Purchase Intent and Product Appeal of Velo Nicotine Pouches Among Current Tobacco Users and Nonusers of Tobacco
Published Online: Aug 10, 2023
Page range: 66 - 76
Received: Mar 28, 2023
Accepted: Jul 03, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cttr-2023-0009
Keywords
© 2023 Robert E. Freeland et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The health risks of cigarette smoking are well-established. Smokeless tobacco products have been offered as one possible avenue of harm reduction because they pose lower health risks than combustible cigarettes (1,2,3). Examples of oral smokeless tobacco products include snuff, snus (Swedish-style tobacco pouches), tobacco strips, sticks and orbs, and newer products that include tobacco-derived nicotine such as melts, chews, and nicotine pouches. Nicotine pouches, also referred to as tobacco-free, clean, or modern oral nicotine products, are one alternative product category that has seen rapid growth since becoming commercially available in 2015 (4, 5). In the U.S., retail scanner data indicate that sales of nicotine pouch products increased 300-fold from 163,178 units in 2016 to almost 46 million units sold through June 2020 (6).
Nicotine pouches are similar to snus in that they are an oral, spit-less product that is placed between the lip and gum, but they differ in that the pouches are not filled with tobacco. Instead, nicotine pouches typically contain pharmaceutical-grade nicotine and other food-grade additives including fillers, stabilizers, pH buffers, sweeteners, and flavorings (7, 8). Because nicotine pouches contain no tobacco, they typically have very low levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), heavy metals, and other harmful constituents typically found in tobacco-containing products, and therefore are likely to be associated with even lower risk to health than other non-combustible tobacco products like snus (8).
Given the similarities between nicotine pouches and snus, research on snus provides indications of the potential of smokeless oral pouch products for harm reduction strategies (9,10,11). Sweden has one of the lowest rates of smoking-related mortality in Europe despite having similar overall tobacco product use because Swedish tobacco consumers primarily use snus instead of combustible cigarettes (9, 12). In addition, reviews of the scientific evidence find that switching from cigarettes to snus is associated with a range of health benefits (9, 13, 14). By providing additional options of lower-risk products, nicotine pouches have the potential to increase switching by appealing to smokers generally, and smokers who may have tried and rejected other smokeless tobacco products. The combination of lower risk and growing popularity suggests that nicotine pouches could potentially play an important role in harm reduction strategies seeking to switch smokers to lower risk products. However, lower risk products are not risk-free. Therefore, any population health benefit derived from cigarette reduction or switching among smokers must be weighed against the potential for initiation among nonusers of tobacco because overall population health effects are predicated on who uses the products and how the products are used (15, 16). For that reason, before a new product can be issued a marketing granted order, the FDA must determine that it is appropriate for the protection of the public health (APPH) according to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole (17). This process includes the determination of the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products and the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products (including youth and young adults) will start using such products.
To predict use, theories of reasoned action posit that the likelihood of a person performing a behavior is most proximately indicated by their intention to perform the behavior (behavioral intention), which in turn is based on their perceptions (attitude, appeal, evaluation), normative beliefs, and perceived control towards that behavior (18, 19). This causal model progresses from knowledge, to appeal, to behavioral intention, and ultimately to behavior, with each prior stage a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for each subsequent stage. Consequently, the theory implies that the relationship between appeal and intent will be stronger among groups of people who are more likely to partake in the behavior (i.e., purchase) than among groups of people unlikely to do so. For example, if current tobacco users are more likely to purchase nicotine pouches than nonusers of tobacco, then correlations between product appeal and purchase intention would be expected to be greater for current tobacco users than for nonusers of tobacco.
Extensive research has been conducted on behavioral intentions and product appeal for e-cigarettes (20,21,22), but given the novelty of nicotine pouches, data remains limited. P
To determine whether purchase intent and product appeal are highest among current tobacco users and lower among nonusers of tobacco, as consistent with a population health benefit, this study reports population estimates of purchase intent and product appeal of multiple modern oral nicotine pouches across five tobacco user groups (current established cigarette smokers, current established non-cigarette tobacco users, current tobacco experimenters, former tobacco users, and never ever tobacco users). Reynolds American Services Company Inc. commissioned five online perception and intention studies between 2019 and 2021 to acquire a representative sample of U.S. adults to support premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) submitted to the FDA for their Velo nicotine pouch products.
