UCSF Tobacco Control Policy Making: International Title The Development and Implementation of Tobacco-Free Movie Rules In India Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/75j1b2cg Authors Yadav, Amit, PhD Glantz, Stanton A, PhD Publication Date 2020-12-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TOBACCO-FREE MOVIE RULES IN INDIA Amit Yadav, Ph.D. Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94143-1390 December 2020 THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TOBACCO-FREE MOVIE RULES IN INDIA Amit Yadav, Ph.D. Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94143-1390 December 2020 This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA-087472, the funding agency played no role in the conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript. Opinions expressed reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the sponsoring agency. This report is available on the World Wide Web at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/75j1b2cg. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Indian film industry releases the largest number of movies in the world, 1500-2000 movies in Hindi and other regional languages, which are watched by more than 2 billion Indian moviegoers and millions more worldwide. • The tobacco industry has been using movies to promote their products for over a century. • In India, the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and Cable Television Networks Amendment Act, 1994, nominally provide for regulation of tobacco imagery in film and TV, but the Ministry of Information and Broadcast (MoIB), the nodal ministry, has not considered tobacco imagery. • The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COPTA), enforced by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), prohibited direct and indirect advertisement of tobacco products. • WHO-supported reports in 2003 and 2005 reported that the fraction of movies with tobacco imagery (mostly smoking cigarettes) increased from 76% from 1991-2002 to 89% in 2004- 2005, with the portion of films displaying tobacco brands tripling from 16% to 46%. • More than 90% of the brand appearances in 2004-2005 were Phillip Morris (which was launching its Marlboro in Indian market at that time) or ITC (Wills and Gold Flake). • The WHO reports also opened a wider deliberation on tobacco imagery in films and television, including in Parliament. • Members of Parliament raised formal questions on the issue submitted to the Government (298 questions during 2003-2019), with 48% against presentation of tobacco in movies and supporting effective regulation of film and TV content, 14% negative, and the remaining 38% neutral. • Many NGOs including Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), Burning Brain Society and HRIDAY advocated for tobacco-free films and television during 2003-2005. • In 2005, based on the evidence from WHO’s reports and support from NGOs, Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss introduced a complete ban on tobacco use in all movies and TV, under COPTA, to prevent indirect tobacco advertisement of tobacco and minors’ exposure to tobacco imagery. • Ramadoss issued the rules without consulting MoIB. • The film industry called the regulations “dreadful” and “curtailing artistic freedom” and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the statutory body under MoIB charged with reviewing, certifying for public exhibition, and rating films termed MoHFW rules "a decision taken in haste and very unaesthetic in taste." • Later in 2005, filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt filed litigation alleging that the rules violated fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, and trade. • The MoIB sided with Bollywood against the MoHFW in the Delhi High Court. • As the matter continued in the court, MoIB and CBFC acted on behalf of the film industry in negotiating with MoHFW on the different versions of the regulations. • In 2006, the Prime Minister’s Office intervened and constituted a Committee of Secretaries that negotiated a compromise between MoHFW and MoIB. This allowed tobacco imagery in new Indian films with “strong editorial justification,” if accompanied by a disclaimer by the actor using tobacco, before the film, and an adult certification (“A” rating). • MoHFW issued the revised regulations based on these compromises in October 2006. 2 • However, the 2006 compromise rules could not be implemented due to resistance from MoIB and the film industry, which called the regulations requiring adult certification impractical. • In 2009, Delhi High Court ruled that the revised regulations violated constitutional freedoms of speech and trade. • MoHFW appealed against this Delhi High Court decision before the Supreme Court, which allowed the rules to go into effect. • In 2011, MoHFW amended the rules to require U/A certification (parental guidance for children below the age of 12 years) and scrolling warnings displayed during on screen tobacco presentation. • The film industry further demanded that any ratings for tobacco and the scrolling health warnings be dropped. • In 2012, MoHFW dropped ratings based on tobacco presentation and prescribed static on- screen warnings during any tobacco presentation during the film. • MoIB, CBFC, filmmakers, actors, and film industry professionals associations continued to challenge the regulations, although some took anti-tobacco positions in public. • In 2012, seven years after MoHFW issued the initial regulations and nine years after COPTA passed, India implemented a comprehensive set of regulation to restrict tobacco imagery in films, requiring all films with tobacco imagery to: o Provide a strong editorial justification to the CBFC o Display, before the film and at the intermission, a 20 second anti-tobacco declaimer and a 30 second anti-tobacco advertisement produced by the MoHFW o Include an anti-tobacco static health warning at the bottom of screen during any display of a tobacco product • As of 2020, even after several compromises and modifications by MoHFW, CBFC still had not integrated any “strong editorial justification” guidelines for tobacco use into its film certification procedures. • Because tobacco imagery was not made a factor in age-ratings, children and adolescents remain exposed to tobacco imagery in films and TV programs in India. • WHO, NGOs, parliamentarians, filmmakers, and some actors were key enablers in the MoHFW’s development and implementation of India’s tobacco-free movie and TV rules. • NGOs including CPAA, HRIDAY, Voluntary Health Association, Salaam Bombay Foundation, Tamil Nadu People’s Forum for Tobacco Control, and Kerala Voluntary Health Services championed the regulations and, along with state health departments, have monitored compliance and reported violations by filmmakers. • The regulations were followed by decline in the fraction of films presenting tobacco, almost by half, from 89% in 2004-05 to less than 48% in 2015. o Among the smoking films 27% fully complied with all three aspects of the 2012 rules while 99% complied with at least one. o The 100 seconds of anti-tobacco messaging in each film with tobacco added up to more than 24 hours of anti-tobacco advertising in theaters in 2015. • It is unlikely that these successes could have been achieved through voluntary action by the film industry, including production of “pleasant and aesthetic” anti-tobacco disclaimers or advertisements. 3 • Freedom of speech and expression, and of trade, remain the entertainment industry’s most frequent argument against government regulation; self-regulation is the substitute commonly offered. • Although the tobacco industry is the primary beneficiary of tobacco depictions on screen, it did not play a public role in opposing the MoHFW regulations. • Adding age-based rating of films and TV is essential to prevent minors’ exposure to tobacco in films and TV. • MoHFW should expand its inventory of disclaimers, anti-tobacco advertisements, and static warnings, including producing them in local languages for the different regions in India, and rotate them at regular intervals — at least every six months. • The CBFC needs to implement transparent procedures for assessing the “editorial justification” for any tobacco use in films, and new films with tobacco imagery should be rated for adult audiences (“A” rating), as included in the 2006 compromise between MoIB and MoHFW. • Tobacco imagery on the on-demand services expanding rapidly in India remain outside of the current regulations and present a growing risk of exposure to children and adolescents. 4 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 7 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Initial push to ban on-screen tobacco imagery ............................................................................ 9 Parliamentarians call for curb on smoking in movies ............................................................... 10 Civil society advocacy and film-star