By Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• A new opinion paper by Dr. Nveed Chaudhary warns that banning nicotine pouches at COP11 could reverse global tobacco harm reduction progress.
• The paper highlights that evidence from Sweden, Saudi Arabia, and other markets shows nicotine pouches can assist smokers in switching from combustibles when properly regulated.
• Chaudhary states that WHO-aligned bans risk blurring critical risk distinctions between combustibles and smoke-free alternatives, which could undermine public health advances.

Proposals expected to be advanced at the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC-COP11) could result in severe restrictions or outright bans on nicotine pouches in multiple countries.

A new opinion paper by Dr. Nveed Chaudhary, Chair of the Scientific & Standards Committee at the Global Institute for Novel Nicotine (GINN) and founder of NexCentra Consulting Ltd., states that it’s a move that risks erasing critical distinctions between combustible tobacco use and lower-risk alternative nicotine delivery systems.

The paper, “Nicotine Pouches at the Crossroads,” describes the November 17–22 meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, as a crucial moment for the global regulation of smoke-free alternatives.

“The upcoming meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of nicotine regulation,” he writes. “For millions of smokers who cannot quit, this meeting could determine whether safer, smoke-free options like vapes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches are recognized as part of the solution or restricted as part of the problem.”

Global Harm-Reduction Evidence

Chaudhary points to two contrasting but complementary examples—Sweden and Saudi Arabia—to illustrate how properly regulated nicotine-pouch markets can dramatically reduce smoking rates.

He uses Sweden as “a powerful example of how smoke-free alternatives can improve public health,” by highlighting that the country’s sharp drop in combustible cigarette use “didn’t come from prohibition, but from providing smokers with realistic, lower-risk options.”

Sweden’s long-standing acceptance of snus and its more recent shift toward nicotine pouches has helped drive adult smoking to roughly 5%, approaching smoke-free status.

Saudi Arabia, he writes, represents a different but equally important regulatory model—one based on state-guided oversight and strict market controls. Nicotine pouches in Saudi Arabia are made by a private company operating under the Public Investment Fund (PIF), with “the import or sale of other brands” banned.

The result, Chaudhary notes, has been “remarkable,” with about “55% of adult smokers in KSA” partly or fully switching to nicotine pouches within two years.

In both cases, Chaudhary contends that clear regulation—not bans—led to significant reductions in combustible use. “A controlled, standards-based market doesn’t suppress innovation; it channels it toward the collective goal of a healthier, smoke-free society,” he writes.

Regulatory Divergence and COP11 Stakes

Chaudhary warns that this real-world success sharply contrasts with increasing calls from various governments and blocs for bans or near-bans on nicotine pouches.

A key concern in his analysis is a widely discussed leaked European Commission draft indicating that the EU may advocate for “strict regulation or bans” on nicotine pouches at COP11. The draft also questions harm-reduction framing itself, asserting that “reduced-risk messaging” should be limited—even when supported by scientific evidence.

Chaudhary writes that this approach “reflects a worrying drift away from risk-proportionate public health policy, blurring the distinction between combustible and non-combustible nicotine products.”

He uses France as an example of this trend, citing a national ban that includes “a penalty which is more severe than the illicit trading of heroin.”

The paper then expands to the global regulatory landscape, using updated data from 57 countries that classify markets as regulated, grey, medicinal-only, or banned.

Chaudhary points out recent regulatory frameworks in Greece and the Czech Republic as examples of proportionate, science-based policies, while cautioning that “pharmaceutical-style models”—like India’s 4 mg prescription cap—risk making pouches “largely ineffective as true harm-reduction tools.”

He argues that COP11 decisions could influence these diverging paths, either supporting risk-proportionate regulation or accelerating bans that leave smokers “with no viable path forward.”

Prohibition Risks and Need for Aligned Standards

Chaudhary offers some of his paper’s strongest criticism of prohibitions on nicotine pouches, especially when cigarettes remain widely available. “It is absurd that, having ignored nicotine pouches as a category worthy of proportionate regulation, governments now seek to prohibit the least risky form of nicotine consumption, while continuing to allow the sale of the most lethal,” he writes.

He argues that many of the concerns frequently cited against pouches—youth access, illicit markets, and quality control—are better addressed through regulation than bans. “Prohibition only pushes demand underground, where quality, safety, and age control vanish entirely,” he writes.

Chaudhary also questions whether reliance on taxes from combustible cigarettes can lead to governments being resistant towards lower-risk nicotine products, citing “the vast tax revenues that governments derive from cigarette sales.” However, he maintains that true public health efforts should focus on “phasing out combustible tobacco while allowing a strictly regulated, science-based marketplace for safer nicotine alternatives.”

The final section advocates for a global, unified framework based on “Aligned Innovation”—a regulation that is “science-led, regulator-aligned, and consumer-focused.”

This frameworkincludes product standards, marketing rules, nicotine caps, and transparent compliance systems. However, he warns that standards alone are not enough without enforcement. “Without credible oversight and meaningful penalties for non-compliance, regulation is little more than guidance on paper,” he writes.

His conclusion is clear: rejecting low-risk products at COP11 “would not advance public health; it would entrench smoking and perpetuate preventable disease.”