Editorial standards, methodology and corrections
We sell nicotine products, and a lot of what is written here is written to sell them. That is a reason to be more specific about our methods rather than less. This page says who writes what, which parts are automated, where our numbers come from, what our commercial interests are, and how to get something fixed.
It describes what the site actually does today. Where a practice falls short of what we would like it to be, it says so instead of describing the version we intend to build.
Who writes this
Everything on this site is published by Zyn Canada and the company is accountable for all of it. We do not currently publish named author profiles, and articles are attributed to the organisation rather than to an individual.
We would rather say that plainly than put a name on a page we cannot stand behind. A named byline will appear when there is a real profile behind it with verifiable experience, and not before: a byline nobody can check is a trust signal pointing at nothing, and it is worse than no byline at all because it looks like one.
This storefront opened in October 2026. It shares a warehouse, a stock ledger and a product catalogue with a sibling shop under the same ownership, and that is stated here rather than left for a reader to deduce — it is why two shops can print the same dose for the same can, and it is why the writing on this site is done for this site rather than shared between them. Where we have found shared wording we have replaced it and logged it in corrections.
Two consequences worth stating: no article on this site has been reviewed by a qualified medical, pharmacology or legal professional, and nothing here should be read as though it had been.
How we use automation
Automation produces most of the text on this site, and a large language model produces almost none of it. The distinction matters more than the headline, so here is the breakdown, surface by surface:
- Product pages — computed by code at the moment the page renders, from that can’s own specification sheet and from the rest of the shelf. The description, the flavour reading, the dose, the comparison against the ZYN range, the usage steps and the FAQ are all derived. No model is involved, which is why two product pages never disagree about the same figure, and why a catalogue correction reaches 1,171 pages without anything being rewritten.
- Brand and category pages — the argument at the top of each one is written by a person, brand by brand, from this shelf. The tables, dose ladders, flavour-family counts and product lists underneath are computed.
- The two articles published here — also computed rather than drafted by a model. Both are regulatory: they report figures from Health Canada’s own published databases and from our catalogue, and the sentences around those figures are assembled by code so that a figure and the sentence containing it cannot drift apart. If we start publishing articles a model drafts, this list will say so before they are live rather than afterwards.
- Images — no image model produces any picture on this site. An article image is a licensed trade or press photograph where we find a usable one, with the credit stored beside it; where we do not, the page carries a card composed by code from our own product photography. Both of the articles currently published carry a composed card rather than a photograph, which is why neither shows a credit.
- Our datasets, our policies and this page — written and maintained by people.
What the automation is checked by, before anything publishes:
- Every figure on a generated page is traced back to the specification sheet or the government database it came from. A number that cannot be traced is reported as unsupported and the page does not publish.
- Compliance rules reject health claims, competitor naming, unsupported attributions and claims about age checks we do not perform.
- A page that is too thin, or that repeats its own sections, is held as a draft rather than published.
We do not claim that every page is read by a person before it goes live. It is not, and with 1,171 product pages generated from the catalogue it could not be. What runs on every page before it publishes is mechanical: every figure is traced to the sheet it came from, the compliance rules are applied, and a page that is thin or repeats itself is held back as a draft rather than published thin.
The honest limit of that is worth naming. A generated page can be accurate in every figure and still be the wrong page to have written, and no automated check notices. The brand and category pages are where a person reads every word; the product pages are where the figures are guaranteed and the judgement is not.
Anything touching health, addiction, or Canadian law is the category where this matters most, and it is the category where we are least comfortable with the current state. Those pages are written from primary sources where sources exist, and they carry no specialist review. Treat them as a starting point for your own reading, not as advice.
Product specifications
Every product page states nicotine per pouch, pouches per can, pouch weight, format and flavour. Those figures come from two places and the page tells you which:
- Manufacturer specification. Transcribed from the maker’s own published sheet for that can.
- Estimated. Where no sheet is published, the taste levels and some per-can figures are estimated by fitting the flavour and format against the cans on our shelf that do have a sourced sheet. The product page labels these as estimates and says so in those words.
Nicotine per pouch is never estimated. It is read from the product listing. Where a manufacturer prints a strength figure without stating its unit — several do, and their own distributors read those figures differently — the listing shows the label as printed rather than a dose we have converted on your behalf.
We have not independently laboratory-tested any product, and nothing on this site should be read as though we had. An automated check re-derives the estimates against the sourced sheets and fails our build if the error drifts.
Taste scores
The sting, mint and fruit meters on a product page are subjective. They are a reading of the can, not a measurement of it, and they are not laboratory data.
Where they come from a sourced fact sheet, they are the figures published for that product. Where they are estimated, the page says so. We do not currently publish a named tester, a test date or a tasting protocol, which means a taste score on this site is less accountable than it should be. Building that is on our list; until it exists, weigh the measured figures — dose, weight, pouches per can — more heavily than the meters.
Regulatory information
Nothing on this site is legal advice, and we are not lawyers. Where we write about Canadian rules we report what a named government source has published, link it, and stop.