Data for this research were obtained from five online surveys of Velo nicotine pouch products fielded between September 2019 and July 2021 in which the Velo nicotine pouches presented varied with respect to nicotine strengths (2 mg to 12 mg nicotine), available flavors (2 to 8 flavors), and size format (375 mg or 400 mg mini-pouches and 600 mg pouches). Consequently, the five surveys resulted in 12 independent analytic samples. (See Table 1 for details.).
Respondents were U.S. adults who were of legal age to purchase tobacco products at the start of each study. The federal minimum age to purchase tobacco products was raised from age 18 to age 21 on December 20, 2019. Consequently, samples 1 through 3 include respondents ages 18 to 75, whereas all other samples include respondents ages 21 to 75. Current or former users of Velo nicotine pouch products were excluded from the studies, as well as those who had participated in any tobacco research in the three months prior to data collection.
Overview of the five Velo nicotine pouches studies and the 12 analytic samples.
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||
| Consumer panels | Dynata | Precision Sample | Precision Sample | Dynata | EMI Research Solutions | |||||||
| Study fielded | September 20 to November 8, 2019 | November 11, 2019 to January 2, 2020 | November 11, 2019 to January 2, 2020 | June 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020 | May 24, 2021 to July 12, 2021 | |||||||
| ASES-CPS* | March 2018 | March 2018 | March 2018 | March 2019 | March 2020 | |||||||
| TUS-CPS** | July 2014, January 2015, and May 2015 | July 2014, January 2015, and May 2015 | July 2014, January 2015, and May 2015 | July 2014, January 2015, and May 2015 | July 2018, January 2019, and May 2019 | |||||||
| Analytic sample | 1a | 2a | 3a | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Number of nicotine strengths | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Number of flavors | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Packaging | Format A | Format A | Format A | Format B | Format B | Format B | Format C | Format C | Format C | Format C | Format C | Format C |
| Sample size (N) | 4062 | 4520 | 4506 | 4019 | 4038 | 4028 | 4068 | 4073 | 4069 | 4065 | 4066 | 4090 |
| Current established cigarette smokers (n) | 1005 | 1048 | 1047 | 1017 | 1028 | 1026 | 1018 | 1024 | 1021 | 1024 | 1027 | 1037 |
| Current established non-cigarette tobacco users (n) | 230 | 360 | 355 | 299 | 264 | 290 | 302 | 305 | 338 | 361 | 339 | 330 |
| Current tobacco experimenters (n) | 359 | 281 | 255 | 466 | 497 | 463 | 467 | 482 | 477 | 445 | 461 | 501 |
| Former tobacco users (n) | 1488 | 1797 | 1838 | 1414 | 1405 | 1420 | 1364 | 1366 | 1323 | 1295 | 1309 | 1316 |
| Never ever tobacco users (n) | 980 | 1034 | 1011 | 823 | 844 | 829 | 917 | 896 | 910 | 940 | 930 | 906 |
Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey
Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey
These analytic samples included respondents ages 18 to 75; all other samples included ages 21 to 75.
To provide sufficient sample to allow for population estimates, each of the 12 different samples consisted of approximately 4,000 respondents stratified by three cigarette user groups:
current established cigarette smokers (smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and smoked a cigarette on at least one day during the past 30 days); former established cigarette smokers (smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, but did not smoke any cigarettes in the past 30 days); and never established cigarette smokers (never smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime).
To allow for quota-sampling within cigarette user groups while still approximating prevalence in the population, the sample consisted of approximately 1,000 current established cigarette smokers, 1,000 former established cigarette smokers, and 2,000 never established cigarette smokers.
To ensure representativeness, respondents were quota-sampled within cigarette user group with respect to five key demographic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, and geographic region) within each of the three cigarette user groups, and the data were then weighted to the U.S. population using data from the U.S. Census, the most recent Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, and the most recent Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. When multiple samples were collected within a single study, respondents were assigned to a sample using an adaptive allocation minimization algorithm to ensure demographic variable balance across samples (23, 24).
