ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2022
Copycat and lookalike edible cannabis product packaging in the United States.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Labeling of Cannabis Products From Licensed and Unlicensed Retailers in New York.American journal of preventive medicine · 2025Article
- Investigation of the toxic dose of ingested delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol among young children.Injury epidemiology · 2025Article
- A content analysis of cannabis edible product characteristics, packaging features, and online promotions.Preventive medicine · 2025Article
- Changes in psychosis-related emergency department and hospitalization rates among youth following cannabis legalization in Colorado.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Article
- Trends in substance use-related emergency department visits by youth, 2018-2023.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Correct Recognition and Appeal Ratings of Copycat Cannabis Edible Packaging: Evidence from an Online Experiment.Cannabis and cannabinoid research · 2025Article
- Packaging of Cannabis Edibles, Health Warning Recall, and Perceptions Among Young Adults.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Developing a Mock Retail Cannabis Shop for Research: A Description of The CANNEX.Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.) · 2025Article
- Acute cannabis intoxication among the paediatric population.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Review
- A Narrative Review of Research on Cannabis Advertising in the United States.Current addiction reports · 2025Review
- Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol Exposures Reported to US Poison Centers: Variations Among US States and Regions and Associations with Public Policy.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2024Article
- A content analysis of cannabis edibles package marketing in the United States.The International journal on drug policy · 2024Article
- Associations between Cannabis Consumption Methods and Cannabis Risk Perception.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Child Protection System Interactions for Children With Positive Urine Screens for Illicit Drugs.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Appeal rating and visual attention associated with youth-appealing cannabis packaging: An eye-tracking experiment.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2023Article
- The cannabidiol and marijuana research expansion act: Promotion of scientific knowledge to prevent a national health crisis.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent media reports have highlighted copycat/lookalike cannabis edibles as a public health concern. No empirical papers have described this phenomenon.
methodsFrom May 2020-August 2021, we collected photos of cannabis products via an online survey of cannabis users and through personal contacts. Copycat/lookalike products are defined as those that use the same or similar brand name, logo, and/or imagery as an existing commercial non-cannabis counterpart (CNCC). We assessed each package for similarities with its CNCC with respect to brand name, product name, font, color, flavors, and brand/promotional characters. We examined cannabis content indicators including: THC content per package and serving, cannabis leaf symbol, product warnings, cannabis terms, cannabis motifs, activation time, and guidance on edible use.
resultsWe collected photos of 731 cannabis products; 267 (36%) were edibles of which 22 (8%) represented 13 unique copycat/lookalike products. Eight used exact brand/product names as existing CNCCs, and five used similar names. Packages copied or imitated a mean of 3.9 of six features and indicated cannabis content with a mean of 4.1 of eight features. Thirteen packages indicated a mean THC content of 459 mg/package. Four reported THC dose per serving, with a mean dose of 47.5 mg.
conclusionsOur content analysis highlights three key concerns. First, copycat/lookalike edibles subtly indicate cannabis content while using high fidelity replication or imitation of their CNCC. Second, THC content is high and there were multiple 10 mg THC doses in the equivalent of 1 serving of a CNCC. Third, these products may be attractive to children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.