or whether every pack in every market comes from it, and we return to that gap in the origin section.

The founding story is the brand's own. Its "About us" page (truecompany.com/pages/about-us) dates the start to 2017, names the founders as "Jacob, Peter, Zabrina, and Morten", and tells the origin like this: "In 2017 came the aha! moment" followed by the question "could a gum that is completely free from plastic be made?" and the claim that "after 472 prototypes, they finally perfected the recipe in their home kitchens". The 472 is a nice number and we have no way to check it, so it stays in quotation marks. The "About True Gum" page says the founders built "our own eco-friendly gum factory up from scratch" and elsewhere calls it "the smallest and most artisan chewing gum factory in the world". Both are the brand's descriptions of itself. Neither is a claim we are making.

One thing has changed since the brand's early press: it is no longer only a gum company. On 5 September 2026 the site's navigation was organised under "True Co." rather than "True Gum", and the product pages covered chewing gum, True Mints pastilles, True Drops, True Dates and a "Ration Bar", each with its own about-page. If you search for True Gum and land on a mints or a bar page, that is why. This review covers the gum only.

What we did not find, anywhere on the brand's site: a published lab analysis of the gum base, a per-piece nutrition breakdown, a piece count per pack, a shelf-life statement, or a page listing certifications with certificate numbers. Absence on a website is not proof of absence in the company's files. It is proof that a buyer cannot check those things from home, which for this blog is the standard that matters.

Each flavour, ingredient by ingredient

Three flavours were on the brand's site when we read it: Mint, White (a peppermint), and Raspberry and Vanilla. The lists below are verbatim from each product page, followed by what each ingredient is doing there. Where I describe an ingredient's function I am describing the labelled function, the word in brackets before it, not adding a claim of my own.

Mint

Verbatim, from truecompany.com/products/mint-gum-box: "Sweeteners (xylitol, steviol glycosides), plastic-free gum base, natural flavouring, humectant (glycerol), stabiliser (gum arabic), carthamus extract and spirulina extract, glazing agent (carnauba wax)". Nutrition per 100 g: 793 kJ / 190 kcal, fat 0 g, carbohydrate 76 g of which sugars 0 g and polyols 76 g, protein 0 g, salt 0 g. €45.00 for a box of 24 packs of 21 g.

Reading it: two sweeteners, the bulk one a sugar alcohol and the second a high-intensity extract that adds sweetness without adding weight. The base, in whatever wording. A flavour line that says "natural" without naming the oil. Glycerol to hold moisture so the gum stays soft. Gum arabic, which is acacia tree sap, as a stabiliser. Two plant extracts, carthamus (safflower) and spirulina, that are used in food for their yellow and blue colours and together read as green, which is the colour you would expect a mint gum to be. Carnauba wax, from a Brazilian palm, as the surface glaze that keeps pieces from sticking together. Seven groups, nothing you need a chemistry degree to place.

White (Peppermint)

Verbatim, from truecompany.com/products/white-gum-box-24-packs: "Sweetener (xylitol), plastic-free gum base, natural flavouring, humectant (glycerol), stabiliser (gum arabic), glazing agent (carnauba wax), filler (calcium carbonate)". Nutrition per 100 g: 764 kJ / 183 kcal, fat 0 g, carbohydrate 76 g of which sugars 0 g and polyols 75 g, protein 0 g, salt 0 g. The 24-pack box was listed as unavailable on 5 September 2026, so no current price.

Two differences from Mint matter. First, xylitol is the only sweetener; no stevia. Second, the colour extracts are gone and a filler appears: calcium carbonate. On this label calcium carbonate is declared as a filler, which is a bulk and texture role. It is not declared as an active, it is not dosed, and I am not going to read a tooth benefit into a filler declaration that the brand itself does not read into it. If you have seen other gums lead with calcium carbonate as a mineral story, our label-first guide to healthy gum explains why the ingredient's role on the label is what counts. Energy is slightly lower than Mint, consistent with a mineral filler displacing a few grams of polyol.

Raspberry and Vanilla

Verbatim, from truecompany.com/products/raspberry-vanilla-gum-box-24-packs: "Sweeteners (xylitol, steviol glycosides), plastic-free gum base, natural flavouring, acid (citric acid), humectant (glycerol), stabiliser (gum arabic), sweet potato extract, glazing agent (carnauba wax)". Nutrition per 100 g: 819 kJ / 196 kcal, fat 0 g, carbohydrate 76 g of which sugars 0 g and polyols 75 g, protein 0 g, salt 0 g. €45.00 for 24 packs of 21 g.

