Exposure to smoking in movies among British adolescents 2001–2006

ObjectiveTo estimate youth exposure to smoking in movies in the UK and compare the likely effect with the USA.MethodsWe collected tobacco occurrences data for 572 top-grossing films in the UK screened from 2001 to 2006 and estimated the number of on-screen tobacco impressions delivered to British youths in this time period.Results91% of films in our sample that contained smoking were youth-rated films (British Board of Film Classification rating '15' and lower), delivering at least 1.10 billion tobacco impressions to British youths during theatrical release. British youths were exposed to 28% more smoking impressions in UK youth-rated movies than American youth-rated movies, because 79% of movies rated for adults in the USA ('R') are classified as suitable for youths in the UK ('15' or '12A').ConclusionBecause there is a dose-response relation between the amount of on-screen exposure to smoking and the likelihood that adolescents will begin smoking, the fact that there is substantially higher exposure to smoking in youth-rated films in the UK than in the USA suggests that the fraction of all youth smoking because of films in the UK is probably larger than in the USA. Other countries with ratings systems that are less conservative (in terms of language and sexuality) than the USA will also be likely to deliver more on-screen tobacco impressions to youths. Assigning an '18' classification to movies that contain smoking would substantially reduce youth exposure to on-screen smoking and, hence, smoking initiation among British youths

California film subsidies and on-screen smoking: Resolving the policy conflict

Cumulative exposure to on-screen smoking is a major recruiter of new young smokers. Policy solutions—including R-rating films with tobacco imagery and making productions with tobacco ineligible for public subsidies—are backed by health authorities in California and worldwide. Exposure to on-screen smoking accounts for nearly 100,000 current smokers in California aged 12-17. Total costs of medical services for this group, through age 50, are estimated at $1.6 billion (discounted present value). Two-thirds of the cost will be borne by government. Top-grossing films made in California accounted for one-third of United States audience exposure to on-screen tobacco imagery 2002-11. From mid-2009 through 2011, California approved$374 million in film and television production subsidies, in the form of tax credits. $128 million was approved for 27 feature films, released widely 2010-11, that achieved top-grossing status. Sixteen of these films featured tobacco imagery;$75 million was approved for these films, which made $1.1 billion at the box office. More than two-thirds ($51 million) of California tax credits approved for top-grossing films with tobacco imagery went to PG-13 films. Nearly 80 percent (2 billion/2.5 billion) of in-theater tobacco impressions delivered in the US and Canada by California-subsidized, top-grossing films came from films rated PG-13. (The rest came from R-rated films.) Tobacco content of top-grossing films varies by company. Forty-four percent of California subsidies approved for top-grossing feature were reserved for films released by Sony and Viacom (Paramount). Films from these two companies garnered 71 percent of California subsidies for films with tobacco and 83 percent of subsidies for youth-rated (PG-13) films with tobacco. Of the $1.6 billion in costs of direct medical services that will be incurred for teen smokers in California recruited by their exposure to films with tobacco imagery,$510 million is attributable to adolescents’ exposure to films made in California. If the California film subsidy program continues and the pattern of subsidies and smoking films remains the same as in the past, films containing tobacco and subsidized by California taxpayers will contribute an estimated 17,000 new 12-17 year old smokers among the next cohort of 12-17 year old smokers in California, who will incur an estimated $270 million in smoking-induced costs. Public health authorities, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the director of Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health, and the chair of California’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee (TEROC) have highlighted the policy contradiction between state subsidies for films with tobacco imagery and state tobacco prevention programs. The policy solution is to amend the California tax credit program statute, adding the following to the existing list of productions disqualified from eligibility for subsidy: …any production that depicts or refers to any tobacco product or non-pharmaceutical nicotine delivery device or its use, associated paraphernalia or related trademarks or promotional material. Such a change would end the practice of taxpayers paying for commercial films with tobacco imagery that subvert the important public goal of reducing youth smoking and its consequent health costs, many of which are borne by the public.

California film subsidies and on-screen smoking: Resolving the policy conflict

Cumulative exposure to on-screen smoking is a major recruiter of new young smokers. Policy solutions—including R-rating films with tobacco imagery and making productions with tobacco ineligible for public subsidies—are backed by health authorities in California and worldwide. Exposure to on-screen smoking accounts for nearly 100,000 current smokers in California aged 12-17. Total costs of medical services for this group, through age 50, are estimated at $1.6 billion (discounted present value). Two-thirds of the cost will be borne by government. Top-grossing films made in California accounted for one-third of United States audience exposure to on-screen tobacco imagery 2002-11. From mid-2009 through 2011, California approved$374 million in film and television production subsidies, in the form of tax credits. $128 million was approved for 27 feature films, released widely 2010-11, that achieved top-grossing status. Sixteen of these films featured tobacco imagery;$75 million was approved for these films, which made $1.1 billion at the box office. More than two-thirds ($51 million) of California tax credits approved for top-grossing films with tobacco imagery went to PG-13 films. Nearly 80 percent (2 billion/2.5 billion) of in-theater tobacco impressions delivered in the US and Canada by California-subsidized, top-grossing films came from films rated PG-13. (The rest came from R-rated films.) Tobacco content of top-grossing films varies by company. Forty-four percent of California subsidies approved for top-grossing feature were reserved for films released by Sony and Viacom (Paramount). Films from these two companies garnered 71 percent of California subsidies for films with tobacco and 83 percent of subsidies for youth-rated (PG-13) films with tobacco. Of the $1.6 billion in costs of direct medical services that will be incurred for teen smokers in California recruited by their exposure to films with tobacco imagery,$510 million is attributable to adolescents’ exposure to films made in California. If the California film subsidy program continues and the pattern of subsidies and smoking films remains the same as in the past, films containing tobacco and subsidized by California taxpayers will contribute an estimated 17,000 new 12-17 year old smokers among the next cohort of 12-17 year old smokers in California, who will incur an estimated $270 million in smoking-induced costs. Public health authorities, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the director of Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health, and the chair of California’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee (TEROC) have highlighted the policy contradiction between state subsidies for films with tobacco imagery and state tobacco prevention programs. The policy solution is to amend the California tax credit program statute, adding the following to the existing list of productions disqualified from eligibility for subsidy: …any production that depicts or refers to any tobacco product or non-pharmaceutical nicotine delivery device or its use, associated paraphernalia or related trademarks or promotional material. Such a change would end the practice of taxpayers paying for commercial films with tobacco imagery that subvert the important public goal of reducing youth smoking and its consequent health costs, many of which are borne by the public.

