Health and industry groups push for balanced nicotine policy

Across North America in 2025, public policy toward nicotine pouches and other non-combustible, smoke-free products revealed a stark divergence in regulatory philosophy.

In Canada, federal and provincial authorities have layered restrictions that make nicotine pouches harder to access than traditional cigarettes. In the US, by contrast, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly described nicotine pouches as among the safest ways to consume nicotine, signalling a markedly different harm-reduction approach.

In Canada, nicotine pouches, including the only authorised brand, Zonnic, are regulated under drug and natural health product frameworks. As a result, they are generally sold only in pharmacies, kept behind the counter, and often limited in flavour to mint, tobacco, and menthol.

These constraints are intended to curb youth access and recreational use. Critics, however, argue that the net effect is to restrict adult smokers’ access to harm-reducing alternatives while leaving cigarettes widely available in convenience stores and gas stations.

Parliamentary critics have described the policy as a “war on nicotine pouches,” suggesting it reflects regulatory confusion rather than an evidence-based strategy.

Observers also point to unintended consequences, including reduced access to cessation tools, increased operational burdens on pharmacies, the growth of illicit markets for unregulated products, and anecdotal indications that some smokers revert to cigarettes when pouches are difficult to obtain.

By contrast, in the US, RFK Jr. has repeatedly framed nicotine pouches as a viable harm-reduction alternative to combustible tobacco. He has characterised them as the “safest way to consume nicotine” and indicated that federal policy could support broader access and consumer choice.

Such statements suggest a philosophical shift toward pragmatism – reducing the deadliest forms of nicotine use by encouraging less harmful alternatives.

Kenya appears to be charting a path closer to Canada’s restrictive model. The Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to significantly limit nicotine pouches, despite evidence suggesting they pose minimal harm relative to combustible tobacco.

Regulators cite concerns around youth appeal, addiction, and recreational use, with the Bill targeting flavours, advertising, online sales, and point-of-sale visibility.

While these measures are framed as youth-protection safeguards, they risk tipping the balance too far against harm reduction for adult smokers seeking safer alternatives.

Regulatory caution is understandable, but it should be informed by public-health innovation and proportional risk assessment. In Canada, classifying nicotine pouches as drugs or natural health products subjects them to stricter controls than cigarettes, creating a regulatory imbalance that limits access to safer products while leaving far more harmful ones readily available.

In the US, public endorsement by a senior health official sends a strong market and policy signal, although effective implementation remains crucial. The contrast between the two North American approaches illustrates how public messaging, regulatory intent, and real-world outcomes can diverge sharply.

Ultimately, nicotine policy sits at the intersection of science, public health, and politics. It is not only about relative risk profiles, but also about values and priorities. If the stated goal is to maximise harm reduction while protecting young people, then regulating safer alternatives more harshly than more dangerous products invites serious scrutiny.

This risk now confronts Kenya. If lawmakers refuse to engage with industry and dismiss the modified-risk pathway, the country may inadvertently entrench combustible tobacco while handicapping lower-risk innovations.

As global experience continues to unfold, Kenyan policymakers should ask whether current proposals truly align regulation with evidence.

Are we unintentionally protecting legacy products at the expense of safer ones? Have youth-protection concerns been weighted so heavily that other workable solutions are overlooked?

Achieving a balanced outcome will require a government willing to listen to all stakeholders and to strike a pragmatic middle ground – one that protects young people without sacrificing the public-health gains of harm reduction.

The writer is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and a Governance Expert