Eight groups this time. Citric acid gives a fruit flavour its sharpness and is worth a sentence for anyone who chews a lot: acid in a gum sits against enamel for as long as you chew, which is a reason to treat a fruit-acid gum as a fruit-acid gum and not as a neutral one. The label does not state how much citric acid is in there, and I am not going to estimate it. Sweet potato extract is the colour here, a purple-red plant extract, replacing the safflower and spirulina of the Mint flavour. Everything else matches Mint.

What none of the three labels contain

No sugar, in all three panels. No aspartame, acesulfame K or sucralose; the sweeteners are xylitol and, in two flavours, steviol glycosides. No titanium dioxide, which is the white pigment some gums use for a bright coating. No fluoride, no calcium phosphate, no hydroxyapatite, no zinc, no enzyme, no "active" of any kind. No animal-derived ingredient that we can identify: carnauba is palm wax, gum arabic is tree sap, spirulina is an alga, the rest are plant extracts, which is consistent with the brand's own vegan framing. And no per-piece figures, because the panels are per 100 g and the pack is 21 g with an unstated piece count.

Chicle, tree sap, and what the label can prove

The base is the reason this gum exists, so it deserves the most careful paragraph on the page. Conventional gum base is a synthetic mixture: polymers such as polyvinyl acetate and polyisobutylene, plus softeners and fillers, sold to gum makers as a single "gum base" ingredient that labels are allowed to name without breaking down. Chicle is the older alternative, a latex tapped from the sapodilla tree, which was the base of commercial gum before synthetics took over in the mid twentieth century. Our explainer on what natural gum is made of covers the history and the chemistry; here I will stick to what True Gum's own pages say about its own base.

Three statements, three sources. On the brand's product pages, the base is listed as "plastic-free gum base". On the Planet Organic listing of the Mint flavour in the UK, the same slot in the same ingredient order reads "chicle gum base". On the brand's FAQ (truecompany.com/pages/faq), the answer to what the base is made from is "we use sap from gum trees". Put together, the brand is telling you its base is a natural tree latex and that it contains no synthetic polymer. The three wordings are consistent with each other. They are also all the brand's own words, in one case relayed by a retailer.

What would turn that from a claim into a checkable fact is a lab analysis of the base, or a supplier's specification, published where a buyer can read it. We did not find one on any page of truecompany.com on 5 September 2026. That is normal in this category; almost no gum brand publishes base analytics, and we do not hold True Co to a standard its competitors also fail. But "consistent" and "verified" are different words, and this page uses the first.

Two things you may have read elsewhere are deliberately not repeated here as fact. The first is the story that the chicle is harvested by "chicleros" in Central America without felling trees. It appears in press write-ups and in retailer copy, but we could not find it on any page of the brand's own site that we were able to fetch, so it is secondary-source colour and stays out of the fact column. The second is the line that the xylitol comes from Finnish birch; that sits on a Finnish retailer's page, not on the brand's, and is not attributed to True Co here. If the brand publishes either on its own site, this page will be updated to say so. Another Nordic label gets the same read in our Scandi Gum review.

Chewing character, for what it is worth from someone who sells a chicle-and-mastic gum himself and has chewed a lot of chicle: natural bases tend to firm up faster than synthetic ones and lose flavour sooner, which is a trade you accept for the base, not a defect. I have no measured data on True Gum's chew and will not invent any.

Xylitol and stevia, what the numbers allow

All three flavours list xylitol first among the sweeteners, and the nutrition panels give the total polyols as 75 to 76 g per 100 g. Xylitol is the only bulk polyol on any of the three labels; glycerol is technically a polyol too but is declared as a humectant and would be a small share. So most of that 76 g is xylitol, and on a 21 g pack that is roughly 16 g of polyols per pack. That is arithmetic on the brand's own panel, not a brand-published figure, and it is as far as the label lets anyone go. There is no xylitol-per-piece number, because there is no piece weight and no piece count on the pages we read.

The 16 g figure is worth having for one practical reason. Sugar alcohols in that quantity can cause digestive discomfort in some people, and a person who chews a whole pack across a day is at the level where that becomes plausible. Our ranking of sugar substitutes for teeth covers xylitol's tolerance profile alongside its dental record.

