Lucy—Novel Flavored Nicotine Gum, Lozenges, and Pouches: Are They Misleading Consumers?

Abstract

Background:

The packaging and marketing of nicotine gums, lozenges, and pouches can influence users’ perceptions about which products are evidence-based for tobacco cessation and which are designed for nicotine maintenance—which could keep people nicotine dependent. Lucy, a company that produces flavored nicotine gums, lozenges, and pouches, could cause confusion by mimicking the packaging of traditional chewing gum and using similar marketing for its approved smoking cessation products and non-approved products.

Methods:

This commentary describes Lucy’s marketing practices that could prolong nicotine dependence rather than aid cessation.

Results:

Lucy’s marketing as “FDA approved for smoking cessation” (true for the lozenges but not the gum or pouches) and “PMTA [Premarket Tobacco Product Application] accepted” could create a false narrative of regulatory acceptance. Its scientific conference presentations could imply that it is endorsed by the scientific community. Its colorful pack design, emphasizing flavors and minimizing nicotine warnings, may attract youth and non-nicotine-users to initiate nicotine use.

Conclusion:

Lucy’s promotion of its products as safe alternatives to other forms of tobacco, its packaging that recalls innocuous chewing gum, and its use of social media to advertise its products should be explored by researchers and considered by policymakers for potential population-level health effects.

Oral nicotine products, including nicotine gums, lozenges, and pouches, are available at retail stores and on the internet. Some of these products–nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)–are FDA-approved for smoking cessation and are intended to wean smokers away from nicotine dependence by slowly decreasing the nicotine dose (e.g., Nicorette, Habitrol, and generic forms of these products labeled as “Nicotine Gum” or “Nicotine Lozenge”) (Hartman-Boyce et al., 2018). Other oral nicotine products do not have an evidence base for smoking cessation and are not FDA-approved for this purpose. Some of these products are marketed as “smoking alternatives”—products that deliver a dose of nicotine to prevent withdrawal symptoms in situations where smoking or vaping are not allowed or desirable. However, customers might have difficulty understanding which oral products are evidence-based smoking cessation products and which are not.

Nicotine and tobacco companies have a long history of marketing nicotine products that look and taste like food (e.g., e-cigarette liquids that resemble candy) (FDA, 2022a), and food companies have marketed food products that mimic tobacco products (e.g., candy cigarettes, shredded chewing gum in pouches resembling smokeless tobacco) (Klein & Clair, 2000). Tobacco companies have packaged oral nicotine products to resemble smokeless (chewing) tobacco in round, pocket-sized containers, and NRT companies have introduced similar containers for their products (Apollonio & Glantz, 2017; Kostygina et al., 2016). This could lead to confusion among consumers about which products are evidence-based for nicotine cessation and which are designed for nicotine maintenance—to keep people nicotine dependent.

Lucy Goods, a recent entry to the nicotine product marketplace, exacerbates this issue by mimicking the packaging of traditional chewing gum (see Figure 1). In 2016, Lucy Goods entered the nicotine product marketplace (Lucy Goods, Inc., 2022) with a stated mission to “support every adult smoker in their journey to eliminate combustible tobacco from their daily lives” (Lucy Goods, 2021). Lucy distributes lozenges, gum, and nicotine pouches primarily through an online subscription service. For $35.00 per month, consumers can order monthly deliveries of nine packs of 4 mg nicotine gum (10 pieces per pack) in pomegranate, wintergreen, and cinnamon flavors; three bottles of 4 mg lozenges (27 pieces per pack) in citrus, cherry ice, and mint flavors; or six cans of 4 mg, 8 mg, or 12 mg nicotine pouches (15 pouches per pack) in mango, cinnamon, wintergreen, cool cider, or espresso flavors. The user can order a “trial pack” of 30 pieces of gum for $5.00, which converts into a monthly subscription for $35.00 per month. Coupons for 10% discounts also appear on the website; low prices and discounts have been linked to youth use of other tobacco products (Kjeld et al., 2021). Lucy also recently added “Kapsel pouches”, which contain a liquid capsule that releases a bust of flavor when moistened in the mouth. This is reminiscent of Camel Crush, a cigarette that allowed the user to bite a capsule to release the preferred amount of menthol flavoring (Wackowski et al., 2018); FDA banned Camel Crush in 2015.

Figure 1.

Lucy nicotine gum packaging vs traditional chewing gum.

