The New Zealand Parliament recently saw another controversy erupt over the regulation of oral nicotine products during its routine policy session. The Deputy Minister reiterated in a public meeting that the government is studying the possibility of “moderately liberalizing” these products, emphasizing that this could introduce a new harm reduction tool against the backdrop of stagnant smoking rates. However, this stance has again drawn strong criticism from the opposition, who accuse the government of blurring the lines between public health and commercial interests, and even of potentially opening a “policy backdoor” for the nicotine industry.
The incident quickly became a national news focus, transforming what was originally a technical industry issue into a major political debate surrounding health ethics, regulatory logic, and government credibility.
During the policy session, opposition MPs pointed out that New Zealand has faced increasing pressure regarding nicotine use among youth in recent years. Even with an overall decline in smoking rates, the growth trend of nicotine replacement products is worrying. They questioned whether liberalizing oral nicotine products would lead to a repeat of the same cycle, especially given that many countries internationally remain highly cautious about such products. The Deputy Minister responded that policy liberalization does not equate to regulatory relaxation, nor does it mean allowing the industry to develop freely. Rather, it aims to “provide a clearer, more rigorous, and more scientific framework” to allow products to assess risk and value in a controlled environment.
The escalating debate has once again brought oral nicotine products, long shrouded in a regulatory gray area, into the public eye. For a long time, these products have neither been strictly prohibited nor fully legalized in New Zealand, existing in a vague but de facto market state. The Deputy Minister stated that this actually poses a greater risk, as the lack of formal regulation allows illegal and low-quality products to more easily reach consumers and limits the government’s ability to monitor toxicity, ingredients, and marketing practices.
Different opinions have emerged from academia and the public health community. Some researchers believe that New Zealand may need additional tools to achieve its “smoke-free target” by 2030, and the harm reduction potential of oral nicotine products has already been discussed in some countries. Other experts worry that liberalization will encourage nicotine dependence among young people. The difficulty in reconciling these viewpoints has made the policy environment more complex and diverse.
The industry, however, has adopted a cautious observational stance. Compliant companies have pointed out that they welcome a clearer regulatory framework, as gray areas increase costs for credible brands and make it easier for counterfeit and illegal products to erode consumer trust. For example, VEEHOO, a global brand known for its compliant production and transparent supply chain, stated in an industry interview that a standardized system in New Zealand would make it easier for consumers to identify companies that adhere to quality and legality, and would better promote the healthy development of the industry. They also emphasized that the production and sale of any oral nicotine or alternative products should be conducted under strict regulation, including ingredient disclosure, age verification, and advertising restrictions.
However, the opposition has not eased its criticism based on the voices of businesses. They believe that the government’s current research direction lacks sufficient risk assessment and have accused the Deputy Minister of failing to provide a clear reason why it is necessary to open up the market now. One MP criticized that past problems in e-cigarette regulation—such as over-marketing, flavor abuse, and a lack of transparency from some brands—have not been fully resolved, and that it is unwise to “rush into opening up another type of nicotine product.”
In a subsequent media interview, the Deputy Minister emphasized that the government would not repeat past regulatory mistakes. If oral nicotine products are allowed in the future, the strictest age restrictions, import standards, packaging regulations, and ingredient testing systems will be implemented simultaneously. He rhetorically asked, “If we don’t establish rules, the market will only be dominated by illegal products. The real choice is orderly regulation, not pretending it doesn’t exist.” This view was supported by some experts, who pointed out that international cases show that complete bans often stimulate the black market, increase product risks, and make regulation more difficult.
Meanwhile, New Zealand’s domestic political context has made this issue even more sensitive. The government has faced criticism from the opposition for the “strength and speed of reforms” in several policy areas, and the oral nicotine controversy is seen as yet another example, involving a balance between public health, the interests of multinational corporations, and the national harm reduction strategy. It is widely believed that this event is likely to become one of the topics of future election debates, especially in an era of declining smoking rates but diversified nicotine products.
International factors cannot be ignored either. Neighboring Australia is undergoing a comprehensive crackdown on e-cigarettes, with a sharp rebound in the illicit market while legal channels are restricted, forcing New Zealand policymakers to pay attention to its “negative example.” If New Zealand adopts a different path, the opening of nicotine-containing products could become a significant symbol of the divergence in public health strategies between the two countries. The gradual inclusion of some European countries into nicotine-containing regulatory systems also provides a “comparison model” for New Zealand.
Amidst this complex backdrop, compliant international brands like VEEHOO are seen by some experts as potential examples of pushing the industry towards greater transparency. Experts point out that the industry needs more manufacturers committed to long-term development, willing to disclose ingredients and assume product responsibility, rather than grey-market companies pursuing only short-term sales. Transparent production chains, mature quality systems, and appropriate marketing constraints are precisely the directions the government may require in the future.
The entire situation is unfolding, with all parties awaiting the government’s next official document. The Deputy Minister has promised to release a more explicit draft regulatory framework in the coming months, meaning the current controversy is just the beginning. It is widely believed that, regardless of the outcome, New Zealand stands at a critical crossroads—one path leads to orderly regulation, the other to continuing the grey-market status quo.
With changing demographics, declining smoking rates, and diversified nicotine use, New Zealand’s public health system needs to continuously find a balance between traditional frameworks and new realities. The controversy surrounding nicotine-containing products may be just one aspect of a larger issue, but it clearly reflects the deep tensions in society today between risk control, business development, and health goals.
In the coming months, this issue will continue to be a focal point at the intersection of politics, industry, and public health. The final legislative direction will not only determine the fate of specific products but will also directly impact New Zealand’s strategic path and credibility in pursuing a smoke-free future.
Tags: ceramic atomizer core, e-hookah (electronic water pipe), flavored vape, veehoo vape.