Tobacco companies are pushing nicotine pouches on teens  and we need to act now to stop them 52%

By Bonnie Halpern-Felsher66% PhD66%

7/15/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 42.9% saturation with 514 hits. Analysis detected 2,947 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,199 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.3% and a BS Rank of 52% (10,002 of 20,474 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.20% of the article peer group.

The use of nicotine pouches is increasing among teenagers and young adults in the U.S. 
As researchers who study nicotine use among young people and develop strategies to prevent it, we worry these discreet products might be driving a new public health crisis. 
It may be that more and more teens are becoming addicted to nicotine pouches under our watch. 
To stop that crisis in its tracks, we need to act now. 
Myriad strategies would help, including eliminating flavored pouches and reducing the amount of nicotine in the products, as well as regulating their marketing and stopping companies from making deceptive claims. 
And while we await such regulation, informing educators, parents and teens about the harms of nicotine pouches will be key. 
Why worry now? 
Nicotine pouches  small, pillow-like products that users place between their gum and lip  are now the second most used tobacco product among U.S. adolescents. 
In a recent survey , 2.3% of high school and about 1% of middle school students, an estimated 460,000 students total, reported using a pouch in the past month. 
More than 9 in 10 pouch users opted for flavored pouches, with mint being the most popular. 
While rates of pouch use remain behind e-cigarette use, more students reported using pouches than cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco or any other form of nicotine. 
Nicotine pouches were the only product whose use increased in the survey, while the popularity of other products declined or remained stable. 
What makes nicotine pouches particularly tricky is how invisible they are to the outside observer. 
Unlike cigarettes, they produce no smoke. 
Unlike e-cigs, they generate no visible aerosol. 
They are small and easy to conceal. 
That invisibility is not a coincidence; it's part of big tobacco companies' intentional design. 
An adolescent can use nicotine pouches during class and no one around them would know. 
Each pouch contains nicotine powder that is either derived from tobacco plants or synthetically produced, as well as other ingredients like acidity regulators and flavorings. 
Those flavors can be dessert-like, fruity, minty, and reminiscent of coffee or cocktails  all of which appeal to young people . 
The amount of nicotine per pouch varies by brand, but generally, using one pouch is roughly equivalent to smoking one to four  or more  cigarettes. 
That's a problem because, although pouches don't produce smoke, nicotine is still very addictive and harmful to the developing brain. 
Nicotine use can negatively affect teens' attention and impede their impulse control , hurting their academic performance and mental health. 
In regards to physical health, data suggest that smokeless oral nicotine products may harm some aspects of heart health and raise the risk of death in people with existing heart disease. 
Tobacco companies are employing the same advertising tropes that they've successfully used to lure young users in the past. 
(Image credit: Peter Dazeley via Getty Images) It may be tempting to wave away concern because the percentage of adolescents using these pouches appears relatively small. 
However, that would be a mistake, as doing so would mean watching history repeat itself. 
Rates of e-cigarette use also started low, and by the time national data finally showed a clear increase, their use was already a deeply entrenched behavior among adolescents, with many addicted. 
Furthermore, national surveillance studies are, by design, snapshots in time and often lag behind what is happening in real time in classrooms and communities. 
We're concerned that more teens are becoming addicted to nicotine pouches, now, and want to curb the trend. 
At Stanford Medicine's REACH lab , we work with thousands of schools and teachers across the U.S. every year, providing free, evidence-based tobacco prevention curriculums. 
We've spoken with hundreds of educators, parents and students across the country who have raised significant concerns about nicotine pouches, and presented talks to over 1,200 people on the subject. 
It became clear that we must create a specific approach to prevent teens from using pouches  so, we created a course called Not So Sweet: Oral Nicotine and Smokeless Tobacco Prevention Curriculum . 
The free course is designed to be used in schools or by anyone who works with teens. 
It explains the different types of oral nicotine and smokeless tobacco products and their many health effects, including addiction. 
It also lays out the marketing tactics employed by the tobacco industry to attract youth in the first place. 
In just a few short weeks of releasing the curriculum, we already have over 1,500 active users. 
We're heartened that people are already engaging with the course, because we might already have a public health crisis on our hands. 
Today's nicotine pouch market in the U.S. is dominated by three brands : the top seller, ZYN; On!; and VELO. 
These brands are owned by Philip Morris International, Altria, and British American Tobacco, respectively. 
The companies have decades of knowledge in marketing nicotine products that they are now deploying to sell nicotine pouches. 
They're falling back on successful advertising tropes , telling consumers that nicotine pouches could help them socialize, unwind, or appear cool to potential romantic partners. 
Ads also emphasize the discreet nature of the pouches, which allows them to be used anywhere without drawing too much attention. 
Why is tobacco so addictive? 
Simple vaping 'quitline' can help over 40% of young people quit, study finds 
Is vaping healthier than smoking? 
Through these marketing strategies, nicotine pouches have soared in popularity and sales, Zyn has become a household name, gaining nicknames like Zynnie, Zynfluence and Zyndulgence. 
