Britain's Liberal Democrats have been pushing for airbrushed ads to carry notice saying they've been altered, and for retouching to be banned entirely in ads aimed at children under 16. As a result of the campaign the A.S.A. has received more than 1,000 complaints about Photoshopped ads in the past three months, but it has refused to tackle the issue because none of the complaints provided scientific evidence that the ads are harmful, according to The Daily Mail.

Now 44 doctors, psychologists, and academics from Britain, the United States, and Australia have submitted a report to the A.S.A. based on more than 100 academic studies worldwide that says:

Media images that depict ultra-thin, digitally altered women models are linked to body dissatisfaction and unhealthy eating in girls and women.

And argues that the advertisements promote:

Unhealthy dieting regimes and problematic eating behaviours (starving, bingeing, and purging), clinical eating disorders (anorexia, bulimia), cosmetic surgery and extreme exercising.

The paper points out that altered images can be harmful to boys as well, saying pictures that exaggerate a model's muscle development encourage, "unhealthy muscle-enhancing behaviors" like taking steroids, and can cause men to suffer from low self-esteem, reports The Telegraph.

Member of Parliament Jo Swinson, who has been leading the campaign, said:

Airbrushing means that women and young girls are being bombarded with images of people with perfect skin, perfect hair and perfect figures which are impossible to live up to.

Making it clear that retouched images represent an unrealistic ideal is a good start, but the campaign only hints at the larger assault on women's self-esteem. According to The Sun, the report mentions the disturbing fact that:

Girls aged 5½ to 7½ reported less body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body after exposure to images or thin dolls.

Barbie may be part of the problem, but the Liberal Democrats aren't taking on Mattel. The party has acknowledged that thinness isn't the only factor giving girls body image issues by calling for cosmetic surgery ads to include success rates. However, the report submitted to the A.S.A. challenged the idea among advertisers that "thin and sexy sells," by citing research that says ads featuring models who are a U.K. size 14 are as effective at selling products as those featuring extremely thin models as long as they are equally attractive. Would every image featuring an actress with a nose job require a disclaimer letting girls know that her perfectly-proportioned face is "impossible to live up to" without the help of a good plastic surgeon?

While there seems to be scientific proof that retouched images are harming women and the Liberal Democrats mean well, it seems unlikely that a disclaimer will make many people stop hating their bodies. Even if retouching were banned altogether, images can still be distorted with lighting and camera techniques. The hope is that that advertisers will start using more natural models, but sadly, the industry would probably just pressure models to be even thinner if their thighs can't be whittled in Photoshop. Larger models may not be the answer either, since a recent study found that overweight women feel worse about themselves after looking a photos of models, whether the models were skinny or not. At any size, models still represent a beauty ideal that most women can't achieve without turning to extreme diets or cosmetic surgery. The idea that there's a certain beauty ideal women should keep striving (and spending more) to attain may be rooted in advertisements, but it's now too ingrained in our culture to be undone by disclaimer in the fine print.

Call For Ban On Airbrushing Ads That Leave Girls Loathing Their Own Bodies [The Daily Mail]
Airbrushed Images Harming Girls And Boys, Experts Say [The Telegraph]
Faked Model Photo Danger For Girls Aged 5 [The Sun]

Earlier: British Lawmakers Take Stand Against Photoshop
Study: Even Plus-Size Models Lower Self-Esteem

On GMA this morning, Danziger unconvincingly said, "We didn't make [Clarkson] look thinner. I added a little height, because I wanted the impact of that cover." Then she changed the subject, saying "you want a colorful cover." But obviously the controversy isn't about the color of Clarkson's top (which is nice, for the record) — it's about the fact that SELF's version of her body bears no resemblance to the truth. In response to criticisms like this, Danziger says, "you can love a person, love her body, and retouch a picture." Is that like "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

In the Today Show interview seen above, Danziger spouted even more crap. After assuring viewers that "we love Kelly for the confidence that she exudes from within," she explained that on a cover, "you want to capture the essence of you at your best." Apparently this essence is just a little bit smaller than your actual physical body. She also says, "everyone can love who they are from the inside out, and want to achieve your goals." But Clarkson has achieved her goals — she's confident in herself and her work, and has repeatedly said that she's happy with her body. So how does artificially changing the way she looks help her achieve anything, or inspire anyone else to?

Danziger continues being offensive for the rest of the segment. She says, "no one can make you feel bad, only you can feel bad inside yourself," which is a pretty irresponsible statement coming from a magazine that publishes unrealistic (and unreal) images of women, and then advertises products to supposedly help actual people look more like these images. In fact, what the Clarkson cover reveals is that despite SELF's "health" focus, it's basically in the business of making women feel bad, just like the more fashion-oriented women's magazines.

