Just as retouched bodies are mandated to be labeled in advertising, an operated appearance should be labeled. It is also retouched. Manipulated images of bodies contribute to two of our major societal challenges, namely that it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish fact from fiction and that we get worse and worse mental health. We see pictures of models and celebrities who we think are naturally beautiful as a result of exercise, diet, genes and expensive stylists. But we are being deceived. There has been an increase in cosmetic surgery and injections. The paid post on Instagram of a wrinkle-free face or a tight stomach after giving birth may not be the result of genes, but of Botox or a “Mommy Makeover” at a surgeon. And maybe the impressive calves of Mr. CrossFit are not the result of training, but injections. We will not be fooled by Botox and silicone boobs. We compare ourselves to a fiction we think is real, and feel bad. This unhealthy comparison drive has a serious impact on public health, especially for girls. The politicians have decided that advertisements with retouched bodies must be labeled. It should reduce the ever-increasing body pressure in society, and raise awareness of what is real or manipulated appearance. When we are pushed advertisements of bodies, it is irrelevant whether the lips are enlarged digitally or with fillers. If a body is presented as real and natural but is manipulated, the effect will be the same. We get cheated, and feel like arses. Therefore, advertisements with images of people with a manipulated appearance should be labelled, whether the manipulation is done digitally or through surgery. At least two objections must be taken into account. Firstly, it can be very personal to have to admit that you have undergone surgery to change your appearance. This is an important consideration, and therefore the labeling requirement should be limited to advertising. Then you have a choice. If L’Oréal wants to use you as a model, but you want to keep it a secret that you’ve had Botox on your forehead and fillers on your lips, then you can decline the assignment. If, on the other hand, you choose to make money from your appearance, you have to be honest about whether your appearance has been manipulated with surgery and injections or not. Secondly, it is easy to see that there will be difficult demarcations. What kind of advertising and what kind of intervention? A Colgate poster with a perfectly smiling model who has replaced all her teeth with implants should be labeled, but maybe not the profile picture the university took of me because I had braces? An influencer with enlarged breasts should tag a paid post showcasing a new bikini collection, but what about the woman who in her teens was recommended breast reduction to prevent back problems. Perhaps the branding injunction should distinguish between cosmetic and medically justified interventions, and perhaps a branding injunction should only apply to advertising for well-being, such as fashion, health and care. The fact that it will be difficult to draw the boundaries is not a good reason to reject an injunction on the labeling of manipulated appearance in advertisements. All rules have limits, and there will always be difficult borderline cases. That the boundaries are difficult to draw only means that we need a good public discussion about where they should go. What is not a borderline case is when models and celebrities use their appearance to advertise fashion, make-up and health products, but keep hidden that they have manipulated their appearance through plastic surgery and injections. Advertisements with retouched bodies must today be labeled. So should advertisements with operated bodies.
ttn-69
Don’t fool me with Botox – Speech