Steviol glycosides, in Mint and in Raspberry and Vanilla, are the sweet compounds extracted from the stevia leaf. They add sweetness without bulk, which is why a label can carry them second and still hit a sweetness a xylitol-only gum cannot. White does without them and is xylitol alone, which some people prefer for taste, since steviol glycosides carry a lingering aftertaste for part of the population.

Now the dental part, kept to what the evidence says. The best summary of xylitol and tooth decay is the Cochrane review by Riley and colleagues, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2015 (PMID 25809586). It included ten randomised trials with 5,903 participants. Its main finding was for a fluoride toothpaste containing 10 percent xylitol, which over 2.5 to 3 years may reduce caries by 13 percent compared with a fluoride-only toothpaste, on low-quality evidence. For every other xylitol product it looked at, lozenges, tablets, syrups and wipes, the authors found the evidence of low to very low quality and insufficient to determine a benefit. Seven of the ten trials were at high risk of bias. Gum was not among the product types with a usable result.

That is not a strike against True Gum. The brand does not claim a xylitol benefit on the pages we read; it sells the sweetener as a sugar replacement, which is exactly what the evidence supports it as. It is a strike against the general idea, common on gum packaging, that xylitol itself repairs teeth. Our summary of twenty years of xylitol gum research goes through the trial history if you want the long version.

So the honest sweetener verdict for this label: sugar-free, xylitol-led, no aspartame, and a per-piece dose the brand has not published. For a snack gum, that is fine. For a product sold on a dental claim, it would not be, and True Gum is not sold on one.

What a pack costs, and what a piece might

On the brand's own site on 5 September 2026, a box of 24 packs of 21 g was €45.00 for Mint and for Raspberry and Vanilla. That is €1.875 per 21 g pack, or about €8.93 per 100 g. The White 24-pack was listed as unavailable, so no price. In the UK, Planet Organic listed a single 21 g Mint pack at £1.90, bought singly at retail, against €1.875 per pack when buying a box of 24 direct from the brand.

Price per piece is where this review has to stop short. The brand's product pages do not state how many pieces a 21 g pack holds. Two marketplace listings we saw titled the product as "Pack of 10", which would put a piece at 2.1 g and roughly €0.19. That number comes from listing titles written by resellers, not from the brand's label or nutrition panel, so treat it as an estimate with a plausible source and nothing more. If True Co prints a piece count on the pack, we would welcome a photo of it and would update this page.

What you are paying for at that price is a natural base, a short label and a small producer, and a fair comparison is with the other natural gums on the same shelf rather than with a mass-market pack. Our Simply Gum review and Milliways review apply the same per-pack and per-piece check to the two natural gums most often shelved next to True Gum, so the three pages can be read side by side.

Compared with our own gum the per-piece number goes the other way, and the comparison is close to meaningless. Minvelle costs €39.99 for two boxes of 18 pieces bought once, which is about €1.11 per piece, or €29.99 every four weeks on subscription, which is about €0.83 per piece; our comparison chart lists the single-box price at about €1.39 per piece. Each piece carries a dosed mineral active and the box is meant to last 18 days at one piece a day. A True Gum pack is a snack you chew through. Dividing a snack by a dose does not tell you anything useful, and I would rather say so than let a table imply that a 21 g pack is "cheaper" than a 1.9 g piece.

What True Co says, quoted and attributed

This is the section most reviews of natural gum get wrong, in one of two directions: either repeating the brand's environmental copy as fact, or dismissing it without reading it. The rule here is simpler. Every claim below is quoted from the brand's own pages, attributed to the page, and dated. We did not verify any of them, and we did not find the brand's sources for the numbers, because the pages do not show them. What the reader gets is the exact claim, so you can decide how much weight it carries.

From "The Plastic Problem" page (truecompany.com/pages/the-plastic-problem, read 5 September 2026), on conventional gum: "The plastic polymers in this gum are the same as those found in car tyres and plastic bottles." On litter, the page describes conventional gum as "the second most common form of litter in the world" and says it generates "around 100,000 tonnes of global waste a year". On persistence: "the gum can't biodegrade, so it sticks to our streets forever." None of those three statements carries a citation on the page. The 100,000-tonne figure in particular is a specific number without a visible source, which is how we would describe it for any brand.

From the FAQ (truecompany.com/pages/faq, same date), on how long conventional gum takes to break down: "Sources suggest that regular chewing gum can take between 50 and 500 years to decompose". The word "sources" is doing the work in that sentence, and the sources are not named.

