Between your upper lip and your gum, to one side, and then leave it still. That is what the manufacturers who say anything at all recommend. What nobody can tell you is whether it matters: no study has ever compared nicotine uptake from one spot in the mouth against another.
I expected this to be a short page with a clear answer. It turned out to be a page about how little anybody actually knows. Four of the nine brands I checked publish no placement instruction at all; the ones that do disagree with each other; two peer-reviewed surveys of real users point in opposite directions; and the single most-quoted statistic on the subject — the FDA’s “44 per cent place them wrongly” — does not say what it is usually said to say.
If you just want the mechanics of a first pouch, where exactly to put your first pouch is the walkthrough. This page is about what the evidence does and does not support.
What the makers actually tell you
Every row below comes from the brand’s own website, read directly. Blanks are genuine: the maker publishes nothing.
| Brand | Where it says to put it | Stated time | Anything about side or height? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZYN (US) | “between your upper lip and gum” | “up to one hour” | No |
| ZYN (Sweden) | “Placera nikotinpåsen under läppen” — under the lip. No “upper” | “upp till en timme” | No |
| ZYN (UK) | No placement instruction retrievable | — | No |
| VELO (Sweden) | “under överläppen” — under the upper lip | 30 minutes | No |
| Nordic Spirit | “under your top or bottom lip” | “up to 30 mins” | Yes — “Position the pouch to the side of your lip for a more comfortable fit” |
| LOOP | Nothing published | — | No |
| Skruf | Nothing published | — | No |
| Pablo | Nothing published | — | No |
| Oden’s | Nothing published | — | No |
Three things fall out of that table.
The same brand changes its instruction between markets. ZYN’s American page says upper lip and gum. ZYN’s Swedish copy says only “under the lip”. Same company, same product family, same stated hour — and the word “upper” quietly disappears for the market that has been doing this longest.
One major brand explicitly sanctions the lower lip. Nordic Spirit’s three-step instruction is “Pop one of the soft, white nicotine pouches under your top or bottom lip”, and it is also the only brand anywhere that tells you where along the lip to put it. That positioning advice is offered as a comfort claim with no evidence attached, which is fine — it is the only such advice in existence.
Four brands say nothing whatsoever. For Skruf, Pablo and Oden’s I enumerated every page on the site: there is no how-to page and no FAQ. LOOP’s FAQ exists but is empty of placement guidance. And no official consumer site for on! was reachable at all, so I am not quoting one. If you bought one of those cans expecting instructions, the absence is real and not your fault.
What no brand in this set does — not one — is tell you to move the pouch, rotate it, change sides, or alternate placement between pouches.
What the FDA’s 44 per cent figure really says
This statistic is everywhere, and it is almost always misreported. Here is the whole sentence, from the FDA’s technical review of the ZYN applications, dated 13 January 2025:
“Misuse of the new products (i.e., being used in ways other than intended based on product labeling) was common among current U.S. users, including longer durations of use (80.7% reporting using the product >60 minutes always or sometimes), using more than one pouch (29.2% reporting using one pouch at a time only sometimes or never), and inappropriate placement in the mouth (44% reporting placement between the gum and upper lip only sometimes or never).”
Read the parenthesis at the front. The FDA’s definition of misuse is deviation from the applicant’s own labelling. It is a compliance-with-label measure, not a clinical finding. In the whole 68-page review, the phrase “upper lip” appears exactly once — inside that sentence. There is no discussion of placement anatomy, no absorption data by site, and no statement in the FDA’s own voice that the upper lip is correct for any physiological reason.
Two further pieces of context that almost never travel with the figure. First, the reviewers immediately dismissed its significance: “the incidence of product misuse does not raise concerns about increased abuse liability or addiction potential of the new products relative to smokeless tobacco products currently on the market.” Second, when the FDA described the product category in its own words in the press release announcing those authorisations, it wrote that pouches are “designed to be placed between a person’s gum and lip” — and omitted “upper”.
So: “the FDA says 44 per cent of users place pouches wrongly” is wrong. “The FDA, measuring use against the product’s own label, reported that 44 per cent do not always place it between the gum and upper lip” is right, and much less interesting.
