Cherry-picking research specifics has always been the bane of researchers, authors, and corporations, and when we consider nicotine, the same nexus of controversy exists. How do we clear it up, and how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? That is the task all of us must engage in to be sure we’re choosing wisely.

When corporations begin expounding on the positive side of nicotine and fail to mention, equally, the dangers, we must be ever vigilant. This, of course, applies, especially when younger individuals are the target audience for these products. Want an example? Think of vaping, which is not without its dangers of inhaling dangerous materials directly into the lungs.

Of course, we know that nicotine has a role in cognition, but is it such a significant role that to deny someone nicotine's benefits would be unacceptable? Is nicotine vital for cognition? Doubtless, it does have a role within specific biologically-determined guidelines set by our bodies’ needs.

Nicotine is a natural product found in our bodies, and, in fact, we do have receptors that naturally respond to nicotine. Therefore, it is not alien to us, but when we introduce excess nicotine, what happens? And the mode of introduction may have an impact on our health.

Much of the research, in the past, has concentrated on cigarette smoking and nicotine's effect, or the impact on lung and stomach cancers. However, we've come a long way, but not far enough. New products are producing nicotine in ways that can be both addictive and dangerous to health, but they are emphasizing cognitive benefits. I find this disingenuous and an apt example of cherry picking.

Anti-smoking campaigns have been directed at adults and, more recently, at younger smokers. But cigarettes are not the only products, as I've mentioned, that deliver nicotine directly into the body via the lungs and stomach. We have had nicotine pouches for years, and, unfortunately, some prominent sports figures have been known to use these.

Placing the pouch between the cheek and jaw releases nicotine and, in some cases, a sweetener as a stimulant. Still, it also has another horrifying effect – jaw cancer, which can result in head and neck cancer and death. We must ask ourselves how any such product could be used within safe limits.

But it's not just the head and neck that this nicotine will affect, because major cancer centers across the United States have indicated that nicotine can affect brain development, cardiovascular issues, as well as oral health.

In accordance with the requirements of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that at least one marketed item fulfilled the public health standard. Under this criterion, the products’ potential advantages and harms to the general public are taken into account. Shouldn't this be considered a recreational product rather than one that is needed? If that's the case, motivation is the issue, and advertising and promotion will push these products to an eagerly anticipating younger public.

The evaluation by the agency found that the authorized products have a lower risk of cancer and other serious health conditions compared to cigarettes and most smokeless tobacco products, including moist snuff, because they contain substantially fewer harmful constituents. Note the word "fewer." Furthermore, the applicant presented research that demonstrated a significant percentage of adult smokers and/or users of smokeless tobacco products made the transition to the newly allowed nicotine pouch products.

Please note that whenever we are using consumer opinion research materials, the subjectivity is shaky in terms of validity regarding what is being researched. And, what's more, the questions are also open to reasonable concern. Phrasing and positioning of questions is everything.

The reasoning here does not present a solid belief that these products are totally safe. Note they indicated that they had a lower risk of cancer and other serious health conditions. It did not indicate that the risk of cancer wasn't present, only that it was lowered. Therefore, we can assume, that cancer is still one of the resulting health concerns from using these products.

Making the Case for Nicotine

There is no question that nicotine does have a notable effect on the brain and, possibly, not only working memory, but attention span. This would make it highly attractive, especially to students.

Studies with cigarette smoking are primarily where we receive this information. Smoking may affect levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), according to these studies. To this day, we still do not know how nicotine modifies brain chemistry and how nicotine specifically impacts BDNF and cognition.

An interesting result of one of the studies was that cognitive performance was negatively impacted as BDNF levels declined following extended nicotine abstinence. If we consider this crucial, it would suggest that the promotion of continued use of nicotine products is advantageous. As it is in any addiction, the withdrawal of the product leads to negative results in terms of mood and memory.

Overall, we must consider the potential dangers of anything that we use from hair dyes, food, colorings, medications, and recreational products such as nicotine-based materials. But when it comes to influencing younger users, we have a moral obligation to them to provide guidance, information, and involvement in any FDA approvals.