Plus-size model and More To Love host Emme, who appeared alongside Danziger, touched on this fact as well. She called for "beautiful, aspirational images, but not all one way." But why do cover images need to be "aspirational" at all? There's no reason that looking at a picture of a celebrity has to make us want to be different, except in so far as this desire sells products. The idea that magazine readers want "aspirational" content is so accepted that Emme even parrots it when she's arguing for a greater diversity of body types, but what's wrong with images that are just beautiful, or just interesting, fun, or inspiring? It's time for more people question the notion that we read magazines because we like feeling unsatisfied with our bodies and our lives.

Kelly Clarkson's Photo Retouched [MSNBC]
Kelly Clarkson's Cover Photo Flap [ABC]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop
Self Editors Explain Covers Aren't Supposed To Look Realistic

Britain's Liberal Democrats would like to ban Photoshopping entirely in ads aimed at those under 16, and require all other ads to carry a disclaimer describing the extent of their alterations. They also recommend "media literacy" lessons to teach kids about advertising techniques. Member of Parliament Jo Swinson says,

Today's unrealistic idea of what is beautiful means that young girls are under more pressure now than they were even five years ago. Airbrushing means that adverts contain completely unattainable perfect images no one can live up to in real life. We need to help protect children from these pressures and we need to make a start by banning airbrushing in adverts aimed at them.

Coverage of the proposed ban cites the recent removal of Gisele Bundchen's baby bump, and an Olay campaign that appears to have polished Twiggy's face into that of some non-existent twenty- or thirty-year-old. Says the Daily Mail's Richard Simpson of the 59-year-old model,

Out on a grocery shop to her local London Marks and Spencers, a brand she also promotes, she appeared to be the age of, well, a woman of 59.

With slight jowls and only hairline wrinkles around her eyes and mouth, Twiggy does indeed look good for her age.

However she bares very little resemblance to pictures, apparently of her, recently distributed to advertise Olay, whose catchphrase is 'Love the skin you're in.'

Twiggy's campaign is especially upsetting given that she has publicly eschewed plastic surgery and Botox, and advocated "embracing" aging. "I'm grateful for my lines of wisdom," she has said. Apparently Olay isn't.

So should Photoshopping really be banned? Britain and western Europe have historically been more comfortable with speech restrictions than the United States, and it's unlikely that such a ban would ever go down here. But plenty of Americans are angry about the process of retouching — so widespread, according to an LA Times article that namechecks us, that "it's quite possible that the vast majority of images seen in the public arena have been altered." Professor of pop culture Montana Miller tells the Times that advertisers may consciously tailor images to make women feel bad about themselves, thus convincing them to buy more products.

Scott Kelby, president of the National Association of Photoshop Professionals, counters that Photoshop just makes the camera as forgiving as the eye. He says,

If you met Faith Hill in person, you would think she's absolutely beautiful. And when you take her picture, you will see every flaw that you never saw in person. Those flaws not only become visible, but magnified. . . . If I were talking to someone, I'd look at their eyes, not at the blemish on the side of their face. But as soon as you open up that photo on a 30-inch monitor, you'd say, 'Oh my gosh, where did that come from?'

But retoucher Amy Dresser unwittingly reveals multiple pressures that result in photos like Twiggy's. She says,

When it comes to notable people, I feel like embracing the details of that person's face is what I'm supposed to do. Obviously a person wants to have a nice picture of themselves, and the photographer doesn't want to look bad, and I don't want to look like a lazy retoucher, and the magazine wants an appealing image, so you have to find that middle ground.

According to the Times, she also "says she doesn't take liberties, such as over-softening facial features and turning subjects into plastic-like dolls, a look often seen in rookie Photoshop work. She abhors that style, leaving in freckles and moles and sometimes drawing in stray hairs to retain a person's humanness."

It's pretty sad that our visual culture dictates that someone has to add stray hairs to "retain" a celebrity's humanity — and that an ad for anti-aging treatment has to use a digital anti-ager on its spokesmodel's photograph. Extreme as it seems, a ban could return us to a time before magazines were populated by vaguely human-like cartoons — if advertisers actually abided by it. On the other hand, lets not forget that Photoshop is also force for good — like these photographs of Wolverine and George Clooney without pants.

Photoshopped Images: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly [LA Times]
Don't Beef Up Keira's Bust! Lib Dems Take Aim At Advertisers Over Altered Images [Independent]
Airbrushing Of Photos Should Be Banned, Liberal Democrats Say [Telegraph]
The Two Faces Of Twiggy At 59: How Airbrushing In Olay Ad Hides Truth Of The Skin She's In [Daily Mail]
Pantsed Celebrity Photoshopping Contest [BoingBoing]

Note: I did this on my laptop. I have a little bit of a graphic design background, but I'm by no means a professional retoucher.

Earlier: American Apparel Will Make You Look Like A Fat Hooker
Here's Our Winner: Redbook Shatters Our Faith In, Well, Not God, But Maybe Publishing

Earlier:The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill Hot
Here's Our Winner! Redbook Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing But Maybe God