Then the gap, which the brand itself is open about. The same FAQ page, asked how long True Gum takes to break down, answers that this is ongoing research with results still pending. So as of 5 September 2026, True Co has published a decomposition range for the conventional gum it positions itself against and no figure for its own product. That is not a contradiction. A company can honestly say it is still measuring. But a buyer who chooses True Gum specifically because it breaks down should know that the brand has not yet said how fast, and a review that repeated "biodegradable" as a settled fact would be ahead of the brand's own page.

A few things we are not saying. We are not saying the brand's litter numbers are wrong; we have not checked them and this is not the page for that. We are not saying a chicle base does not break down faster than a polymer base; that is plausible on the chemistry and is the kind of thing a lab could measure. We are saying that the brand's environmental case, as published, consists of attributed descriptions of the competition and an unfinished measurement of itself, and that a careful buyer should read it that way.

For contrast, and because our conflict deserves the same treatment: Minvelle's own box says nothing about biodegradation and we do not publish a decomposition figure either. I would not want any reader to leave this section thinking we have measured something True Co has not.

Where it is made, three retailers, two answers

The registry says True. ApS has an inspected food-processing site in Glostrup, Denmark. The brand's own site says it built its own factory. That would settle the question, except that retailers do not agree. Planet Organic's UK listing states the country of origin as "Netherlands". An Amazon.com listing in the United States titles the product as made in Denmark. Ruohonjuuri, a Finnish retailer, files the product under a collection tagged "Country of Origin: Denmark". All three were read on 5 September 2026.

There are ordinary explanations. Country-of-origin fields in retailer systems are often filled in by a distributor rather than the brand; a company can run its own factory and also contract a second site for some markets; a Dutch address could be a logistics hub rather than a production site. We do not know which of these applies, and rather than pick one we record the discrepancy as unresolved and attribute each statement to the retailer that made it.

Why it matters at all: a brand whose main promise is what its gum is made of invites the question of where, and a buyer in the UK reading "Netherlands" on the shelf tag next to "Danish" on the pack has a fair question that the brand's site does not answer. If True Co publishes a production-site statement, this section will be replaced by it.

What True Gum does for teeth, and what it does not

True Co makes no oral-health claim for its gum on any page we read on 5 September 2026. The product pages, the about pages, the FAQ and the plastic page frame the gum around its base, its vegan status and its environmental position, and say nothing about enamel, plaque, cavities, whitening or breath beyond the flavour names. That is unusual in a category where most packs carry a tooth on the front, and it is to the brand's credit. It also means everything in this section is our reading of the general evidence on sugar-free gum, not a check of a claim True Co has made.

What a sugar-free gum does is well described in a review by Dodds MW, published in the Journal of the Irish Dental Association in 2012 (PMID 23573702). The mechanism it lays out has three parts. Chewing stimulates a strong flow of saliva. The higher flow clears sugars from the mouth faster. And the stimulated saliva has a high pH and buffering capacity that helps neutralise plaque acid after eating. The paper calls the anti-caries benefit of sugar-free gum proven, attributes it to that saliva effect, and discusses added actives such as fluoride and calcium phosphates as ways to build on it. One disclosure the record itself carries: the author's affiliation is listed as the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, so it is an industry review, which is worth knowing even where its conclusions match the wider literature. Our explainer on why saliva matters more than your toothpaste goes through the same mechanism without the corporate letterhead.

True Gum qualifies for that benefit because it is sugar-free, and for no other reason. The chicle base does not add to it; the xylitol, per the Cochrane review above, adds at most an unproven margin; the calcium carbonate in the White flavour is a filler, not a dosed active. In the European Union this is also the legal position. Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 authorises a health claim that sugar-free chewing gum contributes to the maintenance of tooth mineralisation, with the condition that it is chewed for at least 20 minutes after eating or drinking. Any sugar-free gum may carry that claim, and True Co, on the pages we read, chooses not to.

What it does not do is the shorter list. It does not add mineral to enamel, because there is no mineral in it to add. It does not deliver fluoride. It is not a remineralizing gum in the sense our hydroxyapatite gum database uses, because it makes no such claim and contains no such ingredient, and it does not appear in that database for that reason. And it does not treat anything. If you have sensitivity, decay or a cracked tooth, no gum on earth is the answer, and a dentist is.

