Done a lot of interviews today about our Liberal Democrat campaign to make advertisers fess up when they have been enhancing images.
Proctor & Gamble withdrew the advertisement which has a very airbrushed Twiggy looking perfect in the under eye area – her secret being Olay eye cream. Of course – the other secret which wasn’t mentioned – was the airbrushing!
After over 700 complaints to the Advertising Standard Authority the ASA said that the ad was ‘misleading’ and credit to Proctor and Gamble for then voluntarily withdrawing it.
The LibDem campaign is really about honesty in advertising. All we are saying – is that if an image is retouched – there should be labelling that tells us to what degree. There is a great deal of difference in airbrushing out a stray hair or pimple – as opposed to removing five inches from the waist and disappearing all the dimply cellulite on thighs.
The medical evidence is overwhelming for the damage done to peoples’ self-image by the perpetual drip drip of unrealistic and perfect images.
Our campaign to label airbrushed ads and ban airbrushing in ads aimed at the under 16s has received the support of 50 of the top medical experts in the world field of eating disorders and psychology.
Our campaign has received a huge amount of support – and if you want to join in then www.realwomen.org.uk is our campaign site.
Lynne Featherstone 
Young men are also in the firing line for unrealistic body images – just look at the Christmas “Fragrance” Ads for starters. Why restrict your campaign to the protection of gullible females? Their male contemporaries are also equally gullible.
Grumpy – to be fair the occasional Lib Dem has mentioned men in passing when discussing this, though as with most men’s issues it’s very much the tiniest of afterthoughts rather than a genuine concern (that still puts them ahead of Labour though where men aren’t even an afterthought).
For men it’s far worse than a bit of airbrushing – they’re supposed to aspire to look like pumped up muscular freaks , with steroid use and ridiculous lengths of time in the gym the only possible way to achieve such a physique.
The real question should maybe be why restrict it to focusing on airbrushing and how about having to state whether or not your models had to abuse extremely harmful and illegal drugs to achieve their physique?
At least airbrushing doesn’t actually damage the actual model’s health , nor turn them into some angry violent monster with fertility problems.