Tobacco Asia

Tobacco Asia 35 ban oral nicotine products, including pouches. Swedish officials have criticized the French move, saying it dismisses Sweden's harm-reduction record and dis- proportionately affects smoke-free oral products relative to cigarettes. GINN cited early data from Saudi Arabia indicating that pouches are used primarily by existing nicotine users as a harm-reduction or cessation tool, not as a major gateway. The group reported that 56% of users in the available Saudi mar- ket data reported quitting smoking, while also noting that stronger long-term evi- dence is still required. Sweden's widespread use of smoke- free oral nicotine has coincided with some of Europe's lowest smoking rates and the lowest smoking-related disease burden. Critics argue that WHO treats Sweden primarily as a growth market for pouches rather than as a real-world case study in harm reduction. A workable path may lie between WHO's hardline instincts and industry's sales goals. That middle ground, neither prohibition nor a free-for-all, may shape the future of nicotine pouch regulation. Howard warned that piling on heavy bur- dens can slow progress in harm reduc- tion. "Requiring every lower-risk product to satisfy the same evidentiary expecta- tions as combustible cigarettes can create unnecessary barriers that slow innova- tion, delay adult access to potentially less harmful alternatives, and divert regula- tory resources away from the highest-risk products," he said. He argued that effective policy should maintain rigorous scientific over- sight while providing a practical pathway for the review, authorization, and moni- toring of lower-risk products. The big- gest unknown is not whether nicotine pouches are harmless; they probably are not. The real issue is whether regulated, smoke-free nicotine options can reduce smoking-related disease more quickly than prohibition-style policies. WHO answers that question cau- tiously and skeptically. The nicotine in- dustry and harm-reduction advocates say the science speaks for itself and that re- ducing the public health impacts of com- bustibles should be the ultimate goal. As nicotine pouch use spreads, governments will decide which view sets the tone for the next decade of tobacco policy. The Environmental Equation US FDA says oral nicotine product manufacturers will be expected to address environmental controls. A new US Food and Drug Administration document has put oral nicotine products under a brighter spotlight. It is likely to play a significant role in the future of premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) reviews. The regulatory agency published the 26-page Programmatic Envi- ronmental Assessment, which, in plain terms, outlines how it intends to weigh the environmental effects of nicotine pouches, gums, lozenges, discs, and related "modern oral" products. The bottom line is not a surprise, but the details will still land with manufacturers. Com- pared with cigarettes and other combustibles, FDA says that oral nicotine products generally pose "minimal" environmental risk. However, the assessment also maps where the agency plans to press harder, especially as the category continues to grow and companies seek marketing authorization. The scope matters. FDA is referring to what it calls the "other tobacco products" (OTP) category, a mix of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine pouches, lozenges, discs, tab- lets, gums, nicotine-infused products, and dissolvable tobacco products. Traditional smokeless staples, such as dip, snuff, snus, and chewing tobacco, are not part of this review. Even with a programmatic assessment, FDA keeps returning to a familiar point: approvals will not be blanket decisions. Any authorization will still hinge on the specific product before the agency. As FDA puts it, "Product-specific environmental effects of new products will be evaluated when their premarket applications are submitted for FDA review." Still, the document outlines what regulators are examining. A central theme is the environ- mental implications of scaling up nicotine production. The agency flags nicotine extraction from tobacco as an area that could prompt tighter controls, additional permitting, and stricter waste-man- agement requirements, largely because of the solvents and chemicals used in manufacturing. Its message is direct: "Tobacco manufacturers may need additional environmental controls, permits, and new waste management facilities to stay in compliance with existing environmental laws." Manufacturing itself receives similar treatment. FDA describes oral nicotine production as "water intensive" and links higher output to increased water use and wastewater discharge. That aligns with the practical expectation threaded throughout the assessment, namely that companies should expect FDA reviewers to look for compliance with local, state, and federal environmental rules during PMTA-related scrutiny. Another point is clear: pouches are now "the" category. The agency says nicotine pouches "presently represent almost the entire market share" in the OTP category. It cites Euromonitor data showing US sales rising from under 1 billion units in 2019 to nearly 14 billion units in 2024. At the same time, FDA signals it expects growth beyond pouches, with gums, gummies, lozenges, and tablets also in the mix. For retailers, the assessment reads like a warning label on child safety. FDA raises concerns about accidental exposure during handling and cites reports of children swallowing used pouches. "There is a potential risk of inadvertent exposure to nicotine from contact with the new products," the agency writes, adding that the danger "can be mitigated with childproof container closure systems and proper use of the new products." That is the kind of language that tends to surface later as sharper expectations, packaging requirements, disposal guidance, and child-resistant design, all of which are likely to receive more attention during PMTA review. Environmentally, FDA draws a clear line between oral products and combustible ones. In the agency's view, the next generation products do not carry the same air quality impacts because they do not create airborne emissions during use. "The products are free of airborne emissions and therefore will not affect air quality in the vicinity of use," FDA says. It also expects limited effects on bystanders, describing impacts on non-users as "minimal" because there is no secondhand or thirdhand exposure to airborne emissions during use. Disposal risk also comes out as low in the screening analysis. FDA modeled environmental exposure for nicotine and several other chemicals, phenol, acetophenone, nickel, chromium, and N'-nitrosonornicotine, and concluded they pose "low or negligible environmental risks" to aquatic systems under the scenarios it examined. Packaging waste gets a similar treatment, with FDA estimating it accounts for "less than 1%" of municipal solid waste. But the agency does not pretend the file is closed. The assessment notes gaps, including the fact that it does not fully weigh risks tied to plastics and microplastics from pouch materials. It also concedes that rapid market growth could change exposure assumptions, simply because volume changes the math. The larger policy lens is there too. FDA nods to its broader public- health framing for smoke-free products, writing that oral nicotine products in the OTP category "may benefit public health by reducing the exposure to harmful chemicals for users who com- pletely switch from combusted tobacco." None of this authorizes any specific product, and it does not create new binding rules. What it does is make the agency's priorities easier to read, and for an industry living and dying by PMTA review, that alone is consequential.

• Cover