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.'
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'Our landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill will ban the sale of nicotine pouches to under-18s and stop vapes and nicotine products from being deliberately promoted and advertised to children.
'The Bill will place nicotine pouches under the same advertising restrictions as tobacco and provides powers to regulate their nicotine limits, flavours, packaging and how they are displayed.
'It will stop the next generation from getting hooked on nicotine and put an end to the cycle of addiction and disadvantage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
What is MRSA? Symptoms and how to avoid deadly infection after rise in UK cases
There has been a sharp rise in cases of the superbug MRSA being contracted outside hospitals across the UK. Britons have been urged to avoid sharing items such as towels or razors, particularly in gyms and leisure centres where the bacteria has been spreading. Figures show that 175 people were infected with MRSA in the community between January and March this year – a 47 per cent increase on the 119 cases recorded during the same period in 2019. At the same time, those contracting MRSA have been getting younger. Nearly a quarter of community-onset cases in 2023–24 were recorded in people under 45, compared with just one in 10 in 2007 to 2008. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said it was 'too early' to know if this rise represents a lasting change, but it added that infection rates are being closely tracked. Here, The Independent takes a look at what MRSA is, what the symptoms are, and how to get treated for it: What is MRSA? According to the NHS, MRSA (meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is a type of bacteria that usually lives harmlessly on the skin. However, if it gets inside the body, it can cause a serious infection that requires immediate treatment with antibiotics. The UKHSA explains that Staphylococcus aureus is commonly found on human skin and mucosa (the moist, inner lining of some organs and body cavities). In many cases, it causes no problems. But when it enters the body, through broken skin or a medical procedure, it can lead to illnesses ranging from infected eczema and abscesses to pneumonia, joint infections, or bloodstream infections. Most strains of S. aureus can be treated with standard antibiotics, the NHS says, but MRSA is resistant to meticillin and often requires alternative drugs. What are the symptoms of MRSA? The NHS says that many people carry MRSA on their skin without showing symptoms. Problems only arise if the bacteria cause an infection. If MRSA spreads deeper into the body, it can cause more severe symptoms such as: High temperature Chills Dizziness or confusion Breathing difficulties How is MRSA treated? The treatment of MRSA depends on how serious the infection is. Mild MRSA infections may be managed with antibiotic tablets, the NHS says. However, for more severe infections, hospital treatment may be needed. This often involves antibiotics delivered through an injection or a drip. Courses of antibiotics can last from several days to several months, depending on the severity of the infection, according to the NHS. In cases where abscesses or collections of pus form, surgery may be required to drain the infected area. How can MRSA be prevented? The NHS advises that people staying in hospitals or care homes face a higher risk of MRSA, especially if they are undergoing surgery. Visitors are urged to follow strict hygiene instructions, including washing or sanitising their hands. The spread outside of hospital and care settings can be reduced through everyday hygiene measures: Before surgery, patients may be offered an MRSA screening test, the NHS says. This involves taking swabs from the nostrils, mouth or groin. If MRSA is detected, a short course of antibacterial cream, shampoo and body wash is usually prescribed to clear the bacteria before the procedure. The NHS says MRSA can affect anyone, but some people face a higher risk, including those who: The UKHSA warns that while most infections can be treated, resistant strains such as MRSA present more challenges, making prevention and monitoring vital.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Police used ‘Orwellian' powers to gag firefighter in free speech row
Police used 'Orwellian' powers to gag a firefighter and prevent him revealing he had been arrested after posting online messages criticising his bosses. Staffordshire Police told Robert Moss that his right to 'freedom of expression' had to be 'limited to maintain public safety and order' following his arrest on suspicion of malicious communications. But a special bail hearing at Newcastle-Under-Lyme magistrates' court overturned the 'gagging clause' amid fears officers were behaving as if they lived in a 'police state'. Now Mr Moss, who was never charged with a crime but had his home raided, said he believes 'heavy-handed' police were 'weaponised' to silence him. It is the latest example of claims that some police forces are using draconian powers to curtail freedom of speech. Mr Moss, 56, had worked for the Staffordshire fire and rescue service for 28 years before being sacked in 2021, shortly after he became the Fire Brigade Union's secretary for the county. Two years later, an employment tribunal found the service had unfairly dismissed him from his job on the grounds of capability. The father-of-one continued to offer advice to firefighters in a private Facebook group where he made a number of comments that were critical of the fire service's management. Speaking from his home in Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Mr Moss insisted the messages, seen by The Telegraph, were 'anodyne' and 'certainly not criminal'. After a 7am police raid in July in which officers seized two telephones, an iPad and computer, Mr Moss, a former Labour councillor, said he felt like a criminal. He was given bail with six conditions, which included prohibitions on posting any communication, online or otherwise, relating to the county's fire service, its chief and deputy chief fire officers, and posting messages relating to the police investigation. Tom Beardsworth, a barrister hired by the Free Speech Union (FSU), told the court Mr Moss was a man of good character who should have been dealt with by a voluntary interview rather than a police raid. Although he did not challenge four of the bail conditions, which prevented Mr Moss from contacting or communicating with Rob Barber, the Staffordshire fire chief officer, and his deputy Glynn Luznyj, Mr Beardsworth argued that two conditions limited his freedom of speech. 