As nicotine pouches continue to spark global controversy, more fear-based restrictions are set by many countries, despite the emerging science in favour.
The debate over nicotine pouches keeps intensifying on both sides of the Atlantic, exposing the widening divide between harm reduction and prohibition in tobacco control. In the United States, the City of Baltimore has taken aim at Zyn, the most popular nicotine pouch brand, while in Europe, France is preparing to ban the entire category. These moves come at a time when mounting evidence suggests that nicotine pouches may offer adult smokers a safer path away from combustible tobacco.
Baltimore’s lawsuit, filed against Philip Morris International (PMI) and Swedish Match, alleges that Zyn’s marketing strategies endanger young people. City Solicitor Ebony M. Thompson is seeking financial penalties and injunctive relief under consumer protection law, arguing that the company’s advertising, flavours, and rewards programs amount to youth targeting. Critics of the lawsuit, however, say the claims are speculative and lack concrete evidence. For example, the City points to mint, citrus, and wintergreen flavours as deliberately youth-appealing, which of course is ridiculous as these are standard adult flavours found in various legal adult products, from gum to alcohol. In fact, unlike the candy-flavoured products whhich have sparked youth interest, Zyn’s flavour range is relatively conservative.
A new scapegoat in tobacco control
Similarly, Baltimore equates Zyn’s social media presence and event sponsorships with youth marketing, but these are common practices across adult industries such as alcohol and automotive brands. Notably, Zyn does not employ influencers, and its ads are age-gated. Even the company’s rewards program, painted as manipulative toward minors, mirrors the loyalty schemes of airlines, supermarkets, and streaming services.
The City further criticizes the description of Zyn as “tobacco-free,” which in fact they are, with both the FDA and FTC allowing this terminology for products that contain purified nicotine but no tobacco leaf. As for rising youth experimentation, critics of the lawsuit note that the complaint fails to show intentional outreach to minors, instead relying on assumptions that companies bear responsibility for all underage access. To detractors, the lawsuit looks less like a solid legal case and more like a reheated collection of anti-tobacco talking points, with little evidence of deliberate misconduct.
While Baltimore wages its legal battle, France has taken a far more sweeping step. Beginning in March 2026, the sale of nicotine pouches will be outlawed entirely. This follows France’s ban on disposable e-cigarettes and tighter restrictions on public smoking. French health officials framed the pouch ban as a measure to protect youth, citing a rise in poison control calls—from just three in 2020 to 86 in 2022, most involving teenagers. The prohibition will cover all non-medical oral nicotine products, from lozenges to strips, though chewing tobacco will remain exempt.
A global tug of war
Anti-smoking groups like the Alliance Against Tobacco have celebrated the decision, calling it a decisive step against nicotine addiction. They argue that pouches, heated tobacco, and e-cigarettes are merely strategies by tobacco companies to sustain nicotine dependence as cigarette sales decline. Yet tobacco harm reduction experts have consistently warned that prohibition will backfire, and real-world data backs up this warning.
Moreover, British American Tobacco France accused the government of acting without evidence or consultation, while Philip Morris France called the ban a continuation of failed strategies, and the tobacconists’ confederation has predicted a surge in illicit markets. Given that the global nicotine pouch market was valued at $6.6 billion in 2023 and is projected to quadruple by 2032, France’s decision marks a striking departure from international trends.
Across the Atlantic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken a more nuanced path. In January 2025, the agency granted marketing authorization to Zyn, concluding that the product is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” The FDA’s evaluation showed that pouches contain far fewer harmful constituents than cigarettes or smokeless tobacco and pose lower risks of cancer and other serious health conditions. In fact, studies have shown that many smokers and smokeless tobacco users had fully switched to pouches, suggesting they could function as harm reduction tools.
The FDA is thankfully now considering fast-tracking applications for other pouch products, a move praised by harm reduction advocates but unsurprisingly criticized by groups like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which accused the FDA of taking “shortcuts.” Yet as expert in thr field Dr. Michael Siegel has pointed out, Zyn’s approval took five years—hardly an expedited process. And to insult to injury, added Siegel, while the Campaign rails against supposedly lax oversight of safer products, it has remained silent about the continued unfettered sale of deadly cigarettes.
Beyond the hype: what does science tell us?
Meanwhile, recent evidence from Rutgers Health strengthens the harm reduction case. A study published in JAMA Network Open analyzed survey data from more than 110,000 U.S. adults, providing the first national picture of pouch use. The findings show that uptake is largely limited to those with a history of tobacco use, particularly former smokers and recent quitters. Use among people who had never consumed tobacco was virtually nonexistent. Importantly, daily use was concentrated among adults who had already left cigarettes or e-cigarettes behind, suggesting that pouches serve as a substitute rather than a gateway. While long-term health effects remain uncertain—nicotine is addictive and linked to cardiovascular risk—the absence of combustion means that pouches avoid the carcinogens and toxins that make cigarettes so deadly.
Youth use is not absent, but still low: only 1.8 percent of middle and high school students reported pouch use in 2024, up slightly from 1.1 percent in 2022. By comparison, youth vaping rates remain far higher. Advocates argue this shows the need for sensible regulation—such as age restrictions, marketing guardrails, and clear labeling—rather than prohibition.
Taken together, these developments highlight a stark policy crossroads. Baltimore’s lawsuit reflects the reflexive suspicion with which many U.S. jurisdictions treat new nicotine products, while France’s outright ban is demonstrating a growing tendency toward prohibition. Yet the FDA’s cautious approval and the Rutgers study suggest a more pragmatic path: recognizing that while nicotine pouches may not be completely risk-free, they occupy a much safer place on the risk continuum than cigarettes. For the millions of smokers still searching for a viable off-ramp, denying access to these alternatives could amount to repeating the mistakes of the past—protecting cigarettes by removing their safer competition.