More Evidence For The “We Don’t Have Enough Evidence” Crowd to Ignore

Tobacco Control groups and the scientists they fund are very fond of saying things like, “We don’t know enough about the long term effects of nicotine pouches” when advocating for bans or excessive restriction of these harm-reduction products.

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for these people to act as if they’ve stumbled upon pouches on a mission to explore an abandoned spacecraft on a nearby planet. Heavy breath hits the inside of the hazmat helmet as a shaking, gloved hand wipes away dust and sediment to reveal a circular plastic tin containing an unknown substance. That kinda thing.

When someone says, “We don’t know the risk of nicotine pouches,” what they really mean is “We don’t want to know them.”

Pouches, while novel as a product, have a history.

What snus tells us about nicotine pouches

Nicotine pouches’ lineage began around 250 years ago when people first started using snus. At the time, it was loose and rolled up in a ball. By the 1970s, it was portioned in pouches. In later years, modern nicotine pouches were born, allowing users to access a nicotine product that was both smokeless and tobacco-free.

There is a lot of scientific research on sus. And Sweden is a living, breathing example of what happens when consumers are allowed the freedom to choose products for themselves.

Tobacco control says it wants the world to be smoke-free. Well, it’s got a product that delivers that.

They also say they want the world to be tobacco-free. Nicotine pouches are a product that delivers that, too!

So, why does the long-standing research on snus not move the needle on nicotine pouches?

What do people think is in nicotine pouches that makes them such a different prospect to snus?

Answers on a postcard, please.

New British American Tobacco (BAT) research

BAT has released some new research on Velo, their nicotine pouch product. Now, there is a certain type of person who will go straight to conflict of interest when they hear the research is sponsored by a tobacco company. But I think misunderstands the position these companies are in these days.

As history shows, Tobacco companies are the example of misleading the population about health risks. However, since these scandals, tobacco research has faced a lot of scrutiny and suspicion, and rightly so. It would be a huge reputational risk for a tobacco company to be caught with their thumb on the scales. I’d imagine they have safeguards to stop this happening. Or at least they should.

This new study is called Multi-endpoint in vitro Toxicological Assessment of Snus and Tobacco-free Nicotine Pouch Extracts (Yu, 2024). What that really means is:

• Testing these products against lab-grown cells and tissues.
• Looking for a broad range of potential harms.
• Exploring if these products cause damage, death, or change of function in these cells.

They tested five products: 3 VELO nicotine pouches, a competitor brand, and a snus pouch. They found that the nicotine pouches “were not cytotoxic, mutagenetic or genotoxic.”

While there are clear limitations to this research, it’s another piece of the puzzle which shows the safety of snus and nicotine pouches.

Final thoughts

Nicotine pouches are not some unknown rogue product. People have been using nicotine in gum for years, and snus use is very common in Sweden. Now, with more research coming out about the specific safety of nicotine pouches, it’s a bit silly to say “we don’t know” enough, especially if your goal is to reduce death and illness from smoking that safer products can reduce.