Efficacy of Canadian health warning statements on caffeinated energy drinks: an experimental study among young Canadians.

The current study examined the efficacy of health warnings on caffeinated energy drinks (CEDs). Participants aged 12-24 years (n = 2040) completed an online survey where they were asked to recall any existing warning statements on CED products and were randomized to one of 29 experimental warning conditions. Regression models were fitted to examine differences between conditions in product appeal, perceived safety and message recall. Overall, fewer than 30% of participants were able to accurately describe an existing CED product warning. Experimental findings indicated that exposure to CEDs with warning labels resulted in greater recall. Warnings on the back of CED cans featuring large font, a border, and a 'caution' heading resulted in significantly greater recall (P < 0.05 for all). Front-of-package 'High source of caffeine' labels resulted in greater recall than a quantitative description (P < 0.001); caffeine labels generally elicited lower product appeal (P < 0.001) and perceived safety (P = 0.002) ratings vs. no caffeine labels, and the qualitative caffeine statement elicited lower perceived safety ratings than the quantitative statement (P = 0.02). Existing warning statements in Canada have low levels of awareness. Warnings on CEDs could be enhanced to increase the salience of messages, with greater impact from clear, descriptive, front-of-package 'High source of caffeine' labels.

An experimental study on perceptions of energy drink ads among youth and young adults in Canada.

Current regulations in Canada prohibit the marketing of caffeinated energy drinks (CEDs) for use during sports, with alcohol, and by children. The study examined perceptions of CED ads in association with sports and alcohol use, as well as target age groups. An online survey was conducted in 2015 with youth and young adults aged 12-24 years (n = 2010). Participants completed three experiments in which they were randomized to view CED advertisements: 1) sports/party-themed ads, 2) sports-themed ad, and 3) party-themed ad, vs. control 'product information' ads. For each ad, participants were asked about perceived target age group, and if the ad promoted using CEDs during sports and with alcohol. Logistic regression models were fitted to test differences in outcomes between conditions. The majority of respondents reported that the ads, across all themes, targeted people their age. In experiment 1, both sports/party-themed ads were more likely to be perceived as promoting use of CEDs during sports (AOR = 13.32; 95% CI 9.90, 17.91, and AOR = 9.73; 95% CI 7.38, 12.81, respectively), and with alcohol (AOR = 8.55; 95% CI 6.37, 11.48, and AOR = 2.81; 95% CI 2.08, 3.78, respectively), compared to the control ad. In experiment 2, the sports-themed ad was more likely to be perceived as promoting use of CEDs during sports (AOR = 15.02; 95% CI 11.83, 19.08), but not with alcohol, compared to the control ad. In experiment 3, the party-themed ad was more likely to be perceived as promoting use of CEDs with alcohol (AOR = 13.79; 95% CI 10.69, 17.78), but not during sports, compared to the control ad. Ads from leading energy drink brands are perceived as targeting young people and encouraging energy drink use during sports and with alcohol, despite Canadian regulations prohibiting these marketing practices.

Cigarette pack size and consumption: a randomized cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking fewer cigarettes per day may increase the chances of stopping smoking. Capping the number of cigarettes per pack is a promising policy option, but the causal impact of such a change is unknown. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that lowering cigarette pack sizes from 25 to 20 reduces the number of cigarettes smoked. DESIGN: This randomized controlled cross-over trial had two 14-day intervention periods with an intervening 7-day period of usual behaviour. Participants purchased their own cigarettes. They were instructed to smoke their usual brand from either one of two sizes of pack in each of two 14-day intervention periods: (a) 25 cigarettes and (b) 20 cigarettes. Participants were randomized to the order in which they smoked from the two pack sizes (a-b; b-a). SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult smokers who smoked from pack sizes of 25, recruited between July 2020 and June 2021. Of 252 randomized, 240 (95%) completed the study and 236 (94%) provided sufficient data for the primary analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Cigarettes smoked per participant per day. FINDINGS: Participants smoked fewer cigarettes per day from packs of 20 cigarettes [n = 234, mean = 15.7 standard deviation (SD) = 7.1] than from packs of 25 (n = 235, mean = 16.9, SD = 7.1). After adjusting for pre-specified covariates (baseline consumption and heaviness of smoking), modelling estimated that participants smoked 1.3 fewer cigarettes per day [95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.7 to -0.9], equivalent to 7.6% fewer (95% CI = -10.1 to -5.2%) from packs of 20 cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking from packs of 20 compared with 25 cigarettes reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day.

Nicotine content, labelling and flavours of e-liquids in Canada in 2020: a scan of the online retail market. / Teneur en nicotine, étiquetage et arômes des liquides à vapoter au Canada en 2020 : un survol du marché de la vente au détail en ligne.