Zyn has effectively become the "Coke" of colas, the Kleenex of tissues, the Juul of e-cigs. 
What's more, the Food and Drug Administration just authorized various Zyn products to be marketed with the claim that using Zyn instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. 
But when it comes to teenagers, we see many using Zyn or other nicotine pouches alone or alongside other nicotine products that aren't cigarettes. 
Unlike adult smokers who may be switching to pouches, teens may be newly introduced to nicotine addiction through products like Zyn. 
It is not a matter of cigarettes versus Zyn for many teens; it is Zyn versus nothing. 
Nicotine pouches might come in tantalizing flavors, but they are not sweet  they are dangerous, especially for adolescents. 
Reminiscent of what we've seen for decades with cigarettes and over the last decade with e-cigarettes, we once again have a nicotine product that is very appealing to and being increasingly used by young people. 
Yet, they contain a great deal of nicotine and are unsafe . 
We need to work together, now, to ensure we don't perpetuate another generation of addicted kids. 
Editor's note: Bonnie Halpern-Felsher has served as an expert witness in litigation against various tobacco companies. 
This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice. 
Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 10.2%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias19.3%This article: 2.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.9%Live Science: 1.3%Anchoring Bias2.3%This article: 15.1%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 6.3%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic15.1%This article: 4.8%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.2%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 1.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.3%Live Science: 0.4%Hindsight Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 6.9%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 1.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.9%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.7%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.8%This article: 2.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.5%Live Science: 3.6%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 9.6%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 3.7%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 13.7%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 4.4%Live Science: 3.2%Negativity Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.7%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.0%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.0%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.4%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.3%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem1.3%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.5%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.1%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 4.6%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 2.1%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.9%Live Science: 1.2%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 2.6%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.3%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope2.6%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.9%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 7.6%Live Science: 3.9%Hasty Generalization16.9%This article: 2.4%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.0%Live Science: 0.2%Red Herring2.4%This article: 1.4%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.4%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon1.4%This article: 15.8%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 6.1%Live Science: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion15.8%This article: 4.2%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 2.0%Live Science: 0.6%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 10.8%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 2.7%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.8%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 1.0%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.2%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.5%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division2.2%This article: 6.8%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 2.3%Live Science: 1.9%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 2.4%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.2%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy1.2%This article: 1.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.3%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 0.3%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.1%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.3%This article: 42.9%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 17.0%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice42.9%This article: 13.9%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 7.4%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination13.9%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Bonnie Halpern-Felsher: 6.8%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.4%

1199 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers5.6%attributed speech1,132writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageREACH lab • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Drug Administration • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words63% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.4 ptsWriter: 45.4%Food and Drug Administration: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%Food and Drug Administration: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%Food and Drug Administration: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Food and Drug Administration: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.3 ptsWriter: 0.3%Food and Drug Administration: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.