Although sampling was based on cigarette use status, analyses were conducted based on tobacco use status that considered the full range of tobacco products, not only cigarettes. The data were analyzed based on the following five tobacco user groups:
current established cigarette smokers (smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and smoked a cigarette on at least one day in the past 30 days); current established non-cigarette tobacco users (used tobacco products other than cigarettes at least 100 times in their lifetime and used those products on at least one day in the past 30 days, but were not current established cigarette smokers); current tobacco experimenters (used one or more categories of tobacco products in the past 30 days but had not reached lifetime criterion of 100 uses of any of the products used in the past 30 days); former tobacco users (used one or more categories of tobacco products but had not used any tobacco product in the past 30 days); and never ever tobacco users (no use of any tobacco product, not even one time).
Study protocols and questionnaires were reviewed and approved or deemed exempt by an independent institutional review board prior to the conduct of each study, and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) were developed prior to data collection. These analyses were not part of those SAPs.
Adults who previously consented to participate in research were invited to take an online survey via email invitations, app notifications, and dashboard or portal invitations. Panel members who received an invitation and consented to participate were first administered a screening survey to assess demographic characteristics and tobacco use history to monitor quotas and establish eligibility. Consenting respondents proceeded to an online survey where they were shown an image of a nicotine pouch product, consisting of a single pouch size and nicotine strength in all available flavors. After viewing an image that included packaging, label, contents, and available flavors, respondents were then asked a series of questions about the product including purchase intent and product appeal ratings. Respondents had 24 hours to complete the survey; otherwise, the survey was terminated and their data were dropped.
Intent to purchase Velo nicotine pouches was assessed with the following question: “How likely are you to purchase [PRODUCT] for your own personal use?”, using a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely would not purchase it to use) to 10 (definitely would purchase it to use). The product appeal of Velo nicotine pouches was assessed by asking respondents “Please rate how appealing each of the following types of products is to you personally”, using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all appealing) to 7 (extremely appealing). In samples 1 and 2, respondents provided a single purchase intent rating for the product assuming availability in two nicotine strengths and were then randomly assigned to provide a product appeal rating for one of those strengths. In samples 3 through 12, all respondents provided a purchase intent rating and a product appeal rating for the same product.
This study provides descriptive statistics of purchase intent and product appeal ratings for the five tobacco user groups in the form of weighted means (with unweighted sample sizes) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as well as correlations between purchase intent and product appeal ratings within each tobacco user group. Descriptive analyses are provided and broad trends across the tobacco user groups are discussed. Data processing and analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4©.
Figure 1a displays mean purchase intent ratings and 95% CIs for each of the five tobacco user groups across all 12 samples and shows that purchase intent ratings for Velo nicotine pouches are higher among the three groups of current tobacco users, especially among current tobacco experimenters, compared to the two groups of nonusers of tobacco (i.e., former tobacco users and never ever tobacco users).
Figure 1.
Mean purchase intent and appeal ratings.
Table 2 provides the weighted purchase intent ratings and 95% CIs for each of the five tobacco user groups within each of the 12 samples and confirms the same pattern of results was observed for each sample. Among the five tobacco user groups, current tobacco experimenters provided the highest purchase intent ratings for Velo nicotine pouches, with values ranging from 3.7 to 5.7 on a 10-point scale. The ranges for purchase intent ratings among current established cigarette smokers (2.9 to 3.5) and current established non-cigarette tobacco users (2.6 to 3.5) were similar and slightly lower than the range of ratings among current tobacco experimenters. Former tobacco users (1.7 to 2.1) and never ever tobacco users (1.5 to 2.1) provided similar and much lower purchase intent ratings for Velo nicotine pouches.
