More and more children aware of nicotine pouches, charity warns
The pouches, which contain addictive nicotine and often sweeteners and flavourings, can be bought cheaply and are frequently used as a tobacco substitute.
There is currently a lack of evidence on the health effects of the pouches, which are placed under the top lip. The current law means people of any age can also buy them.
In February, trading standards teams in Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Dorset warned they were seeing a 'significant growth' in illegal versions containing potentially dangerous levels of nicotine.
A new YouGov survey commissioned by the charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) has found a growing awareness of nicotine pouches among under-18s – rising from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025.
Almost 4% of teenagers also report trying the pouches, according to the poll of 2,746 youngsters aged 11 to 17.
Ash data also shows that between 2023 and 2025, nicotine pouch use has increased among younger adults aged 18 to 34.
Some 2.6% of 18 to 34-year-olds currently use them, compared to 0.2% of those aged over 55.
Ash said that while nicotine pouches are less harmful than smoking, there are currently no limits on the strength of the nicotine, and few controls over their marketing and advertising.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is currently going through Parliament which will ban the advertising and sponsorship of all vapes and other nicotine products (such as nicotine pouches) and ban all vapes and nicotine products (and non-nicotine vapes) from being sold to under-18s.
Conservative MP Bob Blackman, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Smoking and Health, said: 'Many of the big nicotine pouch brands are owned by tobacco companies with decades of experience targeting our children.
'The longer it takes for this Government to regulate, the more time the tobacco industry has to promote their products to the next generation.'
Ash said the Government must now prioritise the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of Ash, said: 'The surge in teen awareness and growing levels of use in young adults over the last two years indicates that the industry's marketing strategies are working.
'Products are highly promoted in shops and on social media with football stars and male influencers used to further raise their profile.
'Nicotine pouches are very likely to be less harmful than smoking. However, they must be properly regulated.'
Tobacco and vapes lead for Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Kate Pike, said: 'I hear from trading standards teams across the country who are getting reports from concerned citizens who have seen teenagers being sold these products.
'However, there is no action we can take until the law is changed as no offence is being committed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Man with rare blood type makes 100th donation
A man with a rare blood type who made his 100th donation this year is encouraging others to give blood. Robert Boocock, from York, has been donating his rare B-negative blood for 40 years, after being inspired by his uncle, also a long-term donor. The 61-year-old is one of fewer than 20,000 B-negative blood donors in England, according to NHS Blood and Transplant. The NHS said it had lost almost 1,000 B-negative donors in the last year - or 5% of the B-negative donor base. When Mr Boocock was 21 and working for his uncle, he asked why he would regularly donate blood. "I hadn't realised that when I was quite young, my auntie had an operation that went slightly wrong, and she needed over 20 units of blood to make it through," he said. "That got me thinking, that's 20 people that can only donate once every few months. "I thought, I've got spare in my body, so why don't I volunteer?" 'Not going to stop' By donating over the years, Mr Boocock found out that his blood was suitable for newborns, who can only be transfused with blood lacking cytomegalovirus (CMV), a mild and common virus that most people catch as a child. "Occasionally when I donate, they say this one will be going to the neonatal ward," the donor said. "That's quite a nice thought that it's going straight to a little baby perhaps that doesn't know they need it." The NHS has appealed for younger donors to give blood, as up to 200,000 new donors are needed each year to replace those who stop donating. "I liken donating blood to a bank account, basically," Mr Boocock said. "Unless you put some in, how could you rely on there being some there when you may need it?" After 73 donations, his uncle had to stop for health reasons - which encouraged Mr Boocock to keep going. "Once I passed that, I thought, I'm not going to stop now. Let's see how many I can keep going with, until I no longer can," he said. "Hopefully that will be for many years to come." Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. Related Internet links NHS Blood and Transplant
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Cranswick Muscles Up
Morning, I'm Louise Moon Social media health obsessions in recent years have spanned 'clean eating', superfoods and, lately, protein intake. That's helping Cranswick muscle up.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Voices: There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet
Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules. I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn. A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money. Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens." It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.' A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.' Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason. Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one. Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance. Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south. Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested. Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party. I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'. Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the 'family farms tax'. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.
