THC labeling on cannabis products: an experimental study of approaches for labeling THC servings on cannabis edibles

Abstract

Background Over-consumption is a common adverse outcome from cannabis edibles. States such as Colorado require each serving of cannabis edible to carry a THC symbol. This study aimed to test whether packaging edibles in separate servings and/or indicating the THC level per serving improves consumer understanding of serving size. Methods An 3 × 2 experimental task was conducted as part of the 2019 International Cannabis Policy Study online survey. Respondents from Canada and the US (n = 45,504) were randomly assigned to view an image of a chocolate cannabis edible. Packages displayed THC labels according to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: packaging (3 levels: whole multi-serving bar; individual chocolate squares; separately packaged squares) and THC stamp (2 levels: stamp on each square vs. no stamp). Logistic regression tested the effect of packaging and THC stamp on odds of correctly identifying a standard serving, among edible consumers and non-consumers separately. Edible consumers were also asked about their awareness of a standard THC serving. Results Only 14.6% of edible consumers reported knowing the standard serving of THC for cannabis edibles. In the experimental task, among non-consumers who saw stamped bars, the multi-serving bar (AOR = 1.16 (1.08, 1.24) p < 0.001) and individually packaged squares (AOR = 1.08 (1.01, 1.16), p = 0.031) elicited more correct responses than individual squares. There was no difference in packaging formats when stamps were absent (p > 0.05 for all). Among edible consumers, there was no effect of the packaging (p = 0.992) or stamp manipulation (p = 0.988). Among both edible consumers and non-consumers, respondents in US states with legal recreational cannabis performed better than Canadians (p < 0.001). Conclusions Regulations that require THC information to be stamped or indicated on each serving of cannabis edible may facilitate understanding of how much to consume, especially among novice consumers.

Co-use of cannabis and alcohol before and after Canada legalized nonmedical cannabis: A repeat cross-sectional study

“…Data integrity measures included checks for “speeders” based on completion times, the quality of open-ended responses, patterns of “Don’t Know/Refusal” responses, and inconsistent responses across items (AAPOR, 2018). As an additional data integrity check, respondents were asked to identify the current month from a list toward the end of the survey to verify survey engagement (Goodman and Hammond, 2019, 2020). In 2018, 44,364 respondents accessed the survey link, of which 28,471 completed the entire survey for a cooperation rate of 64.2%.…”

“…The study was reviewed by and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee (ORE#22392/31330). A full description of the study methods can be found in the ICPS Technical Reports—wave 1 (2018) and wave 2 (2019) (Goodman and Hammond, 2019; Goodman et al, 2020).…”

“…Average alcohol volume consumed in the past year was derived using the quantity/frequency method. Quantity of alcoholic drinks was assessed by asking, “On those days when you had any kind of beverage containing alcohol, how many drinks did you usually have?” (Enter number of drinks per day) and a definition of “a drink” was provided, and consistent with the Canadian definition of a drink (13.6 g of pure ethanol) (Goodman and Hammond, 2019). The quantity of alcoholic drinks reported was multiplied by the frequency of alcohol use (described above) to calculate the mean number of drinks per week and categorized using Canada’s Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines: low volume (⩽10 for females/⩽15 for males per week), risky volume (11–19 for females/16–29 for males per week), high risk volume (⩾20 for females/⩾30 for males per week), unstated (includes responses Don’t know or Refuse to answer) (Goodman and Hammond, 2019).…”

Self‐reported THC content and associations with perceptions of feeling high among cannabis consumers

“…The study was reviewed by and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee (ORE#31330). A full description of the study methods can be found in the Technical Report and methodology paper [17, 19].…”

Cannabis and children: risk mitigation strategies for edibles

“…Similar restrictions also exist in some US states where recreational cannabis has been legalised e.g., Colorado, Washington and Alaska (51). However, such guidance specifically for cannabis products is not enforced in regions where its has been legalised, and hence the probability of children and adolescents buying and consuming products that look like regular foodstuffs is heightened.…”