'A deep threat to the right of free expression' He told magistrates: 'These allow the police to arrest and detain someone and then when they are released prevent them from telling others what had happened with the threat of further arrest if they do not comply. 'We do not live in a police state and Mr Moss should have every right to speak about his arrest. 'For the police to prohibit an arrested person from speaking about their arrest is extraordinary and Orwellian, and it is not hyperbole to put it in those terms. 'This is a deep threat to the right of free expression and it engages real matters of high principle.' He quoted the College of Policing guidance on 'pre-charge bail', which said conditions should only be imposed where necessary, and referred to a police briefing note that said the conditions were 'limiting' freedom of expression to 'maintain public health and order'. DC Isobel Holliday, the arresting officer, insisted the bail conditions were 'proportionate' because Mr Moss's posts had been 'malicious and reckless', denying that requiring him not to talk about the fire service until a September bail hearing was 'unnecessary' and 'gagging'. Paul Tabinor, the chairman of the magistrates' bench, ruled that Mr Moss could post messages about the fire service and scrapped the ban on him making any posts relating to the police investigation. Mr Moss said: 'I feel strongly that under a joint police and fire commissioner the police and fire services are hand-in-glove and the fire service had weaponised the police to silence me. 'I was a critic of Staffordshire fire service and I had been gagged from saying anything about individuals there, the service itself and my arrest. That is a breach of my human rights.' Sam Armstrong, the FSU's legislative affairs director, said: 'In the more than 4,000 cases the Free Speech Union has handled, this is amongst the most egregious abuses of state power we have encountered. 'Robert's comments were not crimes, his arrest was not lawful and the police have been acting like the Stasi, not a constabulary. Staffordshire Police's chief constable must urgently end this investigation and apologise to Mr Moss before he finds himself writing an even bigger cheque than he already will have to.' A spokesman for Staffordshire Police said: 'We arrested a 56-year-old man, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, on Tuesday 8 July, on suspicion of harassment without violence, sending communication/article of an indecent/offensive nature and knowingly/recklessly obtain or disable personal data without consent of the controller. The man has been released on conditional bail as our enquiries continue.' A Staffordshire Fire and Rescue spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment while legal proceedings are active. It's not against the law to criticise someone in authority. Not yet, anyway By Lord Young On the face of it, Staffordshire Police's efforts to gag a critic of the Staffordshire fire and rescue service are quite shocking. Robert Moss, a former firefighter and Labour councillor, was arrested last month under suspicion of having committed an offence under the Malicious Communications Act. That in itself was quite heavy-handed, given that his alleged 'crime' was to have criticised the fire service's management in a private Facebook chat. But the really sinister thing – which Mr Moss's barrister describes as 'Orwellian' – was that his bail conditions included a gagging order, stopping him from saying anything more about his former employer, either online or offline. Thankfully, with the help of the Free Speech Union (FSU), the organisation I run, he managed to get this order removed and he's now free to say what he thinks about his former employer. He is still under investigation, but I'd be amazed if he's charged with a criminal offence, given that it's not against the law in this country to criticise someone in authority. Not yet, anyway. The reason I'm not shocked by this case is because it fits a pattern of the police over-reacting to social media posts, often at the behest of people who feel they've been unfairly criticised. Earlier this year, the FSU helped Julian Foulkes, a retired special constable who had his home in Kent raided by six police officers after he got into a spat with a pro-Palestinian activist on X. After commenting on the 71 year-old's 'Brexity' books, the officers arrested him, confiscated his electronic devices, took him to the station in handcuffs, locked him in a cell for eight hours, then interviewed him under suspicion of having committed a Malicious Communications Act offence, only releasing him after he agreed to accept a caution. With the FSU's help, Mr Foulkes managed to secure a pay-out of £20,000 from Kent Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, as well as an apology from the Chief Constable. We are trying to get comparable compensation from Hertfordshire Police for the arrest of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, two parents whose home was raided by six officers from Hertfordshire Police following 'disparaging' comments in a WhatsApp group about the management of their child's school, as well as critical emails they'd sent to the headteacher. They were detained in front of their young daughter before being fingerprinted, searched and left in a police cell for eight hours. Like Robert Moss, they were interviewed under suspicion of having committed a Malicious Communications Act offence. According to custody data obtained by The Times, the police are currently arresting more than 30 people a day over 'offensive' posts on social