Mean purchase intent ratings (and 95% confidence inte rvals) by tobacco user group within the 12 analytic samples.
| Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Sample 4 | Sample 5 | Sample 6 | Sample 7 | Sample 8 | Sample 9 | Sample 10 | Sample 11 | Sample 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current established cigarette smokers | 3.2 (3.0–3.5) | 3.5 (3.3–3.7) | 3.5 (3.3–3.7) | 3.2 (3.0–3.4) | 3.1 (2.9–3.3) | 3.1 (2.9–3.3) | 3.4 (3.2–3.6) | 3.1 (2.9–3.3) | 3.2 (3.0–3.4) | 3.0 (2.8–3.2) | 2.9 (2.7–3.1) | 3.1 (2.9–3.3) |
| Current established non–cigarette tobacco users | 2.9 (2.5–3.2) | 2.7 (2.4–3.0) | 3.0 (2.6–3.3) | 2.8 (2.5–3.2) | 2.8 (2.5–3.2) | 2.6 (2.2–2.9) | 3.1 (2.8–3.5) | 3.5 (3.1–3.8) | 3.0 (2.6–3.3) | 2.8 (2.5–3.2) | 3.0 (2.7–3.4) | 3.0 (2.6–3.3) |
| Current tobacco experimenters | 3.7 (3.3–4.0) | 3.9 (3.5–4.4) | 3.7 (3.3–4.1) | 5.7 (5.4–6.0) | 5.6 (5.2–5.9) | 5.6 (5.3–5.9) | 4.7 (4.4–5.1) | 5.0 (4.7–5.4) | 4.7 (4.3–5.0) | 4.9 (4.6–5.3) | 4.9 (4.6–5.2) | 4.8 (4.5–5.2) |
| Former tobacco users | 1.7 (1.6–1.8) | 1.7 (1.6–1.8) | 1.7 (1.6–1.8) | 2.0 (1.9–2.1) | 2.0 (1.8–2.1) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 1.9 (1.8–2.1) | 2.0 (1.9–2.2) | 1.9 (1.7–2.0) | 1.8 (1.7–1.9) | 1.9 (1.8–2.1) | 1.9 (1.8–2.0) |
| Never ever tobacco users | 1.6 (1.5–1.7) | 1.6 (1.5–1.7) | 1.5 (1.4–1.6) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 2.1 (1.9–2.2) | 1.6 (1.5–1.8) | 1.6 (1.5–1.7) | 1.6 (1.5–1.7) | 1.6 (1.5–1.8) | 1.6 (1.5–1.8) | 1.5 (1.4–1.6) |
Figure 1b displays mean product appeal ratings and 95% CIs for each of the five tobacco user groups across all 12 samples and shows a similar pattern of results to purchase intent ratings. Specifically, product appeal ratings for Velo nicotine pouches are higher among the three groups of current tobacco users (i.e., current established cigarette smokers, current established non-cigarette tobacco users, and current tobacco experimenters) than among nonusers of tobacco (i.e., former tobacco users and never ever tobacco users). Table 3 provides weighted mean product appeal ratings and 95% CIs for each of the five tobacco user groups in each of the 12 samples. Among the five tobacco user groups, current tobacco experimenters exhibited the highest average product appeal ratings for Velo nicotine pouches, with values ranging from 3.3 to 4.4 on a 7-point scale. The ranges for product appeal among current established cigarette smokers (2.9 to 3.4) and current established non-cigarette tobacco users (2.8 to 3.4) were similar and slightly lower than the range of ratings for current tobacco experimenters. Nonusers of tobacco, including former tobacco users (2.1 to 2.3) and never ever tobacco users (2.0 to 2.6), provided similar product appeal ratings to each other and these were lower than the range for current tobacco experimenters (3.3 to 4.4).
