The most comprehensive chemical analysis of nicotine pouches to date — measuring 132 substances across 11 commercial pouches, two snus products and historical cigarette-smoke data — found that pouches carry fewer detectable toxicants and over 90 percent lower levels than Swedish snus in most tests, and far below cigarette smoke on almost every comparator.

The study, published in BMC Chemistry (Springer Nature) on 14 August 2026, is the widest toxicant panel ever run on the pouch category. It is also, transparently, a study paid for by the company that makes the best-selling pouch brand tested. Both things are true at once, and both matter.

What the study measured

Researchers at British American Tobacco's R&D division, led by senior scientist Helena Digard, ran standardised and verified analytical methods to screen for 132 analytes — the technical term for measurable chemical constituents — across four product groups:

• 11 commercial oral nicotine pouches (ONPs), nine of which were Velo products (BAT's own brand).
• 1 non-commercial, unflavoured, zero-nicotine pouch as a control.
• 2 Swedish snus products — the 1S4 reference snus used in research, plus one commercial snus.
• Historical cigarette-smoke data for comparison, drawn from established toxicant databases.

The panel covered the full suite of harmful and potentially harmful constituents that regulators track: tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile aldehydes such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, heavy metals, and the compounds listed under the GOTHIATEK® standard — the voluntary quality benchmark that Swedish Match created for snus and that the US FDA referenced when granting modified-risk status to General snus products.

What it found

The headline numbers are straightforward.

Out of 132 analytes screened, 70 were not quantifiable in any product — neither in the pouches nor in the snus. Of the ones that were detectable, snus carried more: 58 analytes at quantifiable levels in snus versus 47 in the pouches, on a per-pouch basis. Of the 43 analytes that appeared in both product types, 15 were quantifiable only in snus and four only in some pouches.

In the tests where a direct comparison was possible, the pouches contained over 90 percent lower levels of the measured analytes than the snus study products. Against cigarette smoke, the gap was wider still: almost every comparator was substantially lower in the pouches.

On the GOTHIATEK benchmark specifically, none of the pouches tested exceeded the maximum allowable limits that Swedish Match set for snus — a standard the FDA treats as meaningful enough to underpin a modified-risk authorisation.

The study's conclusion is carefully worded: the results "support the hypothesis that exclusive use of ONPs might offer a potentially reduced risk alternative relative to continued smoking and comparable or even less risk than using snus."

Why the funding matters — and the study says so itself

This is where the article would be dishonest if it stopped at the numbers.

The funding declaration, published in full in the paper, states:

"British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd funded this study."

The competing-interests declaration adds that five of the six authors — S. Hadley, B. Zonnestein, J. Jeffery, Y. Nguyen and H. Digard — "were employees of BAT (Investments) Ltd at the time of the study," and that "British American Tobacco wholly owns Nicoventures Trading Limited, a subsidiary that manufactures many of the products evaluated in this paper." The sixth author, K. McAdam, is described as "an independent consultant who provides scientific support to British American Tobacco."

In practice, that means the study was designed, conducted, written and funded by the company whose own Velo pouches make up nine of the eleven commercial products tested. The zero-nicotine control was also non-commercial BAT material. This is not hidden — it is disclosed in line with journal policy — but it is the exact credibility problem that independent reviewers have flagged for years.

A February 2026 review in Frontiers in Oral Health, co-authored by University of Catania harm-reduction researcher Prof. Riccardo Polosa, made the point directly: "much of the available toxicological evidence comes from industry-funded studies," and called for independent toxicological assessment and standardised product testing. The BMC Chemistry paper, whatever the quality of its methods, is one more entry in that same ledger.

What independent science still owes the category

The findings are not implausible. They are consistent with the underlying chemistry: nicotine pouches contain no tobacco leaf, so they should not carry the tobacco-specific nitrosamines and most of the heavy-metal burden that leaf-derived products do. Earlier analyses — including a 2023 BMC Chemistry study of two pouch products and a 2021 characterisation in Drug and Chemical Toxicology — pointed the same direction, though with smaller panels and fewer products.

What is still missing is the thing only independent labs can provide: large-scale testing of competitor products (ZYN, On!, Alp, Loop, Siberia and others) bought blind from retail, run by researchers with no financial stake in the outcome, using the same 132-analyte panel. The current study tests mostly one company's own products against a narrow snus benchmark. That is useful internal data. It is not a category verdict.

It is also chemistry, not epidemiology. Lower toxicant levels are a reasonable proxy for lower risk, but they do not tell you what happens in a human mouth over twenty years. The same gap that applies to the oral-cancer question applies here: pouches have not existed long enough for long-term health outcomes to be measured.

What this means for people who use pouches

The practical takeaway is a risk-continuum frame, not a safety label. If you currently smoke, the chemistry suggests that switching entirely to pouches would sharply cut your exposure to the combustion-derived toxicants that drive smoking-related disease. If you use Swedish snus, the data suggests pouches may carry a comparable or somewhat lower toxicant load — though snus itself is already at the low end of the tobacco risk spectrum. If you do not use any nicotine product, this study is not a reason to start, because pouches remain addictive and their long-term effects are unmeasured.

And if you are evaluating pouch claims — whether from a manufacturer or a regulator — the question to ask is not only what the numbers say, but who paid to produce them.

---

Compare nicotine pouch brands and prices at PouchFinder.

SOURCES:

• Hadley S, Zonnestein B, Jeffery J, Nguyen Y, McAdam K, Digard H. "Toxicant contents of oral nicotine pouches: comparative quantitative analysis with Swedish snus and cigarette smoke." BMC Chemistry, 14 Aug 2026; 20:1895. DOI: 10.1186/s13065-026-01895-x. Open access: Springer Nature Link
• Azzopardi D, Liu C, Murphy J. "Chemical characterization of tobacco-free 'modern' oral nicotine pouches and their position on the toxicant and risk continuums." Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 2021. DOI: 10.1080/01480545.2021.1925691. Taylor & Francis
• La Rosa GRM, Samaranayake LP, Zaura E, Chapple I, Polosa R. "Nicotine pouches, oral cancer and tobacco harm reduction: current evidence and research priorities." Frontiers in Oral Health, 9 Feb 2026; 7:1761734. DOI: 10.3389/froh.2026.1761734. PMC12926464