Has anyone measured whether placement changes absorption?
No. This is the central finding of the page and it took some work to establish, so here is the basis for it.
Every pharmacokinetic study of nicotine pouches that I could reach fixes the site by protocol, at the upper lip, as a constant rather than a variable. A 2022 BAT-funded crossover study instructed participants “to position the pouch between their top lip and their gum for 60 min”. The in-vivo arm of a 2022 dissolution paper recorded that “The 18 subjects kept the pouch still between the upper lip and gum.” BfR’s summary of five further manufacturer studies describes each one identically. Nobody has ever randomised a pouch to the lower lip, the cheek, or under the tongue and measured what came out.
The most thorough physicochemical study of pouches published to date — the Altria-funded dissolution work in Scientific Reports in January 2026 — has no mouth in it at all. It is a flow-through-cell in-vitro characterisation, and it does not mention placement once.
The closest adjacent evidence comes from a completely different product. A 2021 population pharmacokinetic analysis built on 29 nicotine-replacement studies in 930 volunteers found that for a nicotine mouth spray, “the absorption was markedly faster compared with buccal administration” when given sublingually. That is a liquid aerosol, not a fibre pouch, the comparison is qualitative, and the studies were sponsored by the manufacturer. It establishes that site can matter for some nicotine doses. It establishes nothing about pouches.
So any claim that one placement “absorbs better” is unsourced. Including, I should say, claims of that kind that this site may have made in the past.
Where people actually put them
Two peer-reviewed surveys have asked, and they disagree completely. Both are reported in a 2024 systematic review in BMC Oral Health:
- A US survey found “a significant majority (75%) positioning NP between their lower lip and gingiva”.
- A Latvian study found “a majority of Swedish snus and/or NP users (77%) preferred placing NP between the upper lip and gingiva”.
Three quarters lower lip in one population, three quarters upper lip in the other. The honest reading is that practice is cultural: in snus countries, where the upper lip is traditional, people use the upper lip; in a market that arrived at pouches without the snus habit, they do not. It also recontextualises the FDA’s 44 per cent — a large share of that “misuse” is probably just ordinary lower-lip use. That connection is my inference; no source makes it.
Why the upper lip at all?
There is exactly one published rationale, and it is about saliva rather than absorption. The authors of the 2022 dissolution method explain their choice of test volume like this: “Both ZYN Dry and snus are placed under the upper lip where the parotid glands secrete saliva into the mouth”, and “The resting and stimulated flow rate of saliva from the parotid glands are 0.1 mL/min and 1.05 mL/min, respectively”. Their reasoning is that a pouch sits beside one parotid gland and so meets roughly half the saliva of both.
Two caveats, and I would rather give you both than a tidy answer. The paper declares “This research received no external funding” while also declaring that “A.E.M. and M.S. are employees of Swedish Match North Europe AB” and that a third author has received funding from the same company. Those two statements sit badly together and you should know about it. And the anatomy is loose: the parotid duct opens on the inside of the cheek, up by the second molar, not in the pocket above the front teeth where a pouch normally sits. I could find no published correction, so I am flagging that as my own reading rather than a sourced one.
What is solidly established is that the chemistry rewards a wet, alkaline environment. BfR measured a median pH of 8.8 across 44 pouches and calculated that “The median proportion of free-base nicotine was 86%”, noting that in its uncharged state nicotine “can pass through biomembranes such as the oral mucosa more easily”. At ordinary blood pH only about 31 per cent of nicotine is in that form. Pouches are formulated to beat that, and they need saliva to do it — which is the one real argument for a site with good saliva supply, whichever gland is responsible. Pouch pH covers that mechanism properly.
What happens at the spot you choose
This is the part where placement demonstrably does matter, and not in a good way.
