Fear First, Facts Later: Griffith’s Blurred Minds Academy Pushes Panic Over Evidence

Alan Gor 30 April 2025

Another week, another moral panic. This time, Griffith University’s Blurred Minds Academy has turned its sights on nicotine pouches, claiming to “educate” young people while delivering an emotionally charged, one-sided narrative riddled with fear, ideology, and half-truths.

Let’s be clear: protecting young people from harm is a worthy goal. But distorting evidence and pushing alarmist messaging isn’t education, it’s propaganda. And that’s exactly what this latest campaign against nicotine pouches has become: a masterclass in scare tactics over science.

“Evidence-Informed” or Ideologically Driven?

Griffith proudly claims their new module is “evidence-informed.” But what evidence, exactly?

No long-term human studies on nicotine pouches exist. No deaths. No measurable epidemic of harm. And yet we’re told they’re dangerous, addictive, and unpredictable—claims repeated like gospel by Dr James Durl, a research fellow at Griffith’s Social Marketing unit, who appears more interested in villainising nicotine than examining its potential role in harm reduction.

Durl frames nicotine pouches as a threat simply because they’re “marketed with bright colours and fun flavours.” The same argument has been trotted out against vaping for over a decade, despite overwhelming evidence that flavours are key to adult smokers switching away from cigarettes.

If bright packaging and flavour variety are your criteria for a public health threat, then someone should alert the ice cream aisle.

The Usual Boogeymen: Big Tobacco and “Synthetic Nicotine”

Predictably, the release accuses tobacco companies of “repeating old tactics” to deceive young people and create another generation of addicts. Let’s pause. First, many nicotine pouches are made by non-tobacco companies, including startups and harm-reduction-focused firms. Second, even if a tobacco company makes a product, that fact alone does not make it evil; what matters is the product’s risk profile and its public health impact.

Durl’s insinuation that synthetic nicotine is somehow more dangerous because it’s “fast-acting” is laughable. That’s like saying caffeine from coffee is scarier than caffeine from tea because it kicks in faster. These nuances are conveniently left out.

A study on Velo nicotine pouches showed slower nicotine uptake and lower peak nicotine levels, supporting their potential as a lower-risk alternative to cigarettes.

Say It Louder: Nicotine ≠ Tobacco

Let’s bust one of the laziest and most misleading tactics in this entire campaign: the deliberate conflation of nicotine with smoking and tobacco.

The article frames nicotine pouches as a “sneaky way around tobacco warning label laws.” But here’s the truth: nicotine and tobacco are not the same. These pouches contain no tobacco leaf, no tar, and no combustion, making them, in all likelihood, orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking. Yet that nuance is lost in Griffith’s apocalyptic messaging.

If nicotine pouches really do deliver nicotine in a safer, cleaner format—and if they help some smokers reduce harm or quit, then surely public health wins, right? Not according to the prohibitionist mindset driving this campaign. For them, the presence of nicotine is reason enough to declare war, regardless of context or consequence.

Still Waiting on the Evidence of Harm

Let’s take a look at some of the “facts” listed by Griffith University:

• “Nicotine pouches are banned federally.”

  Yes—but so were medical cannabis, needle exchange programs, and yes, even vaping. Being banned is not evidence of harm. It’s evidence of policy.

• “Nicotine pouches can cause mouth sores, bleeding gums, and permanent tooth damage.”

  There is no peer-reviewed, population-level evidence to support these claims. Anecdotes are not data. And side effects, when they occur, are usually mild and temporary. Isolated case studies do not justify painting the entire category as a public menace.

• “Young brains are at risk… memory, focus, learning.”

  Again, these claims are based on rat studies and high-dose exposure, extrapolated in ways that defy nuance. No context is provided about dosage, frequency, or comparative risk to smoking. That’s not science; it’s fear-mongering.

• “Nicotine pouches increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.”

  In smokers, sure. But where is the data proving this is true for nicotine pouches, especially when they are not used in combination with cigarettes? It’s not just misleading, it’s dishonest.

Evidence Over Ideology: What the Science Really Says About Nicotine Pouches

While Griffith University’s Blurred Minds Academy seeks to alarm with sensationalised warnings about nicotine pouches, serious scientific institutions offer a far more balanced, evidence-informed view.

For example, a detailed Qeios article titled “Nicotine pouches: an evidence-based review of their risks, relative safety, and potential public health impact” highlights how nicotine pouches offer a dramatically lower-risk alternative to smoking. It outlines how these oral nicotine products, which are free from tobacco combustion, produce far fewer harmful byproducts, a critical distinction ignored by prohibitionist narratives.

Read the Qeios review

A Nature publication from the British Dental Journal further supports this, noting that while monitoring is appropriate, “current evidence suggests that the risks associated with nicotine pouches are significantly less than those of smoking.” The article also points to their potential for harm reduction, especially among individuals who struggle with quitting cigarettes or vaping.

Read the Nature article

Perhaps most critically, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) published a comprehensive health risk assessment that concluded that while nicotine pouches should not be used by children or non-smokers, they represent “a significantly reduced risk compared to smoking tobacco products.” The report is rooted in toxicological and exposure data, not ideology.

View the BfR assessment (PDF)

What Griffith Gets Wrong—And What It’s Costing Us

Blurred Minds claims to “debunk false claims,” but what it’s really doing is undermining public understanding and pushing young people further from evidence-based conversations. There is no mention of proportionality, relative risk, or tobacco harm reduction. It’s an all-or-nothing message: nicotine = bad, full stop.

But that approach fails to acknowledge a key public health truth: risk is not binary. Not everything is either “harmless” or “deadly.” If nicotine pouches or any low-risk product can help people reduce their reliance on combustible tobacco, that’s a public health victory. Pretending otherwise, or exaggerating harm without proper evidence, undermines trust and keeps smokers stuck in more dangerous habits.

Griffith University’s campaign isn’t just misinformed, it’s dangerous. By demonising every alternative to smoking, they are fuelling a political climate where abstinence-only ideology trumps evidence, where prohibition replaces harm reduction, and where the only winners are Big Tobacco and the black market.

Let’s not forget: the black market doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t check ID. It doesn’t care about health. It doesn’t follow ingredient standards. It doesn’t warn consumers, offer regulated nicotine strengths, or provide adult smokers with the tools they need to quit.

This is what happens when governments ban products with potential for low-risk nicotine use. People don’t stop using nicotine; they just get pushed underground, into a completely unregulated, unaccountable system.

And guess what? That is where the real harm lies.

By peddling fear instead of facts, Griffith and campaigns like Blurred Minds aren’t protecting young people, they’re helping drive them straight into the arms of the black market, where products are more dangerous, more addictive, and completely beyond oversight.

It’s time we stopped pretending these scare campaigns are harmless. They are actively undermining public health, and they are playing right into the hands of those who profit most from misinformation, cigarette companies and black-market dealers alike.

Australia deserves better. Smokers deserve better. Our youth deserve truth, not fear. And public institutions like Griffith should know better.