When people discuss unethical marketing by nicotine companies, it’s typically about the sort of packaging, colours, flavourings, or youth-targeting that reputable businesses keep well away from. However, we’ve discovered a new type of shady promotion that makes spurious and misleading claims about pouches to hawk alternative products.

The article

Product differentiation is hard. The market is crowded, and even products like vapes and pouches that have a lot of differences are often targeting very similar users trying to achieve identical goals.

As a result, the relative marketing for these two harm reduction products is still more focused on helping people transition away from cigarettes. What we don’t typically see are vape or pouch retailers trashing each other's products in a desperate attempt to gain market share.

Seeing that unwritten rule violated is what makes the new Stokes Picks article about nicotine pouches a bit unseemly for my tastes.

Who and what are Stokes Picks?

Stokes makes flavoured wooden nicotine toothpicks. In essence, Stokes Picks are small birchwood sticks infused or coated with nicotine and flavourings.

The marketing on their page is fairly cringe-worthy, and it includes gems like:“

  • “Stokes are crafted for those who live with purpose, seeking vitality, focus, and elegance in every moment.”
  • “We’re more than a brand; we’re a philosophy of living boldly and well.”
  • “We’re more than a product. We’re a movement.”
  • “This isn’t just nicotine. It’s biohacking for the brave.”

I don’t even know what vibe they’re going for. It’s some sort of mix of rugged alpine individualism and health-anxious wellness, brought to you via heavy AI copy.

Somehow, that’s not the most obnoxious aspect of their brand.

Cheap shots

As I mentioned above, finding a way to stand out against related products isn’t always straightforward. Most retailers or manufacturers focus on the benefits of what they sell, but Stokes Picks has chosen to lay into nicotine pouches with a weakly supported and highly misleading article.

Here are some of their claims.

#1. Nicotine pouches contain microplastics


We dealt with this question last year, having noticed a slight uptick in this myth from a few health bodies. As we said at the time, there is no evidence that pouches contain plastic, which is obvious to anyone familiar with the production methods.

In short, pouch mesh and fill are made from plant-made plastics. That means biodegradable organic materials. Microplastics come from petroplastics. The Stokes article does not provide any product-level data, brand names, material analyses, lab reports, or microscopy to challenge these facts.

#2. Pouches are made with cellulose acetate or polypropylene

Slightly related to the last point, but it’s worth highlighting. Again, Stokes claims that pouches often use synthetic fibres like cellulose acetate or polypropylene.

Even the most critical studies acknowledge that pouches are almost always made from regenerated cellulose fibres (i.e., semi‑synthetic, derived from wood/cotton). These are modified natural polymers, not conventional, persistent petro‑plastics.

When these materials are detected as tiny fibres, they are treated as a separate category from “microplastics” because they are not petroleum‑based plastics, and they biodegrade more readily.

#3. Endocrine disruption and other harms

The other wild claims in the article are built on the sleight of hand used to claim pouches contain microplastics. The article itself NEVER links to papers that support its speculative claims, which is a red flag.

While microplastics are a health and environmental issue, stacking those problems against pouches is irresponsible and potentially legally actionable.

#4. Pouches take decades or centuries to degrade!

In their comparison at a glance table, Stokes claims that pouches take “decades to centuries” to biodegrade. Again, no research is provided to support this claim.

The best current evidence suggests that something around a few months or a few years is more accurate. I’m no mathematician, but that's considerably lower than Stokes claims of “centuries”.

Final thoughts

Stokes' attempts to sell its product are disappointing. There are already enough voices in the government, media, and public health that are willing to distort data and outright lie about nicotine pouches. We don’t need brands with an ostensibly similar mission (helping people quit smoking) trying to get in on that dishonest act.