media and other platforms. In total, police are detaining around 12,000 people a year under suspicion of committing just two speech offences, up from about 5,500 in 2017. At the FSU, we received a surge in requests for help following the investigation into Allison Pearson for a year-old tweet and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, who wrongly blamed the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport on an illegal immigrant in an intemperate social media post. Several dozen people have been prosecuted for various speech offences in connection with the Southport attacks, including one man who spent eight weeks in jail for sharing a meme suggesting a link between migrants and knife crime, a case that was singled out in the US State Department's recent report on the erosion of free speech in Britain. Of the people who are arrested for speech offences, only a fraction end up being convicted. For instance, in 2023 fewer people were convicted for breaching section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act and section 127 of the Communications Act than in 2017, when the number of arrests was much lower. This suggests the police are being over-zealous in their pursuit of thought criminals, with the data revealing that only about one in 20 of those arrested under suspicion of committing these two offences end up being sentenced. But that's scant comfort to those who find themselves under police investigation, particularly when the bail conditions interfere with their right to freedom of expression. In many cases, when the police decide to take no further action the nightmare isn't over since the episode is then logged as a 'non-crime hate incident', with the FSU estimating that more than a quarter of a million of these have been recorded since 2014. These can show up on enhanced criminal record checks, preventing people getting jobs as teachers or carers or securing a firearms licence. It's becoming increasingly clear that the police need a 'reset' when it comes to online speech offences. They should stop policing our tweets and focus on policing our streets.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public think Labour will use new online laws for censorship
New laws will be used by the Government to censor content posted online, a majority of the public believe. There is strong backing for the aims of the Online Safety Act to protect children from online harms but deep scepticism about the consequences for people's privacy and whether it will work in practice, a major poll of more than 2,000 adults by Ipsos has revealed. While 69 per cent supported age verification for platforms hosting harmful content, half of those polled were not confident it will stop under-18s accessing it, according to the poll, published exclusively today by The Telegraph. More than six in 10 (61 per cent) believe the Act will lead to personal data being compromised and a similar proportion (58 per cent) expected increased government censorship. More than four in 10 say it will threaten free speech online. It follows The Telegraph's disclosure of a secretive 'spy' unit which has been used by the Government to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two tier policing'. Last week the US state department criticised the Online Safety Act over its potential impact on free speech as it warned the British Government had 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech' after the Southport attack. The Act also sparked a political row after Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to repeal the Act as a threat to free speech, prompting Labour to accuse him of being on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile. Keiran Pedley, Ipsos director of UK politics, said the poll exposed a 'significant paradox in public opinion'. 'While there is a clear and broad desire to protect children online, reflected in the strong support for age verification, this is matched by deep-seated scepticism about whether the Act can deliver on its promises,' he said. 'Data breaches and the potential for censorship are highlighted, as the public doubt these measures will be effective against tech-savvy young people. This creates a major challenge for platform operators and regulator, Ofcom: how to implement robust age assurance systems that the public actually trusts and is willing to use.' Nearly half (48 per cent) believe the Act will enable parents to better protect their children from online harms and 46 per cent said it will enable adults to more easily block inappropriate material. However, 44 per cent believe it will limit free speech online, against 40 per cent who do not. A similar proportion (43 per cent) fear it will limit adults' access to 'non-harmful' information online. Half of those polled (48 per cent) said they would be likely to submit proof of age to access a platform or website, against 30 per cent who would not. However, this dropped to 14 per cent for porn sites and 19 per cent for dating apps. More than half (56 per cent) were comfortable with using their email as proof of age but the public drew a line at financial information, with fewer than one in five saying they would use a credit card or banking information. Almost seven in 10 Britons (69 per cent) believed it would be easy for children and young people to get around safeguarding procedures by social media platforms. More than half (51 per cent) feared that it would lead to children using less safe parts of the internet such as the dark web. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) admitted that they used a VPN when browsing the internet, a technology that enables users to encrypt their communications and hide their IP address. A similar proportion (22 per cent) said they had considered or downloaded a VPN since the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Despite this, four in 10 (40 per cent) believed the Act would prevent children and under 18s from seeing illegal or harmful material, although 52 per cent did not believe it would. While 37 per cent believed the legislation would make platforms and websites remove harmful and illegal content, 51 per cent did not.
