Australian Magazines to Carry Airbrush Warnings?

Posted on Jul 6th 2010 2:00PM by Martha Edwards

Filed Under: Diet & Weight Loss, Celebs & Entertainment

Vogue

Britney's had it done. Kelly Clarkson has too. Even slim Ralph Lauren models get it. Airbrushing is without a doubt one of the most controversial topics in the fashion industry, and thanks to the Australian government, the debate just got a little more interesting.

The retouching issue has been on our minds for ages: Should already-thin models and celebrities be allowed to be airbrushed and photoshopped to make them look longer, leaner and even more perfect than they already are, thereby making the rest of us feel only slightly more attractive than chopped liver? The very practice of airbrushing can have a lasting impact on the self-confidence of many women and, more importantly, it can hinder the development of a healthy sense of body image in our young girls.

But while the idea of banning airbrushing here is little more than a pipe dream, government officials Down Under are taking the matter much more seriously. A proposed law won't ban retouching altogether, but it will require altered photos to come with a disclaimer to warn impressionable minds that the image isn't exactly telling the truth. Adhering to the guidelines will earn magazines a "body image tick," kind of like the health symbols on foods.

Australia's also developing new code of conduct rules for fashion magazines. Under these new guidelines, heavy retouching, including things like reducing waist sizes, lengthening legs and erasing freckles, will be discouraged.

"Body image is an issue that we must take seriously because it is affecting the health and happiness of substantial sections of our community," said Kate Ellis, the Australian Youth Minister in a press release. "The symbol is a win for consumers. It will empower consumers to tell the fashion, beauty, media and modeling industries what they want and provide greater choice."

Opponents of the new rules -- mostly fashion designers -- argue that their clothes just look better on thinner models. While that may be a fair point in some instances, it doesn't explain why already-thin models need to be transformed into scary-skinny abominations like this model was. And yes, plus-sized models aren't always the answer -- recent studies show that they may also be harmful to our self-esteem -- but that doesn't exactly explain why a supermodel needs to have her 26-inch waist shrunk and her freckles removed. (Also, why is it only super-thin or plus-sized? Where is the healthy in-between?)

Skinny celebrities don't come with a warning label, but I think re-touched photos deserve one. Don't you?

14 Comment

Tags: airbrushed, airbrushing, magazine, magazines, models, photoshop, photoshopped, plus size model, ralph lauren model, retouching, supermodels, warning labels

Around the Web

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Jane 7-09-2010 @ 7:13AM

My daughter used to always ask me why they use such skinny models in magazines. She wasn't a skinny girl so it affected her. Now that she's older, she knows all about airbrushing, but still can't understand why they airbrush.
Too bad the U.S. wouldn't take it as seriously as Australia, but then again, my step-daughter lives in Australia and Australia is ahead of us in other issues.

LisaT 7-09-2010 @ 7:39AM

That is a good idea. I wish the USA would do that but they will not. People who pick up those magazines need to be informed when airbrushing is being done.

peggyfrz 7-09-2010 @ 8:19AM

I agree the USA needs to move ahead on issues like this. It is like they are afraid of the fashion industry, afraid to step on any toes.
It is impossible for a lot of us to lose weight as it is, but to make already thin models look even thinner, it is downright scary. Basically, they are telling the models they aren't really good enough, either. What gives? It has got to stop somewhere.
while I agree that healthy eating habits, a healthy lifestyle and some weight loss is important, I don't agree you have to look skeletal to be attractive.Just because they are thin, doesn't mean they are healthy. I want to see them totally un-Photoshopped. bet they wouldn't look all that great.

Gary 7-09-2010 @ 8:24AM

Finally some common sense prevails. I wish we would do that. I would really like the photos to be more honest.

rachelannwood 7-09-2010 @ 8:30AM

Come on people. Magazine photos are like Santa Claus. Sooner or later you figure out it is false advertising. Do you really want or need the government to baby you along through life? Really this is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever seen.