Two practical notes from the label rather than the literature. The Raspberry and Vanilla flavour contains citric acid, and a fruit-acid gum chewed constantly keeps a mild acid against the teeth for as long as it is chewed. The label gives no quantity, and I am not going to guess at one, but the plain mint flavours avoid the question entirely. And a pack of roughly 16 g of polyols is a lot of sugar alcohol if you finish it in a sitting, which is a gut note rather than a tooth note.

Read together: True Gum is a sugar-free gum that does what sugar-free gum does, with a base chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with teeth, sold by a company that does not pretend otherwise. That is a coherent product. It is just not a dental one.

The right buyer, and the wrong one

It is for you if the thing you want to avoid is a synthetic gum base, and you are willing to pay roughly double a supermarket gum to avoid it. It is for you if you want a label you can read in one breath, no aspartame, no artificial colour, nothing animal-derived. It is for you if you buy from organic and natural-food retailers anyway, because that is where it lives: European and UK health-food shops, with stockists in Finland, the United States and Australia. And it is for you if your interest in gum is a fresh mouth after lunch and the saliva that comes with chewing, which a sugar-free gum gives you regardless of the base.

It is not for you if you are buying a gum to do something for your teeth beyond that. True Gum contains no active and claims none, and the honest way to read its label is as a snack. It is not for you if you need to know exactly what you are consuming per piece, because the brand does not publish a piece weight or count. It is not for you if you want the environmental claim proven rather than stated, because the brand's own FAQ says its decomposition research is still running. And it is not for you if you are sensitive to sugar alcohols and tend to finish a pack, because roughly 16 g of polyols per pack is where some people notice.

Against its natural-gum neighbours, the comparison is close and depends on flavour and availability. Simply Gum and Milliways sell the same idea, a chicle or plant base with a short label, and our reviews of each are linked above. Glee Gum, the other chicle brand readers ask about, is a different story; our Glee Gum review records its discontinuation in 2025. Which of them suits you comes down to flavour, stevia or not, and what your local shop stocks; the label checks in each review are built the same way so they can be read side by side.

Against Minvelle, I will say the same thing I said in the table: it is not the same comparison. If you want a gum with a dosed mineral active and a batch certificate, that is what we make, and the bridge box below takes you to it. If you want a clean natural snack gum, True Gum is a reasonable one and I have no interest in talking you out of it.

I sell a competing gum, so here is how to check me

Minvelle is my company. It makes one product, a nano-hydroxyapatite chewing gum with a plant base of chicle and spruce and mastic, sold to people searching for gum, which is the same search that brings people to True Gum. True Gum is not a functional competitor, because it makes no remineralization claim and carries no active, but it competes for the same purchase decision, and a review of it written by me carries that conflict on every line. I would rather name it here than have you find it in the footer.

How this page was built so the conflict does no damage. Every fact about True Gum is drawn from the brand's own pages, the Danish registry, or a named retailer, with the page and the date. Every environmental claim is quoted, attributed to the page, and explicitly marked as unverified by us. Every negative observation is a gap, not a verdict: "not stated", "not found on the pages we read", "not computable", "unresolved". The two things the brand does not publish that we make the most of, a piece count and a decomposition figure, are things the brand itself is open about, and we say so. There are no verdict words about the company on this page, and if you find one, tell me and it comes out.

How to check us with the same tools. Our transparency page publishes all fourteen ingredients by weight, the 5.7 mg dose per piece, the particle form and size, the safety data sheet and the batch certificate, with the manufacturer's name redacted, which the page says openly. We publish no decomposition figure and make no biodegradation claim. We publish no clinical trial on our finished gum, because there is none. Our gum contains egg shell powder and is not vegan, where True Gum's labels are. Those are the places a reader who wanted to score us the way this page scores True Co would start, and they are all on one page.

Dated accuracy. Every True Gum fact on this page was read on 5 September 2026, and the brand will change its pages. If the piece count appears, if the base wording changes, if the FAQ publishes a decomposition result, if the White flavour comes back into stock at a different price, this page is out of date until it is re-checked. The "Last reviewed" date at the top is the last date this page was true to our knowledge. If you spot a change before we do, the contact page is one click away and corrections are made under the original date line.

And the thing I would ask of any reviewer, including me: read the brand's pages yourself. They are short, they are in plain English, and the honest ones, which these are, tell you what they have not measured. That is more than most.

Questions people ask about True Gum