Andy S L Tan1,2, Erica Weinreich3, Alisa Padon4, Mirtala Sanchez5, Kyle M Snyder5, Anna Vasilyeva5, Simon Sandh5, Emily Goldmann5,6, Melody Goodman5, Danielle C Ompad5,6. 1. Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Brookline High School, Brookline, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Public Health Institute, Oakland, California, USA. 5. New York University School of Global Public Health, New York, New York, USA. 6. Center for Drug Use and HIV|HCV Research, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consistent regulation of cannabis edibles packaging to restrict youth-appealing content in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe content appealing to youth on U.S. cannabis-infused edibles packaging. METHODS: We analyzed 256 photos of cannabis-infused edibles packaging collected from U.S. adults from 25 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico between May 2020 to August 2021. We coded the presence of product knockoffs, human and non-human creatures, images indicating flavor, text indicating flavor, and the number of colors. We compared these codes across states' legalization status (medical and non-medical cannabis, medical cannabis only, or limited cannabis legalization). RESULTS: Overall, 15% of packages resembled product knockoffs, 23% contained human/non-human creatures, 35% contained flavor images, 91% contained flavor text, and median number of colors was 5 (range from 1 to 10+). Packages purchased in states with medical and non-medical cannabis, medical cannabis only, or limited cannabis legalization differed significantly on product knockoffs (11%, 26%, 38%, p = 0.007), human/non-human creatures (19%, 33%, 63%, p = 0.002), flavor text (93%, 81%, 100%, p = 0.046), and number of colors (median of 5, 5, and 10, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Existing laws have not adequately limited content appealing to youth on U.S. cannabis-infused edibles packaging. Robust and consistent regulations in the U.S. are needed to ensure that the packaging of such products does not contain content that appeal to youth and lead to initiation or inadvertent ingestion.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consistent regulation of cannabis edibles packaging to restrict youth-appealing content in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe content appealing to youth on U.S. cannabis-infused edibles packaging. METHODS: We analyzed 256 photos of cannabis-infused edibles packaging collected from U.S. adults from 25 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico between May 2020 to August 2021. We coded the presence of product knockoffs, human and non-human creatures, images indicating flavor, text indicating flavor, and the number of colors. We compared these codes across states' legalization status (medical and non-medical cannabis, medical cannabis only, or limited cannabis legalization). RESULTS: Overall, 15% of packages resembled product knockoffs, 23% contained human/non-human creatures, 35% contained flavor images, 91% contained flavor text, and median number of colors was 5 (range from 1 to 10+). Packages purchased in states with medical and non-medical cannabis, medical cannabis only, or limited cannabis legalization differed significantly on product knockoffs (11%, 26%, 38%, p = 0.007), human/non-human creatures (19%, 33%, 63%, p = 0.002), flavor text (93%, 81%, 100%, p = 0.046), and number of colors (median of 5, 5, and 10, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Existing laws have not adequately limited content appealing to youth on U.S. cannabis-infused edibles packaging. Robust and consistent regulations in the U.S. are needed to ensure that the packaging of such products does not contain content that appeal to youth and lead to initiation or inadvertent ingestion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cannabis-infused edibles; content appealing to youth; packaging
Authors: Jacob T Borodovsky; Dustin C Lee; Benjamin S Crosier; Joy L Gabrielli; James D Sargent; Alan J Budney Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Megan E Patrick; Richard A Miech; Deborah D Kloska; Anna C Wagner; Lloyd D Johnston Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Daniel G Barrus; Kristen L Capogrossi; Sheryl C Cates; Camille K Gourdet; Nicholas C Peiper; Scott P Novak; Timothy W Lefever; Jenny L Wiley Journal: Methods Rep RTI Press Date: 2016-11
Authors: Alisa A Padon; Rajiv N Rimal; Michael Siegel; William DeJong; Timothy S Naimi; David H JernFigan Journal: J Public Health Res Date: 2018-04-20