Irritation is near-universal and it is not mainly about nicotine. In BfR’s own trial, “While the tobacco cigarette rarely caused irritation to the oral mucosa, all nicotine pouch users reported oral mucosa irritation ranging from moderate (0–20 mg nicotine) to severe (30 mg).” The range starts at zero milligrams — the nicotine-free control arm produced moderate irritation too. The published paper from the same trial spells out the consequence: “as the pouches with no nicotine or low amounts also induced local adverse effects, other substances are involved.” Dropping to a weaker pouch may not fix a sore lip.
Changes show up where the product sits. The BMC Oral Health review found that “Oral mucosal changes at the site of placement were common among NP users”, with lesions ranging “from slight wrinkling to various white lesions, seemingly related to the NP units consumed per day”. A Latvian cohort study recorded that “All of the observed lesions were white and localized in the places where sachets are placed” — though that study pooled snus and pouch users and says itself that “it is hard to separate Swedish snus users and nicotine pouch users”, so the lesions cannot be pinned on pouches specifically.
For gum recession, the evidence is about snus, and the distinction is the whole point. A 2026 systematic review concludes that “There is substantial evidence that the use of Swedish snus is associated with gingival recession”, and that recessions were “most pronounced in the anterior region, typically corresponding to the site of snus placement” — with the mechanism being “mechanical pressure and cytotoxic effects”. Crucially, the risk was far lower for portion-packed snus than loose: 2.9 per cent against 23.5 per cent in one study. And the same review says flatly that “Since there are no studies of white snus or tobacco-free snus” it could not evaluate pouches at all. That review disclosed funding from a snus and pouch retailer, which I note because the review’s own conclusions are unflattering to the products and the disclosure is in the paper.
From the regulator’s file, the commonest complaint is exactly where you would expect: the FDA records consumer-reported experiences including “gum irritation, being ‘buzzed’ from nicotine contents, burning sensation, and throat irritation or burning”, and the medical review describing “mild oral disorders like dry mouth and gingival blisters”. One trial of fifteen people found “in one case, after use of the 6 mg pouch, an ulceration was detected” — at a low strength, in a single session.
No regulator and no manufacturer anywhere tells you to rotate the site. I checked for it specifically. The widely repeated advice to “move it around so it doesn’t burn” has no primary source behind it. I still think varying the spot is sensible, on the strength of the snus mechanical-pressure findings above — but that is my inference and you should treat it as one.
The four sites, and how little is known about three of them
| Upper lip and gum | Lower lip and gum | Cheek and gum | Under the tongue | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instructed by a maker? | Yes — ZYN US, VELO, Nordic Spirit as one option | Yes — Nordic Spirit only | No pouch maker | No pouch maker |
| Absorption evidence | Absolute figures exist; no comparison, because every study fixes this site | Never measured | Never measured | Never measured for a pouch |
| Saliva argument | The parotid rationale above, from manufacturer-affiliated authors | None published | None published | None published |
| Comfort, visibility, drip | Nothing published | Nothing published | Nothing published | Nothing published |
| Localised oral findings | Lesions at the placement site, in snus-and-pouch populations | Not studied separately | Not studied | Not studied |
| Real-world use | 77% in a Latvian sample | 75% in a US sample | Not measured | Not measured |
An honest table in this category has a lot of empty cells, and I would rather show you the gaps than fill them.
Frequently asked questions
Is the lower lip actually worse?
No source says so. Nordic Spirit sanctions it, three quarters of users in one US survey do it, and nobody has measured absorption, comfort or irritation by site. If someone tells you the lower lip gives less nicotine, ask them where they read it.
Should I move the pouch around while it is in?
No manufacturer, regulator or study addresses this, and the one trial that mentions it deliberately held the pouch still. My own view is that leaving it put during a session and varying the spot between sessions is the sensible compromise — based on the snus mechanical-pressure evidence, not on anybody’s instruction.
Can I put it under my tongue?
No pouch maker suggests it and nobody has tested it. The only sublingual nicotine evidence concerns a mouth spray, which absorbed faster sublingually than buccally — a different product in a different physical form. Extrapolating that to a fibre pouch is guesswork.
Is it bad to swallow my saliva?
