Download PDF : Amicus Brief on FDA Cigarette Labels[1]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOfHBi9iWzM
Superman defeats Nick O’Teen
September 22nd, 2011:
Interesting reading on ‘product placement’ – tobacco in the movies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement
Tobacco
Tobacco companies have made direct payment to stars for using their cigarettes in films. Documentation of $500,000 in payments to Sylvester Stallone to “use Brown and Williamsontobacco products in no less than five feature films” [34][35] is accessible online as part of theLegacy Tobacco Documents Library.[36]
The James Bond film Licence to Kill (1989) featured use of the Lark brand of cigarette and the producers accepted payment for that product placement. The studio’s executives apparently believed that the placement triggered the American warning notice requirement for cigarette advertisements and thus the movie carried the Surgeon General’s Warning at the end credits of the film. This brought forth calls for banning such cigarette advertisements in future films. Later releases of License to Kill, especially for video and television releases, had the Lark pack replaced with a similar-looking, generic pack. Most movies, such as the youth-targeted Ramen Girl, which has a product placement for Marlboro cigarettes, omit the Surgeon General’s Warning.
Reviewing previously secret tobacco advertising documents, the British Medical Journal concluded:
The tobacco industry recruits new smokers by associating its products with fun, excitement, sex, wealth, and power and as a means of expressing rebellion and independence. One of the ways it has found to promote these associations has been to encourage smoking in entertainment productions.1 Exposure to smoking in entertainment media is associated with increased smoking and favourable attitudes towards tobacco use among adolescents.
While the tobacco industry has routinely denied active involvement in entertainment programming, previously secret tobacco industry documents made available in the USA show that the industry has had a long and deep relationship with Hollywood. Placing tobacco products in movies and on television (fig 1Go), encouraging celebrity use and endorsement, advertising in entertainment oriented magazines, designing advertising campaigns to reflect Hollywood glamour, and sponsoring entertainment oriented events have all been part of the industry’s relationship with the entertainment industry.
— How the tobacco industry built its relationship with Hollywood, BMJ 2002[37] http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i81.full
Product displacement According to Danny Boyle, director of film Slumdog Millionaire (2008), the makers had to resort to something he calls “product displacement” when companies such as Mercedes-Benz refused to allow their products to be used in non-flattering settings. While they did not mind having a gangster driving their cars, they objected to their products been shown in a slum setting. This forced the makers in post-production to remove logos digitally, costing “tens of thousands of pounds”. Boyle did not, however, comment on the disproportionately common on-screen reference to the cigarette brand Marlboro Lights in the same film, leading some commentators to question whether there was significant funding from the said company for the film.[78]
How the tobacco industry built its relationship with Hollywood
Abstract
Objective: To describe the development of the relationship between the tobacco industry and the entertainment industry.
Methods: Review of previously secret tobacco industry documents available on the internet.
Results: Both the entertainment and tobacco industries recognised the high value of promotion of tobacco through entertainment media. The 1980s saw undertakings by four tobacco companies, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds (RJR), American Tobacco Company, and Brown and Williamson to place their products in movies. RJR and Philip Morris also worked to place products on television at the beginning of the decade. Each company hired aggressive product placement firms to represent its interests in Hollywood. These firms placed products and tobacco signage in positive situations that would encourage viewers to use tobacco and kept brands from being used in negative situations. At least one of the companies, RJR, undertook an extensive campaign to hook Hollywood on tobacco by providing free cigarettes to actors on a monthly basis. Efforts were also made to place favourable articles relating to product use by actors in national print media and to encourage professional photographers to take pictures of actors smoking specific brands. The cigar industry started developing connections with the entertainment industry beginning in the 1980s and paid product placements were made in both movies and on television. This effort did not always require money payments from the tobacco industry to the entertainment industry, suggesting that simply looking for cash payoffs may miss other important ties between the tobacco and entertainment industries.
Conclusions: The tobacco industry understood the value of placing and encouraging tobacco use in films, and how to do it. While the industry claims to have ended this practice, smoking in motion pictures increased throughout the 1990s and remains a public health problem.
Smoking in movies – should film censors allocate adult ratings to such films ?
hapman and Farrelly opined:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001078
Four Arguments against the Adult-Rating of Movies with Smoking Scenes Simon Chapman and Matthew Farrelly argue against recent calls in the US and elsewhere for movies with smoking scenes to be adult-rated.