Mean product appeal ratings (and 95% confidence intervals) by tobacco user group within the 12 analytic samples.
| Sample 1* | Sample 2* | Sample 3 | Sample 4 | Sample 5 | Sample 6 | Sample 7 | Sample 8 | Sample 9 | Sample 10 | Sample 11 | Sample 12 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current established cigarette smokers | 3.1 (2.8–3.3) | 3.4 (3.1–3.6) | 3.3 (3.1–3.5) | 3.2 (3.0–3.4) | 3.3 (3.1–3.4) | 3.0 (2.8–3.1) | 3.1 (3.0–3.3) | 3.1 (3.0–3.3) | 3.2 (3.1–3.4) | 3.1 (2.9–3.3) | 3.0 (2.9–3.2) | 2.9 (2.8–3.1) | 2.9 (2.8–3.1) | 3.1 (3.0–3.3) |
| Current established non–cigarette tobacco users | 3.0 (2.6–3.4) | 2.8 (2.3–3.2) | 2.9 (2.6–3.3) | 3.0 (2.7–3.4) | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 2.8 (2.5–3.0) | 2.8 (2.5–3.1) | 2.8 (2.5–3.0) | 3.2 (2.9–3.5) | 3.4 (3.2–3.7) | 3.0 (2.7–3.2) | 3.1 (2.8–3.3) | 3.1 (2.8–3.3) | 3.0 (2.8–3.3) |
| Current tobacco experimenters | 3.3 (2.9–3.6) | 3.3 (2.9–3.6) | 3.3 (2.9–3.7) | 3.5 (3.1–3.9) | 3.4 (3.1–3.7) | 4.3 (4.1–4.5) | 4.3 (4.1–4.5) | 4.4 (4.2–4.6) | 3.8 (3.6–4.0) | 4.2 (4.0–4.4) | 3.9 (3.7–4.1) | 4.1 (3.9–4.3) | 4.0 (3.8–4.2) | 4.2 (4.0–4.4) |
| Former tobacco users | 2.2 (2.0–2.3) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 2.2 (2.0–2.3) | 2.2 (2.1–2.3) | 2.3 (2.1–2.4) | 2.3 (2.1–2.4) | 2.2 (2.1–2.3) | 2.1 (2.0–2.2) | 2.3 (2.1–2.4) | 2.2 (2.1–2.3) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 2.3 (2.1–2.4) | 2.2 (2.1–2.3) |
| Never ever tobacco users | 2.2 (2.0–2.4) | 2.3 (2.1–2.5) | 2.1 (1.9–2.3) | 2.1 (1.9–2.3) | 2.1 (2.0–2.2) | 2.5 (2.3–2.6) | 2.6 (2.4–2.7) | 2.5 (2.3–2.6) | 2.1 (1.9–2.2) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) | 2.1 (1.9–2.2) | 2.0 (1.9–2.1) | 2.0 (1.8–2.1) | 2.0 (1.9–2.1) |
To examine the relationship between purchase intent and product appeal, correlations between the purchase intent ratings and product appeal ratings were examined for the five tobacco user groups across each of the 12 samples. Table 4 shows that the correlations between purchase intent and product appeal among the three groups of respondents who currently use tobacco (current established cigarette smokers, current established non-cigarette tobacco users, and current tobacco experimenters) range from 0.52 to 0.72, indicating a large effect (25), and therefore a strong relationship between purchase intent and product appeal ratings. Correlations among former tobacco users (0.33 to 0.59) and never ever tobacco users (0.21 to 0.42) are generally lower, indicating a weaker relationship between purchase intent and product appeal compared to current tobacco users.