First-Run Smoking Presentations in U.S. Movies 1999-2006

Smoking among American adults fell by half between 1950 and 2002, yet smoking on U.S. movie screens reached historic heights in 2002, topping levels observed a half century earlier. Tobacco's comeback in movies has serious public health implications, because smoking on screen stimulates adolescents to start smoking, accounting for an estimated 52% of adolescent smoking initiation.Equally important, researchers have observed a dose-response relationship between teens' exposure to on-screen smoking and smoking initiation: the greater teens' exposure to smoking in movies, the more likely they are to start smoking. Conversely, if their exposure to smoking in movies were reduced, proportionately fewer teens would likely start smoking.To track smoking trends at the movies, previous analyses have studied the U.S. motion picture industry's top-grossing films with the heaviest advertising support, deepest audience penetration, and highest box office earnings. This report is unique in examining the U.S. movie industry's total output, and also in idnetifying smoking in movies, tobacco incidents, and tobacco impressions with the companies that produced and/or distributed the films - and with their parent corporations, which claim responsibility for tobacco content choices. Examining Hollywood's product line-up, before and after the public voted at the box office, sheds light on individual studios' content decisions and industry-wide production patterns amenable to policy reform.We surveyed all U.S.-produced live action films released to theaters in the eight years between December 25, 1998, and December 24, 2006, and offer three different measures of smoking in movies:1. INTENTION: Number of films that include smoking (and those smokefree) by year, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) age-classification, and the corporation responsible;2. PERFORMANCE: Number of smoking incidents in these films (an index of smoking intensity) by year, MPAA age-classification, and corporation responsible;3. IMPACT: Number of smoking impressions (each film's smoking incidents x tickets sold) delivered to theatrical audiences overall, to children aged 6-11, and to teens aged 12-17, by year, MPAA age-classification, and corporation reponsible.Because exposure to smoking in movies accounts for about half of smoking initiation by U.S. adolescents, we pay particular attention to smoking in movies rated G/PG and PG-13 and to the effect of the proposed R-rating for tobacco use on screen

First-Run Smoking Presentations in U.S. Movies 1999-2006

Smoking among American adults fell by half between 1950 and 2002, yet smoking on U.S. movie screens reached historic heights in 2002, topping levels observed a half century earlier. Tobacco's comeback in movies has serious public health implications, because smoking on screen stimulates adolescents to start smoking, accounting for an estimated 52% of adolescent smoking initiation. Equally important, researchers have observed a dose-response relationship between teens' exposure to on-screen smoking and smoking initiation: the greater teens' exposure to smoking in movies, the more likely they are to start smoking. Conversely, if their exposure to smoking in movies were reduced, proportionately fewer teens would likely start smoking. To track smoking trends at the movies, previous analyses have studied the U.S. motion picture industry's top-grossing films with the heaviest advertising support, deepest audience penetration, and highest box office earnings. This report is unique in examining the U.S. movie industry's total output, and also in idnetifying smoking in movies, tobacco incidents, and tobacco impressions with the companies that produced and/or distributed the films - and with their parent corporations, which claim responsibility for tobacco content choices. Examining Hollywood's product line-up, before and after the public voted at the box office, sheds light on individual studios' content decisions and industry-wide production patterns amenable to policy reform. We surveyed all U.S.-produced live action films released to theaters in the eight years between December 25, 1998, and December 24, 2006, and offer three different measures of smoking in movies: 1. INTENTION: Number of films that include smoking (and those smokefree) by year, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) age-classification, and the corporation responsible; 2. PERFORMANCE: Number of smoking incidents in these films (an index of smoking intensity) by year, MPAA age-classification, and corporation responsible; 3. IMPACT: Number of smoking impressions (each film's smoking incidents x tickets sold) delivered to theatrical audiences overall, to children aged 6-11, and to teens aged 12-17, by year, MPAA age-classification, and corporation reponsible. Because exposure to smoking in movies accounts for about half of smoking initiation by U.S. adolescents, we pay particular attention to smoking in movies rated G/PG and PG-13 and to the effect of the proposed R-rating for tobacco use on screen.movies, mpaa, smoking trends, Business, Education, Social and Behavioral Sciences