jw 7-09-2010 @ 8:51AM

It's ridiculous. People that whine and cry because someone looks better than them are a threat to themselves and others to even give in to them. It's like an evil spoiled brat queen that must rid of anything or anyone better than themselves. How awful. It's like attacking those different than ones self out of their own personal problem. These mags are like picture books. They are beautiful to see flawless skin, etc. and keeps me psyched to better myself not be a spoiled cry baby as if the rest of all people must change because "aaaaaahhhw' now I feel less perfect or healthy. Give me a break! I HOPE they do not do this. Also, form my obvious theory of being mentally healthy about it, how dumb these women and even bigoted like for there own selfishness of not feeling good about themselves in comparison. They are attacking beauty which is health. I see these pictures and see myself and others through life and never see how things can be air brushed at all. SOOO it's real to me. These mags keep me at my best. To eat right, relax and be a decent rested person with a good disposition as female. I was skinny as young and happy with health, nice skin, etc. then I see how maybe my diets off or need some more sleep or social fun, exercise to get me back on track. Visuals help in natures way to tell you if something's wrong. My healthy eating at best makes me saner in mind and peace naturally not artificially. I have crappy imperfect problems too. One real bad one at the moment but that will be the day I'd want others to look worse for my sake. It's degenerating to society to go down. This is as stupid as Barbie boobs made like they had no bra on, as if one, not on anymore. Point bras kept them up. They were good bras. Over all, their shouldn't be a warning, but they might mention that some photos may be retouched. Those jealous because they think their guy may not be loving them over looks, doesn't know love yet, does not love him. Also, I like to see people better than what I look like. Takes me away and keeps down to my size and then accepting. Being a shlunk hits into junk food and depression by the real chemical and body imbalance balance. Little kids that eat a little and play are the ultimate health. They are also models to me. Less complaining and excessively *itching about others stuff in life, it's short.

Tracie Smith 7-09-2010 @ 9:48AM

PLEASE!!! If you can't tell that a model has been airbrushed on the cover of a magazine...you're not paying much attention to the goings on in this world.
If this is what's being reported on, then we are ALL in trouble...there are MORE important issues to discuss than some skinny model that needs to eat a loaf of bread.

RB 7-09-2010 @ 10:00AM

People need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions. Quit expecting the government to make up for your faults. If magazine covers influence you that much don't buy them. Mothers and fathers should teach their kids about models and magazines don't rely on the government to raise your kids. If you can't raise your kids then don't have them.

Disgusted With So-Called Fashion 7-09-2010 @ 10:07AM

If you clothes only look good on super thin models then maybe you need to design clothes that fit the American Public because 99.9% of people are not super think models. I think that all these superthin models look sickly and grosteque and I would not want to look like them and additionally the clothes DO NOT look good on the toothpick of a so called body.

shellshmk 7-09-2010 @ 10:11AM

It's about time someone thought of doing that. I think anytime a product is not being fully truthful, the deviation needs to be posted. They make them voice if the person is a paid spokesperson on diet or life insurance commercials. It is ashame that the US isn't leading the pack on this one. Come on US get up to speed!!!

NazzTea 7-09-2010 @ 10:27AM

Perhaps a magazine cover with a thin model leaning over a toilet with her finger stuck down her throat,but nothing coming out? A prominent disclaimer would inform you that the unsightly fats in her puke have been airbrushed out.

Pepelaputr 7-09-2010 @ 10:47AM

You're right, let's let fashion designers, magazines, and beverage companies do whatever they want. People are smart enough to make their own choices (please reference Jerry Springer and Maury Povich shows for intelligence standards). I'm sure some "nanny" voice told you not to jump off a cliff at one time or another because you're still here. Get it straight, big companies with big advertising budgets aren't here to help you but to push a product, and their lying to you in any way they think will do that and get away with is the same as the contractor who says; "yeh, we can do that in three days" who then runs off with your money. Should you let him get away with it because you were assumed to be smart enough not to have that happen to you?

Amanda 7-09-2010 @ 10:46AM

Give me a break! People need government intervention in the magazine industry so they can feel better about themselves? From many of the comments I have read most of these readers aren't just hostile and insecure over airbrushed women in magazines, but they're also hostile to the modeling industry and skinny people in general. If you saw some fat sloppy man or woman sporting clothes would you feel compelled to buy them? No! The fashion/magazine/sales industry is interested in one thing - the bottom line! Profit! If skinny models selling clothes, make-up, etc. didn't make you go run out and buy them, then these industries would be changing things up. The whole goal of the beauty industry is to make you feel less-than until you go out and buy their products. They WANT you to feel bad about yourself so you'll go out, buy their product, and "improve" your appearance. If they made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and good about yourself then you wouldn't be running out to buy a diet pill, mascara, or lipstick. If you don't want the industry having control over you then look inward, be the best you can be and content with who you are and how you look, and stop comparing yourself. The government or a magazine can't make you feel good about yourself, it takes one person to be happy with yourself and that person is YOU!

Richard Laurence Baron 7-09-2010 @ 11:03AM

I agree with Rachel Ann above: "Do you really want or need the government to baby you along through life?" Apparently, Australians do. So far, (most) Americans do not.

Whether you are reading the ads in Vogue or seeing commercials on ESPN, it continues to be your responsibility to make distinctions between what is real and what is not.

Honesty is important - no company should offer a substandard product. But issues of "perceived" liability ought to be resolved on a personal level, not elevated to a crime against the State whenever possible.