According to the study, the appearance of cigarette brands in cinema films gives each brand a certain distinction through its association with the characters and general tone of the film. Through the worldwide distribution of films, brands are promoted globally. This research is part of a National Cancer Insitute-funded study of smoking in movies and how this relates to adolescent smoking.

The study reviewed the content of 250 movies, which were the top 25 box office hits in the United States for each year of release from 1988 to 1997. Investigators compared the prevalence of brand appearances in films produced before a voluntary ban on paid product placement by the tobacco industry (1988-1990) with films produced after the ban (1991-1997). Two people viewed each movie twice, looking for the use of tobacco products.

More than 85% of the films contained tobacco use, with 28% containing tobacco brands. The appearances were just as common in films suitable for adolescent audiences (32%) as in those for adults (35% ), and were also present in movies rated for children (20%). The brands that appeared include Marlboro (40%), Camel (11%), Winston (17%), and Lucky Strike (12%). With the exception of Lucky Strike, these are the most highly advertised brands and are the most popular with adolescents.

"A voluntary ban on product placement by the tobacco industry has not affected brand placement in movies," said James Sargent, MD, lead author of the study. "In fact, actor endorsement of cigarette brands increased from only 1% of movies prior to a voluntary ban to 11% after." (Actor endorsement is when an actor handles or uses the product on screen.) Roughly half of the revenues for movies with tobacco brand placement come from overseas, contributing to the global marketing of American cigarette brands.

The investigators conclude that tobacco brand appearances are common in films and are becoming increasingly endorsed by actors. They comment that the most highly advertised U.S. cigarette brands account for most brand appearances, which suggests an advertising motive to this practice.

"The appearance of cigarette brands in films, especially when endorsed by actors, is no different from other forms of cigarette advertising," Sargent says. "Any country that uses advertising restrictions to control tobacco use should restrict this practice. Any actor cigarette endorsement in U.S. films made after 1998 should be investigated to determine if it violates the Master Settlement Agreement, which precludes tobacco advertising in films."

"We are concerned about cigarette exposure kids have from viewing movies that contain tobacco use," says Ron Todd, director of tobacco control for the American Cancer Society. "While we understand and respect the film industries? creative freedom, we feel it would be easy to make films that don?t contain an abundance of smoking, particularly when it?s portrayed as something desirable."