A content analysis of cannabis edibles package marketing in the United States.

BACKGROUND: With states legalizing cannabis at a rapid pace, and the increasing popularity of edibles, it is important to document marketing practices to better understand how they might be appealing and misleading to consumers to guide state policymakers. METHODS: A descriptive content analysis of 1229 cannabis edible packages advertised on a publicly available website between June and November 2022 and available for sale in licensed dispensaries was performed. RESULTS: Healthy ingredient descriptors were the most common type of descriptor with 31 % of packages including words like "vegan", "gluten free" and "natural". Quality descriptors like "handcrafted" were on 28 % of packages. Other descriptors were focused on the consumer experience including expected effects (e.g., "relax") (27 %), taste or flavor (e.g., "sour") (21 %) and pharmacokinetics (e.g., "fast-acting") (19 %). Images of non-cannabis plants and outdoor nature settings were on half of packages. Images of the cannabis plant were on 33 % of packages. Flavor imagery including images of food were common (43 %). Other marketing appeals included images of people (15 %), animals (12 %) and space (10 %). CONCLUSIONS: Package marketing used by other commercial industries was common on cannabis edible packages. Edibles marketing is distinct from other cannabis products in its ability to focus on the food ingredients which could mislead consumers into thinking the cannabis, rather than the food, is healthy or less harmful. Research examining the impact of cannabis edibles marketing strategies on appeal and harm perceptions is critically needed to guide policymakers as they establish packaging regulations to optimize public health and safety.

The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.

The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.