Our regulatory reporting lives on pages that are about the record rather than about a purchase: our regulations page carries Health Canada’s published position with the primary sources beside it. As this page rendered, our search of Health Canada’s Licensed Natural Health Products Database found no licence covering 123 of the 126 products in stock, and 26 of them belong to a brand named in a recall or advisory notice. Those figures are published here whether or not they flatter our own shelf.
We do not draw a conclusion from any of it — whether a particular purchase is permitted is a legal question we are not in a position to answer. Product pages state what a can is, what is in it and what it costs; they do not carry a regulatory notice, and the absence of one on a listing is not a clearance of that product by anybody.
Commercial disclosures
- We sell the products we write about. Every page on this site is published by the shop that sells the cans on it. We publish no buying guides and no flavour rankings — the two articles here are about the regulatory record — so the judgements a reader meets are on brand and product pages, written by the seller.
- Where we compare ourselves to other retailers, we wrote the comparison. We chose the criteria and we are the only entry that sells to you. Entries for other shops carry only facts checkable on their own storefronts, with the date we checked. Treat it as a vendor’s comparison, because that is exactly what it is.
- Affiliates. We run an affiliate programme: partners who send customers to us earn commission on the resulting orders. See the programme page. We do not take commission from other retailers, and no outbound link on this site is monetised.
- Reviews are never incentivised. We do not pay for reviews, offer discounts in exchange for them, or import them from anywhere.
Customer reviews
A review can only be left by someone who placed an order, through a link tied to that order, and it is attached to the specific product bought. Every review is moderated before it appears. We reject reviews containing personal information, abuse, or claims about health outcomes — not because they are unflattering, but because we are not in a position to publish a medical claim about a nicotine product.
We do not remove a review for being negative. Star ratings shown in search results come only from reviews visible on the page; where a product has no reviews, we publish no rating rather than a placeholder.
To report a review as inaccurate, email apollopouches@gmail.com with the product and the review.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, tell us: apollopouches@gmail.com, with the page and what is incorrect. We aim to reply within one business day.
- A factual error — a wrong figure, a mis-stated specification, a misdescribed regulation — is corrected on the page, and if it was material the page records the correction and the date.
- A stale figure — a count that was right when written and has since drifted as the catalogue moved — is refreshed from the catalogue rather than edited by hand.
- A regulatory or safety error is corrected as a priority, and the correction is logged below whether or not anyone asked.
We do not quietly edit a page to make a criticism go away. If we get something materially wrong and fix it, the fix is recorded.
Corrections log
Material corrections to published claims, newest first. Routine catalogue refreshes are not logged — they are the system working — but anything we said that was wrong is.
| Date | What was wrong | What we changed |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-26 | Our Organization structured data published a telephone number, while /about-us said in plain words that there is no phone line. The number was the one the shop this site was forked from publishes in its own structured data. | No telephone number is published anywhere on this site, in the markup or on the page. A Google Business Profile needs a number the business actually answers, and until there is one the honest encoding is the absence of the field. |
| 2026-10-26 | Product FAQs said stock was held at, and dispatched from, our registered Vancouver address — which /about-us contradicts two clicks away, because parcels leave from elsewhere in British Columbia. | Those answers name British Columbia, which is true whichever premises hold the stock, and /about-us still says plainly that the registered address is not the dispatch address. |
| 2026-10-26 | Five province pages said an Atlantic order ships "at the same flat rate as everywhere else", and the Labrador answer called that flat rate "a deliberate choice rather than an accident of the courier's pricing". | Checkout quotes the carrier's own price for the address entered; the flat figures exist only for the minutes when the carrier cannot be reached. Those pages now promise the delivery window, which really is one window for the whole country, and say the price is the carrier's quote. |
| 2026-10-26 | The wholesale page's headline tile counted every brand in the catalogue under the label "Brands in stock", while the paragraph above it gave the real in-stock figure. | The tile reads the in-stock count. The catalogue total is still shown, in the paragraph, labelled as a catalogue. |
| 2026-10-26 | Product descriptions, brand-page sections and the collection intros reproduced the copy of the shop this site was forked from, word for word, across more than a thousand pages. | Every one of them is written from this shelf: product pages are generated from this catalogue and benchmarked against the ZYN range, and the brand sections, collections and province pages are this shop's own sentences. Measured rather than asserted — nothing on a product or brand page here now matches a paragraph on that site. |
| 2026-10-26 | This page described a blog pipeline where "the prose is drafted and expanded by a model", article images "found, never generated", and the removal of a personal byline from a news section — none of which describes this site. | It describes what this site does: two articles assembled by code from primary sources, no model-written prose anywhere, and composed cards rather than photographs on both of them. |
Most of what is above was a defect in a template rather than in one page, which on a generated site means it was wrong on every page the template produced and right on all of them within one deploy. The log is dated to the day the template changed, which is also the day the pages did. Nothing here is waiting to be regenerated.
This log begins at launch in October 2026, and that is deliberate rather than a gap. It arrived from the fork carrying a year of another shop’s corrections, written in the first person — claims this site never made and fixes it never made. Those rows are gone. Borrowing somebody else’s contrition is the same error as borrowing their byline.