“Non-Flavor” Flavors: What Are the Implications of Derived Psychoactive Cannabis Product Marketing?

Derived psychoactive cannabis products (DPCPs) are relatively new market entrants (Rossheim et al., 2024). These products became widely available in the U.S. market after the 2018 Farm Bill was passed, which defined hemp as cannabis products with less than 0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; the most naturally prominent intoxicating THC) by dry weight (United States Congress, 2019). Thus, products with slightly different chemical alterations have been assumed to be federally legal by some manufacturers/retailers.

Significant public health concerns have been raised regarding these products. In particular, there is no federal oversight, and many states lack well-established regulations or enforcement. Although several states have tried either banning DPCPs or regulating them according to their cannabis laws, the patchwork of state-by-state regulations provides opportunities for the industry to circumvent existing regulations (LoParco et al., 2023; U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2022). This has resulted in potentially adulterated products (e.g., with heavy metals, solvents), DPCPs' wide availability (including online), few price constraints (making many of them more affordable than cannabis), gaps in minimum age requirements or enforcement, and unintentional ingestion or overconsumption (FDA, 2022; Henry, 2023; LoParco et al., 2023; Ray et al., 2022).

A particularly concerning result of the gaps in regulation is how DPCPs are marketed, which may include youthoriented and copyright-infringing packaging (FDA, 2022; LoParco et al., 2023) and product forms (e.g., gummies) and flavors (e.g., fruity/candy) that appeal to youth (Chaffee et al., 2023; Notley et al., 2022). These approaches may parallel the various strategies used by the “traditional” cannabis industry to brand and provide quick, effective narratives for their products. For example, traditional cannabis product names may allude to their parent strains, genetic background, or potential effects; represent significant historical figures or celebrities; or convey humor or certain lifestyle characteristics (Shapiro, 2023; Wilhelm, 2020).

Informed by traditional cannabis industry marketing strategies (Shapiro, 2023; Wilhelm, 2020), this article highlights the DPCP industry's marketing of products with “non-flavor” flavors—that is, flavor descriptions not reflecting conventional taste expectations. We focused on disposable vapes specifically for the following reasons: (a) Vaping is a common mode of use, and disposable vapes are the most common modality of DPCPs sold online (Rossheim et al., 2023); (b) flower is typically sold in jars with limited packaging/branding; and (c) vapes tend to have the largest variety of non-flavors, whereas other products (e.g., edibles) tend to have more typical flavors (e.g., fruits, desserts). To quantify the presence of the themes identified, “buy delta thc” was Google searched in incognito mode in June 2024, and the products from the first 10 websites that sold their own branded products (i.e., not wholesale) were examined. Additional examples were searched on Google Images and Reddit, drawing from products/categories identified. Refer to Supplemental File for photo examples. (Supplemental material appears as an online-only addendum to this article on the journal's website.)

DPCP non-flavor marketing

Capitalizing on existing fanbases. Similar to the cannabis industry, one observed DPCP marketing strategy capitalized on existing fan bases of popular, high-grossing franchises (e.g., movies, shows). This marketing characterized a product's flavor in its product labeling, sometimes using caricatures or direct images of characters or scenes. For example, many disposable DPCP vapes had non-flavors that were Star Wars franchise–themed—with the flavor Skywalker being one of the most prominent. Other examples of these non-flavors included BB8, Darth Vader, Death Star, and Baby Yoda. Other flavors based on existing fanbases included Rick and Morty, Avatar OG, Super Harlequin, Bruce Banner, Incredible Hulk, Scooby Snacks, King Kong, The Grinch, The Joker, Harley Quinn, and Green Goblin. Some brands visually depicted these movies/shows alongside traditional flavors. This strategy was present in 6/10 (60%) of the online DPCP retailers examined.

Enticing consumers to purchase products that align with their fandom is particularly dangerous, as some of these movies, shows, or other media are advertised and targeted toward youth (e.g., Scooby-Doo) and thus could increase demand among youth and undermine cannabis use prevention campaigns. Some DPCP brands have been sued for copyright infringement because they have used flavors and packaging associated with well-known brands (e.g., often for edibles; Skittles, Cinnabon) (Edward, 2019; Potter, 2022; Schuba, 2021), with certain brands (e.g., Cart Toon Carts) particularly prone to using these strategies and seemingly blacklisted/removed from the market (Blaze, 2019; Reddit, 2022). The traditional cannabis industry's use of similar strategies and others (e.g., “pot culture”; using animals, expletives, royalty) (Piper, 2018) have been documented, particularly for similar youth-related and copyright implications (Shapiro, 2023; Wilhelm, 2020).

Conveying potential effects. Another marketing strategy was using flavors to convey psychological/physiological effects. For example, some flavors were seemingly named to convey peaceful effects (e.g., Cloud Nine, Aurora Indica, Caribbean Breeze, Mountain Temple, Northern Lights) or intense psychoactive effects (e.g., Train Wreck, Baked Alien, Hellfire, Thunderstorm, Sour Tsunami). This strategy was identified among 7/10 (70%) of the online DPCP retailers examined.

Using flavors to seemingly represent a product's psychological/physiological effects is a strategy also used by the traditional cannabis industry (Shapiro, 2023; Wilhelm, 2020). However, the use of this strategy by the DPCP industry may be dangerous because of the inconsistent effects of DPCPs (LoParco et al., 2023) and potential misalignment between flavor and potency of the product or actual effects experienced. Furthermore, this type of marketing may also be a way for the industry to anticipate and circumnavigate future laws. For example, states with legalized nonmedical cannabis often restrict cannabis marketing claims related to health effects (Allard et al., 2023; Horn & Eisentrout, 2023; The Network for Public Health Law, 2022); similar DPCP regulations may be enacted. Given that these effects are implied, it can be challenging for regulators to ensure that such marketing is perceived accurately by consumers.

Parallels with traditional cannabis

One concern is whether DPCP non-flavor descriptors are intended to reflect traditional cannabis strains and their known effects. For example, it is unclear whether certain DPCP products (e.g., Super Harlequin) are named directly after the strain/plant from which they or their added terpenes are derived, intend to solicit existing consumer expectations of well-known strains, or associate the product with a genre. This is concerning given the potential to mislead consumers into believing that DPCPs come from the same plants as traditional cannabis rather than the extremely different hemp manufacturing process (LoParco et al., 2023), the potentially harmful influence of terpenes and flavoring agents on the vaporization of cannabinoids (Meehan-Atrash et al., 2021; Munger et al., 2024), and the unknown effects of the near limitless potential combinations of chemicals (Caprari et al., 2024; Kishimoto et al., 2024).

Public health implications and future directions

Although most states restrict traditional cannabis marketing (e.g., prohibiting targeting or appealing to minors) (Allard et al., 2023; The Network for Public Health Law, 2022), similar restrictions for DPCPs are lacking in many states. Moreover, states that have extended their traditional cannabis marketing restrictions to DPCPs continue to have challenges in enforcing these restrictions for cannabis (let alone DPCPs), particularly with regard to youth-oriented marketing (Tan et al., 2022). DPCP brands must be held accountable for the impacts of their products. For example, state regulatory boards could require evidence of the effects of DPCP marketing on perceptions and use among key sociodemographic groups (e.g., youth, young adults) like the regulations the FDA has applied to the tobacco industry (FDA, 2019). At the same time, independent research is needed to document these effects, which may ultimately elucidate findings that will support the need to restrict these types of branding/marketing elements. Future research should also examine perceptions of non–traditionally flavored DPCPs, particularly among youth, and how this marketing affects perceived risk, usage, and use intentions.