Copycat and lookalike edible cannabis product packaging in the United States (2024)

Abstract

Keywords: Cannabis, marijuana, edibles, packaging, copycat, lookalike

1. Introduction

Edibles are a popular and growing segment of the cannabis market and can be homemade or purchased through dispensaries and street dealers. Among past-year cannabis users aged 16 to 65 in the International Cannabis Policy Study, 40% had used an edible product in the past year (Rup et al., 2021). Among past-three month cannabis users in US states with legal adult cannabis use, 56% reported currently using edibles, with younger people being more likely to do so (Ueno et al., 2021). People who use edibles report both positive and negative effects. Positive subjective effects include relief of mental health disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression and PTSD), insomnia, and physical health conditions (e.g., chronic pain, migraines, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, and cancer symptoms) (Soroosh et al., 2021; Stephen et al., 2020), as well as feeling pleasant/happy, relaxed, social, creative, energetic, and increased sex drive (Ewusi Boisvert et al., 2020). Negative subjective effects include feeling lazy, drowsy, unable to concentrate, dizzy, ‘out of control’, and stomach upset (Ewusi Boisvert et al., 2020). Edibles have also been associated with unanticipated highs (e.g., getting higher than intended and/or for longer than intended) (Allen et al., 2017; Giombi et al., 2018; Krauss et al., 2017) and acute toxicity (Lewis et al., 2021; Noble et al., 2019).

A major concern related to cannabis edibles is exposure among youth. In the 2015 to 2018 Monitoring the Future surveys, 33% of adolescents reported past-year cannabis use, of whom 40% reported using edibles (Patrick et al., 2020). After adult use cannabis was legalized in Colorado (Healy, 2012), data from the 2015 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey demonstrated that 21% of high school respondents reported cannabis use in the past 30 days, of whom 28% reported ingesting it (Tormohlen et al., 2019). From 2017 to 2019, there were 4,172 cannabis exposure cases among children ages 0 to 9 years old reported to US Poison Control Centers, of which 46% involved cannabis edibles (Whitehill et al., 2021).

Copycat/lookalike edibles are edible cannabis products – typically candies, cookies, brownies, or other snack foods – that use the same or similar brand name, logo, and/or imagery as an existing commercial non-cannabis counterpart (CNCC). Recent media reports have drawn attention to copycat and lookalike cannabis edibles on the market, both as a public health concern due to accidental dosing among children and adults, and as trademark violations (Aubin, 2019; Chesler, 2021; Gilbertson, 2020; Safronova, 2021; Schuba, 2021). Given this growing concern, we conducted a content analysis of copycat and lookalike cannabis edible packaging to examine the extent to which these products mimic their CNCC.

2. Methods

3. Results

We collected 1405 photos of 731 cannabis products, of which 267 (36%) of the products were edibles. Among the edibles, we evaluated 22 photo submissions (8%) representing 13 unique edibles that met our definition of copycats or lookalikes of commercial non-cannabis food products. There was one example of an edible that looked like gummy vitamins that was not included in this analysis.

Table 1 presents a content analysis of the 13 unique products from eight states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Twelve of the products were candies or confectionaries (crisped rice treats, fruit chews, fruit snacks, or gummies) and one was a snack food (flavored tortilla chips). Eight of the 13 packages used the exact brand and/or product name (i.e., Doritos (Figure 1), Sour Gushers (Figure 2), Nerds (Figure 3), Kellogg’s, Skittles, Warheads, and Sour Patch Kids); the remaining five products used names that were similar to the commercial brand/product name. For example, Cannaburst was used instead of Starburst, and Stoner Patch Dummies or Stoney Patch was used instead of Sour Patch Kids.

With respect to similarities between the edibles and their CNCC, 12 of the packages used the same or similar font and all used the same or similar colors. Not all of the edibles described their flavors, but seven of the packages described similar flavors. Further, although not all of the commercial brands/products advertised with brand/promotional characters, seven of the packages used the same characters as their CNCC (e.g., the Nerds Clusters package replicated the Nerd brand character); one had a character that was unlike its CNCC (e.g., the Nerds Rope package had a character that did not replicate the Nerds brand character). Packages copied or imitated a mean of 3.9 and median of four of the six possible package features, with a range of two to six per package.

