School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, N2L 3G1, ON, Canada.
School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, N2L 3G1, ON, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., N2L 3G1, Waterloo, ON, Canada; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, 661 University Avenue, Suite 510, Toronto, M5G 0A3, ON, Canada.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020 Mar 1;208:107843. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107843. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
As part of cannabis legalization in Canada and several US states, regulations specify how THC levels should be labelled on products; however, there is little evidence on the extent to which consumers understand and use THC labelling to inform consumption amounts. The current study was designed to assess comprehension of cannabis-related information including communication of dose and strength of product on different labelling designs among young Canadians.
Two experiments were conducted in October 2017 among Canadian youth and young adults aged 16-30 years as part of an online cross-sectional survey (N = 870). Experiment 1 randomized respondents to one of three labelling conditions (1=No Label, 2=mgTHC, 3=Doses). Respondents interpreted a recommended serving and number of servings contained in the package. Experiment 2 randomized respondents to one of four labelling conditions communicating THC level (1=No Label, 2=%THC, 3=mgTHC, 4=Traffic Light System). Respondents determined level of THC in the product.
Labelling the number of doses per package was associated with the greatest proportion of correct responses (54.1 %) when respondents had to determine a recommended serving compared with the no-label control condition (7.4 %) and THC mg condition (13.4 %). When cannabis products were labelled using a traffic light system, participants were more likely to identify THC level: low THC (85.1 %) or high THC (86.4 %) than the control condition (2.0 % and 5.2 % respectively).
Few consumers can understand and apply quantitative THC labelling; in contrast, THC labels that provide 'interpretive' information, such as descriptors, symbols, or references to servings have greater efficacy.
随着加拿大和美国几个州的大麻合法化，法规规定了应如何在产品上标注 THC 水平；然而，几乎没有证据表明消费者在多大程度上理解并使用 THC 标签来告知消费数量。本研究旨在评估包括剂量和产品强度在内的与大麻相关信息的理解程度，这是在不同标签设计下，针对加拿大年轻人开展的研究。
2017 年 10 月，作为在线横断面调查的一部分（N=870），在 16-30 岁的加拿大青年和年轻人中进行了两项实验。实验 1 将受访者随机分配到三种标签条件之一（1=无标签，2=mgTHC，3=剂量）。受访者解释了包装中推荐的份量和所含份量。实验 2 将受访者随机分配到四种标签条件之一，传达 THC 水平（1=无标签，2=%THC，3=mgTHC，4=红绿灯系统）。受访者确定产品中的 THC 水平。
与无标签对照条件（7.4%）和 THC mg 条件（13.4%）相比，标签上显示包装中的剂量数与确定推荐份量时的正确回答比例最高（54.1%）。当使用红绿灯系统对大麻产品进行标签时，参与者更有可能识别 THC 水平：低 THC（85.1%）或高 THC（86.4%），而对照条件（分别为 2.0%和 5.2%）。
很少有消费者能够理解和应用定量 THC 标签；相比之下，提供“解释性”信息的 THC 标签，例如描述符、符号或参考份量，效果更好。