Countered by:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001077
Andrea Waylen of Bristol University article in Thorax:
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/856.abstract
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/844.full.pdf
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/856.full.pdf
Cross-sectional association between smoking depictions in films and adolescent tobacco use nested in a British cohort study
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2011/7913.html
Smoking in films encourages teenagers to take a drag Press release issued 20 September 2011 The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies wants such films to fall under the same stringent rules applied to films showing violence and sex
A new study has revealed that teenagers are more likely to take up smoking after seeing film stars in the act.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/20/smoking-films-automatic-18-rating
Smoking in films ‘should get automatic 18 rating’ Young people who watch movies featuring smoking are more likely to take up the habit, says report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14971560
Smoking in films ‘encourages teenagers to take it up By Michelle Roberts Health reporter, BBC News
The Lyons and Britton editorial is a compelling argument for addressing smoking in movies through the ratings system available for free at: http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/844.full.pdf
Waylen paper and meta analysis available for free at: http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/856.full.pdf
6 country EU study by Morgenstern available at:
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/875.full.pdf
Study of Scottish adolescents available for free at:
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/10/866.full.pdf
Smoking in the Movies Increases Adolescent Smoking: A Review
Annemarie Charlesworth, MA, Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/6/1516.abstract
Smoking in teenagers and watching films showing smoking Hollywood needs to stop promoting smoking worldwide
http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7326/1378.full
Smoking in Top-Grossing Movies — United States, 1991—2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5932a2.htm
In 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 2008, and 2010 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named tobacco in the movies a major factor in teen smoking. In 2007, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that: Exposure to depictions of smoking in movies is associated with more favorable attitudes toward smoking and characters who smoke, and these positive views are particularly prevalent among youth who themselves smoke.
http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/problem/moviessell.html
Download PDF : 844.full
Cross-sectional association between smoking depictions in films and adolescent tobacco use nested in a British cohort study
ABSTRACT
Objective To assess associations between exposure to
smoking depictions in films and adolescent tobacco use
in a British population cohort.
Methods Data on exposure to smoking in films and
smoking behaviour were collected from 5166 15-year-old
adolescents in the UK. Main outcome measures were
smoking initiation (ever tried a cigarette) and current
smoking status. Social, family and behavioural factors
were adjusted for, together with alcohol use and peer
smoking as potential mediators. Data from all existing
cross-sectional studies examining the effects of exposure
to smoking in films were summarised in a meta-analysis.
Results Higher exposure to smoking in films was
associated with a dose-response increase in the risk of
smoking initiation even after adjusting for confounders.
Adolescents in the highest exposure quartile were 1.73
(95% CI 1.55 to 1.93) times (RR) more likely to initiate
smoking than those in the lowest quartile. They were more
likely to report current smoking after adjusting for social and
familial factors (RR 1.47 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.02)), but the
association attenuated after including behavioural factors
(RR 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.87)). The meta-analysis shows
that, after aggregation of all relevant data, viewing smoking
in films increases the risk of smoking onset by over 100%
(combined RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.76 to 2.57)) and the risk of
current or established smoking behaviour by 68%
(combined RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 2.01)).
Conclusions This study provides evidence that
adolescents in the UK and elsewhere who are exposed to
smoking depictions in films are more likely to initiate
smoking. Given the association between smoking and poor
health outcomes, these data justify a review of film ratings
ABSTRACTObjective To assess associations between exposure tosmoking depictions in films and adolescent tobacco usein a British population cohort.Methods Data on exposure to smoking in films andsmoking behaviour were collected from 5166 15-year-oldadolescents in the UK. Main outcome measures weresmoking initiation (ever tried a cigarette) and currentsmoking status. Social, family and behavioural factorswere adjusted for, together with alcohol use and peersmoking as potential mediators. Data from all existingcross-sectional studies examining the effects of exposureto smoking in films were summarised in a meta-analysis.Results Higher exposure to smoking in films wasassociated with a dose-response increase in the risk ofsmoking initiation even after adjusting for confounders.Adolescents in the highest exposure quartile were 1.73(95% CI 1.55 to 1.93) times (RR) more likely to initiatesmoking than those in the lowest quartile. They were morelikely to report current smoking after adjusting for social andfamilial factors (RR 1.47 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.02)), but theassociation attenuated after including behavioural factors(RR 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.87)). The meta-analysis showsthat, after aggregation of all relevant data, viewing smokingin films increases the risk of smoking onset by over 100%(combined RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.76 to 2.57)) and the risk ofcurrent or established smoking behaviour by 68%(combined RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 2.01)).Conclusions This study provides evidence thatadolescents in the UK and elsewhere who are exposed tosmoking depictions in films are more likely to initiatesmoking. Given the association between smoking and poorhealth outcomes, these data justify a review of film ratings
Download PDF : 856.full
From Burden to “Best Buys”: Reducing the Economic Impact of Non-Communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Summary
There is growing awareness and concern about the large and escalating burden of chronic, non-communicable
diseases (NCDs) not just from the public health perspective but also from the economic one. The social burdens
associated with the four diseases that are the focus of the UN High-Level Meeting on NCDs – cardiovascular
disease, diabetes, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases – include prolonged disability, diminished resources
within families and reduced productivity, in addition to tremendous demands on health systems.
