Packaging of disposable vaping products and e‐liquids in England, Canada and the United States: A content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vaping product packaging is varied and often features bright colours and novel designs, particularly among recently marketed disposable vapes. This study provides an overview of attributes found on the packaging of popular disposable vapes and e-liquid bottles in England, Canada and the United States (US) and assesses compliance with local packaging regulations. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: Brick-and-mortar and online shops in England (London), Canada (Ontario) and the US (New Hampshire and South Carolina). CASES: 108 vaping products (including packaging) from 76 brands in a range of flavours and nicotine levels. Specifically, 48 disposable vapes (15 from England, 16 from Canada, 17 from the US) and 60 e-liquid bottles (20 per country). MEASUREMENTS: Textual and graphic branding and marketing elements, independently coded by two researchers and checked by a third. FINDINGS: Compliance with local packaging regulations varied across countries. Health warnings were present on the packaging of all but one nicotine-containing product, although 33% of disposables and 17% of e-liquids featuring the warning did not adhere to formatting requirements. Leaflets were seldom included with e-liquid bottles, even in England (45%) where mandatory, and omitted elsewhere. Labelling of nicotine type and batch numbers was inconsistent. Vaping product packaging featured claims relating to sensory perceptions (41%), most often flavours, and some (32%) featured youth-appealing content. Common graphic elements included stylised brand fonts (80%), brand logos (54%), product representations on the external packaging (47%) and abstract graphic elements (64%). Colours on packaging, disposable vapes and e-liquid bottles were associated with product flavour. CONCLUSIONS: In England, Canada and the United States, popular disposable vapes and e-liquid bottles appear to have varying compliance with local packaging regulations and inconsistent labelling of nicotine and product characteristics. The use of colourful designs, evocative descriptors and appealing graphics to promote flavours underscores the need for comprehensive packaging regulations and enforcement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".