Aid for audiovisual production and representations of tobacco and cannabis

A study has listed the various aids for audiovisual production in the United States, in order to verify whether there are restrictions linked to the broadcasting of images of tobacco or cannabis. Some minority and marginal restrictions have been observed, while this could be a new lever still unexploited for the fight against tobacco.

Multiple studies have shown that beyond product placement, which consists of showing a brand on screen or stating its name in a dialogue, the simple dissemination of images of smoking, called behavioral placements, is enough to encourage the consumption of tobacco products. This effect is particularly true among adolescents and young people, who are more receptive to these images and more likely to identify with the characters depicted on screen. Exposure to these images also activates the desire to smoke in adult smokers.

In the United States, many states and localities provide subsidies for the production of films or television programs. A team of Californian and Irish researchers has undertaken to list and analyze all of these subsidies, to check whether there are restrictive clauses linked to tobacco products.[1]They took advantage of this census to assess whether these possible restrictive clauses also concern cannabis.

Census of audiovisual creation support programs

After systematic online searches, the researchers uncovered audiovisual production aid systems in 38 states, including the District of Columbia. In parallel, they identified 238 aid programs at the local level (city, regional agency).

The state aid for audiovisual production consisted primarily of tax credits (23), tax exemptions (3), tax rebates (11), exemptions from local purchase taxes (10) and finally subsidies (6). Local aid was, for the most part, of the same order as state aid and met the same allocation criteria; only 24 aid programmes out of 238 were distinct from state aid and were taken into account. The amounts of state aid were significantly higher than those of local aid; all of this aid represented a total of 1.639 billion US dollars (1.507 billion euros), mainly granted by the states.

Start-up grants rarely included mentions of tobacco and cannabis products. Only four states (Minnesota, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas) excluded tobacco product fees from their start-up grants, and made no mention of cannabis. Among local start-up grant programs, five excluded tobacco product fees, and only one also excluded cannabis fees.[2]None of the programs mentioned any restrictions on aid that would be linked to the presence of images of tobacco or cannabis.

Conditioning aid on the presence of images of tobacco and cannabis

Based on this observation, the authors of the study question this system of aid for creation, by comparing it with the sums allocated to the fight against smoking. They estimate that the local economic benefits of audiovisual creation are relatively low, except in California and New York City. In contrast, the sums invested in the fight against smoking prove very profitable, taking into account only the savings made on medical costs.

The authors also believe that audiovisual productions (cinema or TV) can have a negative effect on the health of populations when they contain scenes showing images of tobacco and cannabis, which encourage the consumption of these products. Aid for audiovisual creation would thus involuntarily contribute to the increase in the consumption of these products, when they do not include any restrictions.

The authors therefore recommend including restrictions in creative aid if publicly funded films and programs contain scenes showing tobacco or cannabis products. These restrictions should normally lead producers to no longer include scenes showing these products, which should then result in reductions in consumption and an improvement in the overall health of populations. Since US audiovisual production is very widely exported to more than 130 countries, a reduction in the number of images of tobacco and cannabis in US productions should also benefit populations around the world.

In France, the White Paper published in May 2023 by the National Committee against Smoking (CNCT) similarly proposed making public aid for audiovisual creation conditional on the gradual disappearance of scenes showing tobacco on screens, large or small. This option seems more effective in influencing health behaviors than simply broadcasting health warnings in programs showing smoking scenes, as is currently the case in India for streaming platforms. Another method, developed in the United States, consists of classifying films showing smoking scenes as being reserved for adults, which limits the size of their audience and can influence the choices of producers.

Keywords: audiovisual creation, public aid, tobacco images, cannabis

M.F.

[1] Wakefield TD, Guillory J, Ling P, et al. Descriptive cross-sectional survey of tobacco and cannabis restrictions on state and local film incentives in the USA, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 21 November 2023. doi: 10.1136/tc-2023-058197

[2] Recreational cannabis is currently available over the counter in one-third of U.S. states, with medical cannabis also available in another third.