This report addresses current information gaps in our understanding of how to mitigate these challenges by
highlighting recent findings about the social costs of NCDs and the resource needs for managing these conditions.
Specifically, the report brings together findings from two new studies aimed at equipping decision-makers in
government, civil society and the private sector with key economic insights needed to help reduce the growing
burden of NCDs:
• A global analysis of the economic impact of NCDs by the World Economic Forum and the Harvard School of
Public Health
• An analysis of the costs of scaling up a core intervention package in low- and middle-income countries by the
World Health Organization
The economic consequences of NCDs are staggering. Under a “business as usual” scenario where intervention
efforts remain static and rates of NCDs continue to increase as populations grow and age, cumulative economic
losses to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) from the four diseases are estimated to surpass US$ 7
trillion over the period 2011-2025 (an average of nearly US$ 500 billion per year). This yearly loss is equivalent to
approximately 4% of these countries’ current annual output. On a per-person basis, the annual losses amount to
an average of US $25 in low-income countries, US$ 50 in lower middle-income countries and US$ 139 in upper
middle-income countries.
By contrast, findings from the second study by the WHO indicate that the price tag for scaled-up implementation
of a core set of NCD “best buy” intervention strategies is comparatively low. Population-based measures for
reducing tobacco and harmful alcohol use, as well as unhealthy diet and physical inactivity, are estimated to cost
US$ 2 billion per year for all LMICs – less than US$ 0.40 per person. Individual-based NCD “best buy” interventions
– which range from counselling and drug therapy for cardiovascular disease to measures to prevent cervical cancer
– bring the total annual cost to US$ 11.4 billion. On a per-person basis, the annual investment ranges from under
US$ 1 in low-income countries to US$ 3 in upper middle-income countries.
In health terms, the return on this investment will be many millions of avoided premature deaths. In economic
terms, the return will be many billions of dollars of additional output. For example, reducing the mortality rate
for ischaemic heart disease and stroke by 10% would reduce economic losses in LMICs by an estimated US$
25 billion per year, which is three times greater than the investment needed for the measures to achieve these
benefits.
Policy-makers, members of civil society and business leaders all face the issue of how best to respond to the
challenges posed by NCDs. This overview of two recent reports supplements existing knowledge by demonstrating
not only the economic harm done by NCDs but also the costs and benefits related to addressing them.