INTRODUCTION: The e-cigarette market in Canada has rapidly evolved following the implementation of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act in May 2018, which liberalized the promotion and sale of vaping products. To date, there is little data on the market profile of key product attributes, including nicotine content, labelling practices and flavours. METHODS: An online scan of vaping product retailers (manufacturer, two national, five provincial) was conducted in 2020 to assess the e-liquids available on the Canadian market. Data were extracted from websites and product images regarding the nicotine content, labelling and flavours of e-liquids. RESULTS: We identified 1746 e-liquids, with a total of 4790 different nicotine concentrations. Approximately half of the e-liquids were offered with salt-base nicotine (46.6%) and half with freebase nicotine (53.2%); the remainder were hybrids (0.2%). The mean nicotine concentration of salt-base e-liquids (3.4%) was higher than freebase e-liquids (0.5%) (p < 0.001). Labels indicating the presence of nicotine were visible on twothirds of e-liquid packaging displayed online (63.2%) while three-quarters of packaging displayed the nicotine concentration (73.7%), and more than half of packaging displayed health warnings (58.9%). A variety of flavours were also identified, with fruit being the most common (43.6%), followed by candy/desserts (27.6%) and non-alcoholic drinks (12.5%). CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the diversity of the online e-cigarette market in Canada, including the availability of higher-concentration salt-base nicotine products. Flavour restrictions have the potential to dramatically reduce the number of e-liquid flavours on the market, while restricting nicotine concentrations to < 20 mg/mL will predominantly restrict salt-based e-liquids.

Exposure to Caffeinated Energy Drink Marketing and Educational Messages among Youth and Young Adults in Canada.

The objective of the current study was to evaluate young Canadians' exposure to caffeinated energy drink marketing and educational messages that warn about the potential health risks of energy drinks. An online survey was conducted in 2015 with youth and young adults aged 12⁻24 years recruited from a national online panel (n = 2023). Respondents were asked about their exposure to energy drink marketing and educational messages that warn about the potential health risks of energy drinks. Regression models were fitted to examine correlates of exposure to marketing and to educational messages. Over 80% of respondents reported ever seeing energy drink marketing through at least one channel, most commonly television (58.8%), posters or signs in a convenience or grocery store (48.5%), and online ads (45.7%). The mean number of marketing channels selected was 3.4 (SD = 2.9) out of ten. Respondents aged 18⁻19 (vs. 12⁻14 and 15⁻17) and 20⁻24 (vs. 12⁻14 and 15⁻17) reported significantly more channels of exposure to marketing. Overall, 32% of respondents reporting ever seeing an educational message about energy drinks. The most frequently reported sources of exposure were at school (16.2%), online (15.0%), and on television (12.6%). Respondents aged 18⁻19 (vs. 12⁻14, 15⁻17 and 20⁻24) and 20⁻24 (vs. 15⁻17) were significantly more likely to report having seen an educational message. Exposure to energy drink marketing was common among youth and young adults and was significantly more prevalent than exposure to educational messages that warn about the potential health risks of energy drinks. A comprehensive policy approach, including enforcing responsible marketing and increasing education surrounding the risks of consuming energy drinks, may be an effective approach in promoting lower-risk consumption of CEDs.

Food sources among young people in five major Canadian cities.

OBJECTIVE: To examine food sources among young people in five major Canadian cities. METHODS: As part of the 2016 Canada Food Study, respondents aged 16-30 were recruited from five Canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton, and Vancouver) using in-person intercept sampling and completed an online survey (n = 2840 retained for analysis). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize food preparation and purchase locations. A linear regression model was fitted to examine correlates of the proportion of meals that were ready-to-eat or prepared outside the home. RESULTS: In total, 80% of meals were prepared at home and 20% were prepared outside the home. More than 25% of meals prepared at home were ready-to-eat/box food. Of all meals consumed, 42% were either ready-to-eat/box food prepared at home or prepared outside the home. Food for meals prepared at home was purchased predominantly at grocery stores/supercentres while meals prepared outside the home were purchased predominantly at fast food/quick service/coffee shop outlets. Respondents who were younger, identified as Aboriginal, had obesity, had no children, lived in residence at school, university, or college, and reported poorer cooking skills reported more meals that were ready-to-eat or prepared outside the home. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings indicate that a substantial proportion of meals consumed by young people consist of meals either prepared outside the home or ready-to-eat/box food prepared at home. Dietary recommendations should highlight basic patterns of food preparation and eating, such as limiting ultra-processed food and food prepared outside the home.

Use and Perceptions of Caffeinated Energy Drinks and Energy Shots in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: In Canada, energy drinks and energy shots are currently classified and regulated differently (food and drugs versus natural health products, respectively), on the assumption that they are used and perceived differently. The current study examined potential differences in use and perceptions of energy drinks and shots. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in 2015 using a national commercial online panel of youth and young adults aged 12-24 years (n=2,040 retained for analysis in 2016). Participants were randomized to view an image of an energy shot or drink, and were asked about 14 potential reasons for using the product. Past consumption of each product was also assessed. Chi-square and t-tests were conducted to examine differences in use and perceptions between products. RESULTS: Overall, 15.6% of respondents reported using both energy shots and drinks. Of all respondents, <1% had tried only energy shots, whereas 58.0% had tried only energy drinks. For each product, the most commonly reported reasons for use were "to stay awake" and "to increase concentration or alertness." Out of 14 potential reasons for use, respondents were significantly more likely to endorse seven of the reasons for energy drinks rather than shots; however, the magnitude of these differences was modest and the ordering of the reasons for use of each product was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in prevalence of ever-use of energy shots and drinks, consumption patterns and perceived reasons for using the products are similar. The findings provide little support for regulating energy shots differently than energy drinks.