Perceived Risk versus Empirically Founded Benefit of Masticating Gum

Abstract

Despite robust evidence on the benefits of gum mastication as compared to its risks, places such as Singapore still outlaw chewing gum outside of medicinal purposes. Chewing gum has therapeutic and cognitive benefits such as reduced stress and increased attention, and its associated costs such as littering are disproportionately upheld and still prosecuted against in Singapore. This is a clear example of a policy implemented based on perception rather than cost–benefit analysis. Policies, even as minor as those related to gum mastication, must be entrenched in evidence, and any accompanying costs (eg littering) can and should be deterred through evidence-based communication efforts.