Media Watch: Radio New Zealand on Pouch Legalisation

After a decade of sharp falls, New Zealand’s smoking prevalence has plateaued at around 6.8%. A recent article, cross-posted in The Conversation and Radio New Zealand (RNZ), thinks this is a good reason to oppose the introduction of nicotine pouches to the southwestern Pacific Ocean island country.

Let’s counter the eight reasons the government should not introduce oral nicotine pouches to NZ.

1. “No evidence they aid cessation”

Pouches are a novel product, so the evidence base is early, but it’s not nonexistent. For example, this trial concluded that its results “provide preliminary support for nicotine pouches for cigarette substitution.”

2. “Unknown risks, so they should not be introduced”

Tobacco control mouthpieces love to say that we just don’t know the long-term risks of novel tobacco products. However, reviewing pouch contents, assessing biomarkers, and comparing the product to snus help identify potential hazards.

Delaying product access until we reach some mythical threshold of knowledge costs current smokers or youths who are liable to smoke.

3. “Highly addictive, especially for youth”

Nicotine has been around for a long time. While it is dependence-forming, it doesn’t come with the usual things we’d associate with addiction, such as crime, death, illness, job loss, or destruction of relationships.

All the fancy tobacco control policies in the world can’t change the fact that some youths will experiment with nicotine. Pouches ensure those experiments are as safe as possible.

4. “Nicotine addiction is never public‑health progress”

Framing any continued nicotine use as a failure ignores the core logic of tobacco harm‑reduction, which is to reduce disease and death even if some people remain nicotine‑dependent.

If any smoker quits with pouches, it’s a public health win. And, while this might be more controversial, I’d suggest that if someone experiments with nicotine via pouches rather than cigarettes, that should also count as a win.

5. “Designed to appeal to young people”

Yes, there are rogue companies selling products that are excessively strong and have flashy branding. However, most leading brands are very conscious of how they position their products. Indeed, in the UK, many brands are self-regulating.

It wouldn’t take too much work for NZ to set sensible regulations for the product and its marketing.

6. “Invisible and therefore dangerous in schools”

Banning a product that could help NZ achieve “smoke-free” status just because it is discreet is really scraping the barrel.

Policymakers can apply school‑specific policies such as searchable bans, education, disciplinary codes, alongside broader youth access controls. They already do this for other easily concealed substances such as cigarettes, vapes, and even chewing gum.

7. “Flawed logic: adding one product to fix another”

Again, the author’s inability to wrap their head around harm reduction is obvious here. Their anecdote ignores the fact that the harm potential of cigarettes is orders of magnitude worse than that of pouches. It’s not even close. Not everyone can just give up cold turkey, so if NZ is serious about getting down to 5%, giving smokers credible options is essential.

8. “Threat to Tupeka Kore and equity”

Smoking‑related disease is concentrated in disadvantaged and Indigenous communities, with a smoking prevalence of over 15%. The author suggests that Māori leaders “want to eliminate addictive nicotine products and the disproportionate burden nicotine addiction imposes on Māori communities.”

Access to safer, cheaper products could help close these gaps.