While the U.S. FDA has finally approved nicotine pouches (NPs), South Australia has just become the first state in the country to ban nicotine pouches under strict tobacco legislation. While officials argue the move protects young people from nicotine addiction, harm reduction advocates warn it may do more harm than good by restricting access to a safer alternative for smokers.
South Australia has become the first state in Australia to ban nicotine pouches, under a strict new tobacco legislation. The pouches have gained popularity, particularly among young people and therefore also a bad reputation. Preventive Health SA Chief Executive Marina Bowshall emphasized the dangers of nicotine addiction and stressed the importance of preventing illegal sales, particularly to young people.
To this effect, NPs are now classified alongside illicit tobacco and vaping products, making their sale illegal and subject to severe penalties. The new legislation grants authorities the power to confiscate nicotine pouches and impose fines of up to $1.5 million on those caught selling them. Moreover, it also provides the government with the authority to ban emerging nicotine products in the future.
Arguments in favour and against
Supporters of the ban argue that often marketed as alternatives to smoking and vaping, NPs contain nicotine, sweeteners, and flavouring agents. They claim that despite their growing popularity, particularly among youth, there is little evidence supporting their effectiveness as smoking cessation aids.
In contrast, tobcco harm reduction and smoking cessation experts have been referring to studies indicating the effectivity of NPs for smoking cessation, highlighting that banning the products is counterproductive to public health. Backing these arguments is real-world data from countries like Sweden, where the widespread use of such products has led to record low smoking rates.
In line with this, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recent approval of Zyn nicotine pouches has marked a positive step for tobacco harm reduction, offering smokers another safer alternative product to traditional cigarettes.
The FDA’s approval process
Meanwhile, taking a different angle on this development, an article on R Street highlighted that the nearly five-year delay in granting this approval raises concerns about inefficiencies and bureaucratic obstacles within the FDA’s regulatory process. While legitimate, this criticism of the FDA’s slow approval process, makes Australia (with its prohibition-based approach) look like it is stuck in the middle ages.
Smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable diseases, yet regulatory approaches in states like California and countries like Australia, continue to restrict harm-reduction alternatives while allowing the most dangerous tobacco products to remain widely available. The R Street article continues that given the clear evidence that nicotine pouches pose significantly lower health risks, the FDA’s sluggish approval process has hindered access to these alternatives.
Nicotine pouches, such as Zyn, provide a smokeless method of nicotine consumption, reducing exposure to harmful chemicals found in combustible cigarettes. The FDA’s own findings confirmed that these pouches have substantially lower levels of harmful constituents compared to cigarettes and traditional smokeless tobacco products. Additionally, research supports that a significant number of smokers successfully transition to using nicotine pouches, reinforcing their role in harm reduction.
Concerns over youth access have driven strict regulations worldwide, including flavour bans, but the FDA found that youth use of nicotine pouches remains low. However, the agency’s infamous Premarket Tobacco Application (PMTA) process, which is intended to take 180 days, instead took nearly 1,750 days in this case, with no clear explanation for the delay. And this is not an isolated case.
Approving safer alternatives should be made easier
To improve public health outcomes, the FDA should streamline approvals for similar products and ensure that lower-risk nicotine alternatives remain accessible to adult smokers seeking to quit combustible tobacco. Studies indicate that such prohibitions often backfire, leading to increased cigarette consumption rather than a decline in nicotine use. Despite these findings, restrictive policies continue to limit access to safer alternatives.