No, and this is the most persistent myth in the category. ZYN’s own answer: “While using ZYN, you may naturally swallow saliva. However, the pouch itself should not be swallowed.” A clinical trial protocol told subjects to “swallow their saliva as needed”. BfR notes that swallowed nicotine “can be reabsorbed in the gastrointestinal tract”. The pouch is the thing to keep out of your stomach.
Why does one side of my mouth feel it more?
Nothing published explains this. Saliva flow, gum thickness and where the pouch physically rests all plausibly vary side to side, but no measurement exists. Treat any confident answer with suspicion.
Does placement change how long it lasts?
Unmeasured. What is established is that the clock, not the spot, governs your dose: across the studies BfR tabulates, peak blood nicotine arrives at or just after the moment you take the pouch out. That is covered in how long should you keep a nicotine pouch in.
Sources
- US Food and Drug Administration, Technical Project Lead review of the ZYN premarket applications, 13 January 2025 — the misuse passage and its definition of misuse, the reviewers’ dismissal of its significance, consumer complaints and the oral adverse-effect findings.
- FDA, FDA Authorizes Marketing of 20 ZYN Nicotine Pouch Products, 16 January 2025 — the agency’s own description of the product as placed “between a person’s gum and lip”, and the standing statement that authorisation “does not mean these tobacco products are safe”.
- Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Health risk assessment of nicotine pouches, opinion 023/2022 — median pH 8.8 and 86 per cent free-base nicotine, the mucosal irritation range including the nicotine-free arm, release within the first 20 minutes, the peak-at-removal pattern, and BfR’s own description of correct use.
- N. Mallock-Ohnesorg and others, Small pouches, but high nicotine doses, Frontiers in Pharmacology 15:1392027 (2024) — mouth irritation regardless of nicotine strength, and the single ulceration after a 6 mg pouch. Publicly funded by BfR; no commercial relationships declared.
- M. M. Knopp and others, A biorelevant in vitro dissolution method for nicotine release, Separations 9(2):52 (2022) — the parotid-saliva rationale for the upper-lip site, and the in-vivo arm in which subjects “kept the pouch still”. Declares no external funding while also declaring that two authors are Swedish Match employees; both statements are quoted above.
- D. Azzopardi and others, A randomised study to assess the nicotine pharmacokinetics of an oral nicotine pouch and two nicotine replacement therapy products, Scientific Reports 12, 6949 (2022) — the upper-lip protocol, the instruction to swallow saliva as needed, and the prohibition on chewing. Funded by Imperial Tobacco Canada; all authors were employees of BAT or its subsidiaries.
- S. P. Platt and others, Dissolution and physical characterization of oral nicotine pouch products, Scientific Reports 16, 4406 (2026) — in-vitro only, with no placement variable. Funded by Altria Client Services LLC; all authors were Altria employees at the time of the study.
- P. O. Olsson Gisleskog and others, Nicotine Population Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Smokers After Intravenous, Oral, Buccal and Transdermal Administration, Clinical Pharmacokinetics 60, 541–561 (2021) — sublingual versus buccal absorption of a nicotine mouth spray. All studies sponsored by McNeil AB.
- D. Rungraungrayabkul and others, What is the impact of nicotine pouches on oral health: a systematic review, BMC Oral Health 24:889 (2024) — three included studies, mucosal changes at the placement site, and the 75 per cent lower-lip and 77 per cent upper-lip survey figures.
- M. Bankvall and M. Jontell, Swedish smokeless tobacco and its impact on oral health: a systematic review, Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 85:84–95 (2026) — the recession evidence at the placement site, the portion-versus-loose difference, and the statement that no studies of tobacco-free products exist. The authors disclose funding from the Haypp Group, a snus and pouch retailer, and state it had no influence on the review.
- Manufacturers’ own instructions: ZYN US FAQ, ZYN UK important information, VELO Sweden, Nordic Spirit how to use. LOOP, Skruf, Pablo and Oden’s publish no placement instruction on their own sites; no official on! consumer site was reachable.
Last verified 13 October 2026. Where this page says nobody has measured something, that is the result of a specific search rather than an assumption, and I have said which claims are my own judgement. Related: pouch formats compared, the strongest pouches by measured content, and nicotine pouches explained.