Although previous researchers have expressed concern that some NRT products’ packaging and branding have converged with smokeless tobacco product design (Kostygina et al., 2016), Lucy moves beyond this as a nicotine product whose branding and packaging are almost indistinguishable from traditional chewing gum. As shown in Figure 1, the flavor is prominently displayed on the front of each pack, but there are no front-of-package warning labels or even any mention of nicotine on the package’s front, which only says “4 mg per piece.” We believe that Lucy’s packaging similarities to chewing gum, lack of warning information, and noted dissimilarities to other smokeless tobacco products may attract youth and non-nicotine-users to initiate nicotine use. The company also claims that Lucy’s products will not appeal to youth (“Unlike certain vapes or other products, ours isn’t the sort coveted by underage users on social media”; Lucy Goods, 2022), but does not provide evidence or reasons why its colorful flavored products would not appeal to youth.

Lucy’s marketing statements, some of which might be technically accurate, could confuse consumers into thinking that all Lucy products are authorized by tobacco regulatory agencies and endorsed by the scientific community. In March 2021, Lucy published a press release stating, “Lucy Goods Inc. PMTA accepted for scientific review and key data accepted for publication by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT)” (PR Newswire, 2021). Lucy’s Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) was indeed submitted, but FDA has not authorized it. Potential customers who are unfamiliar with the Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) review process could perceive this as FDA’s endorsement of the products as safe and/or effective for smoking cessation. Lucy’s lozenge is registered by FDA as a generic of Nicotine polacrilex, which received approval as a smoking cessation medication decades ago. This FDA designation is for Lucy’s lozenges only, not its gums or pouches (FDA, 2022a 2022b). However, the similar logo, packaging, and branding across all Lucy products might obscure this fact from consumers and make the public perceive that all Lucy products are evidence-based smoking cessation products. Figure 2 shows the Lucy website, which presents its four products side by side, emphasizing the similarity of the four products and obscuring the fact that only the lozenges are approved for smoking cessation. Although other nicotine product manufacturers have submitted their lozenge-type products to FDA as tobacco products, Lucy is the only one that markets medicinal and non-medicinal nicotine products side-by-side.

Figure 2.

Side-by-side marketing of lozenges (approved for smoking cessation) with other oral nicotine products.

The statement that SRNT accepted Lucy’s data for publication implies that it has passed scientific review. In fact, SRNT merely allowed Lucy’s internal studies to be presented at their annual conference (based only on the abstracts, not a rigorous review of the research). This does not indicate that SRNT agreed with Lucy’s reduced harm or smoking cessation claims. The publicity about the acceptance of the conference presentations could easily be misread as an endorsement of the product. Later in 2021, SRNT amended its policies to prohibit tobacco company employees from presenting at its conference because other tobacco and nicotine companies were using the same misleading strategy (SRNT, 2022). However, the policy only applies to “commercial tobacco manufacturers,” which excludes nicotine that is not derived from the tobacco plant. This loophole could allow industry-sponsored research on synthetic nicotine products to be presented at the conference and touted as evidence of scientific legitimacy. Lucy’s claims may create a false narrative of regulatory and scientific acceptance among potential consumers.

Lucy has adopted a transmedia approach to marketing its products that may appeal to both adults and youth. The company maintains active social media accounts on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, a branded podcast entitled “How to Sell Drugs” (Apple Podcasts, 2019) as well as a branded blog that portrays nicotine gum as a less addictive nicotine delivery vehicle than combustible tobacco and suggests nicotine could be beneficial in pain relief, reducing inflammation, and curbing allergy symptoms (Lucy Blog, 2020). In addition, Lucy’s co-founders have proselytized the benefits of Lucy products through Medium, a thought leadership platform (Renteln, 2019) and two Reddit “AMA”s (Ask Me Anything) where adolescent or adult social media users could directly interact with one of the company’s executives (Coogan, 2022, Hamdouche, 2021). On one Reddit AMA, the Lucy executive deflected a question about addicting a new generation to nicotine by claiming that Lucy has a strict age verification process to prevent sales to minors and putting the onus back onto youth to abstain from nicotine: “If you’re under 21 and reading this…stop right now! You have your whole life ahead of you!!” However, a close inspection of the Lucy website reveals that customers can purchase Lucy without providing proof of age; they merely need a name, address, and credit card. Youth could use their parents’ credit card information, which some people save on their computers for convenience, to order the product. They also can pay with Google Pay, which could be saved on their computers for gaming or music subscriptions, and they can order Lucy products on any Amazon.com account.

The packaging, branding, and marketing of Lucy products seems to continue an industry trend to associate noncombustible nicotine products more closely with traditional retail products and less with other tobacco products. Lucy’s promotion of its products as safe alternatives to other forms of tobacco, its packaging that recalls innocuous chewing gum, its availability to youth, and its use of social media to advertise its products should be explored by researchers and considered by policymakers for potential population-level health effects moving forward. It is likely that the success of Lucy will cause other companies to use similar marketing techniques for oral nicotine products, with adverse effects on consumers.