Oral nicotine pouch study finds toxicants more than 90% below snus in most tests

A peer-reviewed chemical analysis published in BMC Chemistry reports that 11 commercial oral nicotine pouches contained toxicant levels more than 90% lower than the snus products it tested in most assays, and that none exceeded GOTHIATEK limits set for snus.

Eleven pouches, nine of them Velo, were measured against two snus controls

The study measured 132 target analytes across 11 commercial oral nicotine pouches, which included nine Velo products. It also tested a non-commercial, unflavoured pouch with zero nicotine content, and two snus controls: 1S4 reference snus and an established commercial snus product.

The authors are Hadley, Zonnestein, Jeffery, Nguyen, McAdam and Digard, writing in BMC Chemistry volume 20, article 219.

Snus carried more quantifiable analytes per pouch than the pouches did

Seventy of the 132 analytes were not quantifiable in any of the tested pouches or snus products. On a per-pouch basis, snus reached quantifiable levels for 58 analytes, against 47 across the oral nicotine pouches.

Of the 43 analytes detected above the limit of detection in both formats, 15 were quantifiable only in snus and four only in some oral nicotine pouches.

No tested pouch exceeded the GOTHIATEK limits applied to snus

GOTHIATEK is a Swedish standard that sets maximum allowable levels for certain constituents in smokeless tobacco. For the subset of analytes it covers, none of the oral nicotine pouches tested went above those limits.

Against historical cigarette smoke data, the authors report that almost all comparator constituents were substantially lower in the pouches than in smoke.

The authors describe the findings as supporting a hypothesis, not proving a risk level

The study tested chemical content in a laboratory. Its conclusion is that the results support the hypothesis that exclusive use of oral nicotine pouches might offer a potentially reduced-risk alternative to continued smoking, with comparable or even lower risk than snus.

That formulation is the authors’ own and rests on measured constituent levels rather than clinical or epidemiological outcomes. The work does not establish health effects in users.

MRTP status for General snus forms the regulatory backdrop

The paper notes that the US Food and Drug Administration granted modified risk tobacco product status to eight PMTA-authorised General snus products in 2019, renewed in 2024. The authors cite that decision when describing snus as a reduced-risk alternative for adults who would otherwise continue to smoke.

The study does not state that any oral nicotine pouch holds MRTP status or any other reduced-risk authorisation.

No pouch maker has a filing decision tied to these results

The results give manufacturers and exporters a comparative constituent dataset covering 132 analytes and a standard benchmark, GOTHIATEK, against which pouch formulations can be checked before submission. VapeBrief’s analysis: firms preparing MRTP or PMTA evidence will still need product-specific chemistry and behavioural data, because this study reports content measurements only. Distributors selling both snus and pouches should expect the comparison to be cited in category discussions rather than treated as a change in legal status.

What happens next depends on regulators, not on the paper

For retailers and distributors, the study changes nothing about authorisation status in any market; it adds a published comparison of constituent levels. Any future MRTP application for a pouch product would be the point at which these findings could carry regulatory weight.

Questions readers ask

Did the study find oral nicotine pouches safer than snus?

The authors concluded the results support the hypothesis that exclusive pouch use might carry comparable or lower risk than snus. The study measured chemical constituents in the laboratory and did not assess health outcomes in users.

Were any Velo products above GOTHIATEK limits?

No. Nine of the 11 commercial pouches tested were Velo products, and none of the tested pouches exceeded the GOTHIATEK maximum allowable limits for the covered analytes.