SummaryThere is growing awareness and concern about the large and escalating burden of chronic, non-communicablediseases (NCDs) not just from the public health perspective but also from the economic one. The social burdensassociated with the four diseases that are the focus of the UN High-Level Meeting on NCDs – cardiovasculardisease, diabetes, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases – include prolonged disability, diminished resourceswithin families and reduced productivity, in addition to tremendous demands on health systems.This report addresses current information gaps in our understanding of how to mitigate these challenges byhighlighting recent findings about the social costs of NCDs and the resource needs for managing these conditions.Specifically, the report brings together findings from two new studies aimed at equipping decision-makers ingovernment, civil society and the private sector with key economic insights needed to help reduce the growingburden of NCDs:• A global analysis of the economic impact of NCDs by the World Economic Forum and the Harvard School ofPublic Health• An analysis of the costs of scaling up a core intervention package in low- and middle-income countries by theWorld Health OrganizationThe economic consequences of NCDs are staggering. Under a “business as usual” scenario where interventionefforts remain static and rates of NCDs continue to increase as populations grow and age, cumulative economiclosses to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) from the four diseases are estimated to surpass US$ 7trillion over the period 2011-2025 (an average of nearly US$ 500 billion per year). This yearly loss is equivalent toapproximately 4% of these countries’ current annual output. On a per-person basis, the annual losses amount toan average of US $25 in low-income countries, US$ 50 in lower middle-income countries and US$ 139 in uppermiddle-income countries.By contrast, findings from the second study by the WHO indicate that the price tag for scaled-up implementationof a core set of NCD “best buy” intervention strategies is comparatively low. Population-based measures forreducing tobacco and harmful alcohol use, as well as unhealthy diet and physical inactivity, are estimated to costUS$ 2 billion per year for all LMICs – less than US$ 0.40 per person. Individual-based NCD “best buy” interventions– which range from counselling and drug therapy for cardiovascular disease to measures to prevent cervical cancer– bring the total annual cost to US$ 11.4 billion. On a per-person basis, the annual investment ranges from underUS$ 1 in low-income countries to US$ 3 in upper middle-income countries.In health terms, the return on this investment will be many millions of avoided premature deaths. In economicterms, the return will be many billions of dollars of additional output. For example, reducing the mortality ratefor ischaemic heart disease and stroke by 10% would reduce economic losses in LMICs by an estimated US$25 billion per year, which is three times greater than the investment needed for the measures to achieve thesebenefits.Policy-makers, members of civil society and business leaders all face the issue of how best to respond to thechallenges posed by NCDs. This overview of two recent reports supplements existing knowledge by demonstratingnot only the economic harm done by NCDs but also the costs and benefits related to addressing them.
Download PDF : best_buys_summary
The Global Economic Burden of Non-communicable Diseases
“Tobacco. High rates of tobacco use are projected to lead to a doubling of the number of tobacco-related deaths
between 2010 and 2030 in low- and middle-income countries. Unless stronger action is taken now, the 3.4 million
tobacco-related deaths today will become 6.8 million in 2030 (NCD Alliance, 2011). A 2004 study by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) predicted that developing countries would consume 71% of the world’s tobacco in
2010 (FAO, 2004). China is a global tobacco hotspot, with more than 320 million smokers and approximately 35% of
the world’s tobacco production (FAO, 2004; Global Adult Tobacco Survey – China Section, 2010). Tobacco accounts
for 30% of cancers globally, and the annual economic burden of tobacco-related illnesses exceeds total annual health
expenditures in low- and middle-income countries (American Cancer Society & World Lung Foundation, 2011).”
Download PDF : WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011
Victorian councils call for statewide outdoor smoking ban
Victorians councils are calling for a statewide ban smoking in alfresco dining areas and playgrounds. Source: The Courier-Mail
VICTORIAN councils have demanded the State Government ban smoking in public outdoor areas.
Formal demands for a statewide smoking ban in alfresco dining areas and playgrounds has been put to the Baillieu Government and councils also want a similar ban for beaches, school entrances and sports grounds.
The Municipal Association of Victoria says co-ordinated action must be taken on health grounds and to eliminate confusion because some councils have enacted smoking bans while others have not.
The City of Hobsons Bay is tonight expected to approve a smoking ban at playgrounds and at Williamstown and Altona beaches.
A Monash Council ban on smoking at playgrounds will extend it to public pools and around council-owned buildings, including sports centres from October 1.
Port Phillip and Frankston councils also have limited smoking bans while other municipalities are considering laws.
MAV president Bill McArthur said a plan had been put to Health Minister David Davis for a uniform ban on smoking in outdoor public places.
“In addition to proposing state smoking bans for alfresco dining and playgrounds, the MAV is asking the Government to investigate and test community support for bans in other public places such as beaches, sports grounds and facilities, and outside school entrances,” Cr McArthur said.
He said several states had already banned or were considering alfresco and playground smoking bans, with smoking causing 4000 deaths and costing about $5 billion a year.
A spokeswoman for Mr Davis said talks were continuing with organisations including VicHealth over future anti-smoking measures.
“The Baillieu Government has also acted swiftly to amend the Tobacco Act to enable prosecution of people who smoke in cars with children and also to indicate its support for plain packaging of cigarettes,” she said.
Hobsons Bay councillor Luba Grigorovitch said the beach smoking ban would take effect in about a month if it won support.