All packages provided information to indicate that they were cannabis edibles. Twelve of the 13 packages reported total package THC content in mg; two reported mg without clearly indicating it was THC, although, for the purposes of this analysis, we inferred that it was THC. Ten used a standardized cannabis warning symbol. Twelve had cannabis related warnings and 12 used terms indicating cannabis content. Four had a cannabis leaf motif on the package, three provided information on activation time, and three provided consumption advice. Packages indicated cannabis content with a mean of 4.1 and median of four of the seven possible features, with a range of one to six per package.

With respect to THC content, we analyzed 13 packages because the Stoney Patch gummies had 300 and 350 mg packages. Each of the 13 packages indicating THC content in mg contained the equivalent of multiple doses, with a mean of 459 mg and a range of 300 to 600 mg per package – equivalent to a range of 60 to 120 standard research doses and 30 to 60 10mg doses per package. Four of the 13 packages reported dose size, with a mean listed dose size of 47.5 mg and a range of 20 to 70 mg.

4. Discussion

In our sample of 267 edible cannabis product packages, we identified 22 photo submissions representing 13 unique edibles that met our definition of copycats or lookalikes of commercial non-cannabis food products. The majority of products reproduced content from their CNCC; one package was an actual package of Sour Patch Kids with a sticker label indicating it is an edible. To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first empirical report of copycat/lookalike cannabis products. There is some literature on copycat/lookalike snack foods, particularly healthier versions of common snack foods marketed in schools (Harris et al., 2016; Mann, 2018) but these papers do not assess whether children chose the copycat/lookalike healthier snacks, either accidentally because they looked like the regular, less healthy snack or intentionally because it was healthier.

One major concern is the subtlety with which some packages indicated cannabis content while at the same time demonstrating high fidelity replication of the features of their CNCC. Most of the packages looked almost exactly like their CNCC at first glance. In each of the sample packages provided in Figures 1–3, for example, indications of cannabis are subtle and considerably less prominent than the characteristics that replicate the commercial products. Thus, if copycat/lookalike cannabis products are not stored safely, there is the potential for accidental ingestion by children or adults.

A second concern is the high THC content in packages that resembled a CNCC of only one serving size. Each package had high THC content and exceeded the 100 mg maximum content stipulated by cannabis regulations in Colorado, California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington (Goundar et al., 2021). There were two packages from California, one from Colorado, and one from Nevada that exceeded the 100 mg package limit. Moreover, serving sizes and the recommended number of servings were frequently not indicated on the package. Each package was likely intended to be multiple doses; for all products for which THC content per package was ascertainable, consuming the entire package would result in ingesting 60 to 120 5 mg doses and 30 to 60 10 mg doses per package.

A third concern is that these products may be attractive to children. All of these edibles are copycats/lookalikes of snacks or candies that children eat. Further, the packaging is colorful and frequently contains brand/promotional characters that may appeal to children (O’Connor et al., 2016). Thus, cannabis products such as these could lead to accidental dosing of children. In addition, children/adolescents who recognize the cannabis content may be interested in trying the product because it looks like a familiar snack or candy.

There are several limitations to this study which should be noted. This is a convenience sample of cannabis edibles and not representative of all cannabis edible packages. However, given that the cannabis market has both legal and illegal markets, a representative sample is likely not currently achievable. We report the state of purchase as reported by the participant, but note that it may not be the state of manufacturing. Moreover, the listed state of manufacturing may not be where it was actually manufactured; for example, we doubt the veracity of some California cannabis warning symbols because the THC content exceeds the 100 mg limit of the California package regulations (California Department of Cannabis Control, 2021) and we believe that they are actually unregulated cannabis products that have appropriated the official symbol. Finally, our ability to identify copycats/lookalikes was limited by the team’s knowledge of brands.

5. Conclusions

The existence of cannabis edibles that copy or imitate commercial non-cannabis products has important implications for public health due to safety in terms of accidental dosing or ingesting more THC than intended. Future research should examine the child-friendliness of cannabis product packaging. Despite existing policies aimed at preventing cannabis packaging that appeals to children (Soroosh et al., 2021) and major brands taking legal action against cannabis product companies for copyright infringement (Safronova, 2021), we documented availability of copycat/lookalike products in several states. Increasing funding for enforcing compliance may aid regulation of edibles sold among commercial retailers. People purchasing copycat/lookalike products should store them separately from their non-cannabis counterparts and out of reach of children to prevent accidental ingestion.

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

References