Abstract
Background In October 2019, cannabis edibles were legalized for sale in Canada. This move was intended to improve public safety by regulating contents (including a maximum 10 mg tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per package) and packaging to prevent accidental ingestion or over consumption. This study aimed to explore consumer preferences for cannabis edibles to inform cannabis policy.
Methods We explored the relative importance and trade-offs consumers make for attributes of cannabis edibles using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes included type of edible, price, THC content, cannabis taste, package information, product consistency, product recommendations, and Health Canada regulation. Participants lived in Canada, were 19 years of age or older, and purchased a cannabis edible in the last 12 months. A multinomial logit (MNL) model was used for the base model, and latent class analysis to assess preference sub-groups.
Results Among 684 participants, the MNL model showed that potency was the most relevant followed by edible type. A two-group latent class model revealed two very distinct preference patterns. Preferences for group 1 (∼65% of sample) were driven primarily by edible type, while for group 2 (∼35% of sample) were driven almost entirely by THC potency.
Conclusion This study found that consumer preferences for ∼65% of consumers of cannabis edibles are being met through regulated channels. The remaining ∼35% are driven by THC potency at levels that are not currently available on the licensed market. Attracting this market segment will require reviewing the risks and benefits of restricting THC package content.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received financial support for conduct of the research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant No. RN407334 - 429120) and the Canadian Centre of Substance Use and Addiction for the Partnerships for Cannabis Policy (Grant Nos. RN407334 - 429120 and B2 - RESGRL 413-10-9633) inclusive of this research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was carried out in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement and approval by the Memorial University Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research (File #20210143).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data can be made available upon request, and with the approval of the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research