| Sample 1* | Sample 2* | Sample 3 | Sample 4 | Sample 5 | Sample 6 | Sample 7 | Sample 8 | Sample 9 | Sample 10 | Sample 11 | Sample 12 | Range | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current established cigarette smokers | 0.63 (502) | 0.63 (503) | 0.61 (524) | 0.65 (524) | 0.69 (1047) | 0.62 (1017) | 0.68 (1028) | 0.67 (1026) | 0.61 (1018) | 0.63 (1024) | 0.64 (1021) | 0.64 (1024) | 0.60 (1027) | 0.65 (1037) | 0.60–0.69 |
| Current established non-cigarette tobacco users | 0.57 (115) | 0.57 (115) | 0.63 (180) | 0.56 (180) | 0.68 (355) | 0.72 (299) | 0.63 (264) | 0.64 (290) | 0.63 (302) | 0.64 (305) | 0.69 (338) | 0.65 (361) | 0.68 (339) | 0.63 (330) | 0.56–0.72 |
| Current tobacco experimenters | 0.63 (179) | 0.58 (180) | 0.56 (141) | 0.58 (140) | 0.55 (255) | 0.56 (466) | 0.55 (497) | 0.63 (463) | 0.54 (467) | 0.62 (482) | 0.57 (477) | 0.60 (445) | 0.52 (461) | 0.53 (501) | 0.52–0.63 |
| Former tobacco users | 0.42 (744) | 0.33 (744) | 0.44 (899) | 0.37 (898) | 0.43 (1838) | 0.56 (1414) | 0.59 (1405) | 0.51 (1420) | 0.52 (1364) | 0.50 (1366) | 0.56 (1323) | 0.49 (1295) | 0.53 (1309) | 0.46 (1316) | 0.33–0.59 |
| Never ever tobacco users | 0.31 (490) | 0.27 (490) | 0.33 (517) | 0.21 (517) | 0.30 (1011) | 0.42 (823) | 0.41 (844) | 0.28 (829) | 0.31 (917) | 0.39 (896) | 0.35 (910) | 0.33 (940) | 0.37 (930) | 0.35 (906) | 0.21–0.42 |
For the product appeal question in samples 1 and 2, respondents were randomly assigned to see one of the two available nicotine strengths for Velo nicotine pouches, so that half of the respondents were asked to rate each one.
The aim of this study was to assess purchase intent and product appeal of modern oral nicotine pouches across five tobacco user groups (current established cigarette smokers, current established non-cigarette tobacco users, current tobacco experimenters, former tobacco users, and never ever tobacco users) to determine if patterns of purchase intent and product appeal are consistent with a public health benefit (i.e., higher intent and product appeal among current tobacco users and lower among nonusers of tobacco). The results indicate that current tobacco users, especially current tobacco experimenters, consistently expressed greater purchase intent and product appeal for modern oral nicotine pouches than nonusers of tobacco (i.e., former and never ever tobacco users), supporting the conclusion that modern oral nicotine pouches have the potential to become an important element of harm reduction strategies.
A similar pattern of results was observed in a study of ZYN pouches, in which ratings of likelihood to buy ZYN were far lower for former and never tobacco users than for groups of current tobacco users (7). In addition, these results are consistent with a study of snus, a smokeless pouch tobacco product, that also found purchase intent to be significantly higher among current smokers than former or never tobacco users (26).
Examining variability across samples, the consistency of the results suggests that characteristics of the product, including nicotine strength, product format, packaging, flavors, or number of flavors, had little to no impact on the pattern of either purchase intent or product appeal ratings across the tobacco user groups. These results, particularly that current tobacco users consistently expressed greater intent to purchase than nonusers of tobacco users, suggests that all versions of the product are appropriate for the protection of public health.
Consistent with predictions from the theory of reasoned action, the association between purchase intent and product appeal is strongest among the three groups of respondents who currently use tobacco (current established cigarette smokers, current established non-cigarette tobacco users, and current tobacco experimenters) compared to nonuser groups (former tobacco users and never ever tobacco users). Product appeal is highly correlated with purchase intent, suggesting that it is an important factor in predicting of use, but not so much as to be collinear. This suggests that product appeal and intent are distinct factors and that both should be considered when predicting future use.
This study has several strengths and limitations. Key strengths include the methodological rigor with which these studies were conducted, including large samples and quotas to allow meaningful tobacco user group analyses. Unlike P
The primary limitation is that the samples were drawn from internet panels and would not include respondents who do not have access to the internet or those who choose not to join the panel. Panel surveys have, however, become the industry standard, and have been used by FDA in its own research (e.g., 27, 28). In addition, as with virtually all other comparable tobacco-related studies, these studies categorized respondents based on self-reported data regarding tobacco use behavior. It is possible that respondents misrepresented their actual tobacco use behavior but given the confidential nature of the data collection methodology, they would have no known motivation to do so.
Product appeal and purchase intent ratings for Velo nicotine pouches are higher among current tobacco users compared to nonusers of tobacco (i.e., former tobacco users and never ever tobacco users). These results suggest that Velo nicotine pouches have the potential to play an important role in tobacco harm reduction.