“Photographie Retouchée”: Using policy to address body image

Elisa S. Danthinne & Rachel F. Rodgers

Abstract

The “thin-ideal” body is pervasive in media and advertisement imagery, creating an unattainable standard with significant negative consequences for physical and mental health. These detrimental consequences are exacerbated by the widespread use of digital modification (e.g. Photoshop). To address this, in 2017, the French government implemented policy mandating a label reading “Photographie Retouchée” (retouched photograph) be added to advertisement images that have been digitally edited and the weight or shape of a model modified. Here, the background for the law and its implementation in day-to-day imagery in France are discussed. The usefulness of such labels has not been supported by empirical investigations and in fact it has been suggested that such labels are unhelpful, and perhaps harmful to factors related to body image. Nevertheless, the policy may further the conversation about the role of policymakers, advertisers, and companies in moving away from a thin-ideal that is harmful to body image.

While it has evolved throughout history, the concept of an “ideal” body has persisted.

This ideal is carefully constructed with poreless skin and impeccable proportions, so extreme that they are not physically achievable for most people¹. Since the 1950s, the ideal body has become progressively thinner and thinner, coming to be termed the “thin-ideal”².

As media imagery increasingly floods daily life, the ideal body becomes more recognizable and widespread - yet reflected by fewer and fewer individuals exposed to it. This growing divide between what is realistic and what is desirable has normalized body dissatisfaction and thin-ideal internalization, or the extent to which individuals pursue the thin-ideal³. Body dissatisfaction also results from appearance comparisons with idealized images, and is a risk factor for serious physical and psychological conditions, including eating disorders and depression⁴. These pathways are, to some extent, automatic; meaning that even with education around the fact that the ideal body isn’t realistic, a negative, lasting psychological reaction can still be triggered. But the ideal body doesn’t even exist in real life.

How, then, is the ideal body achieved? The thin ideal promoted within the virtual confines of billboards and magazines, online ads, and social media feeds is the product of digital editing (e.g. Photoshop). With a couple clicks and drags it can transform the lighting, color, and content of an image to the point where it’s no longer recognizable. When abused to create powerful and toxic thin ideal imagery, it contributes to a psychologically harmful visual environment⁵. Images that have been doctored to erase “imperfections” and conform to the thin ideal comprise an overwhelming majority of advertising worldwide⁶.

In response to this evidence, in 2017 the French government passed a decree in its public health code directed at advertisement imagery.

Specifically, Article R2133-6 passed into law in May 2017 and in effect October of the same year, mandates that advertisers append a label reading “photographie retouchée” (retouched photograph) to commercial photographs that have been altered to refine the weight or shape of the model⁷. Violators could face a fine upwards of €37,500⁸. In France, this accompanies a wave of public health legislation aimed at prevention, access to care, and innovation⁹. Among other initiatives, it is also now in the company of a law requiring fashion models who wish to work in France to hold medical certificates attesting to their health. Laws passed in Israel in 2013 have also prescribed disclaimers for retouched imagery^10,11.

In France, the implementation of this law is not immediately evident. The investigation started in the metro platforms of Paris where, waiting for trains, the disclaimer labels had initially caught my eye. On this singular day, across the halls and platforms of the Republique metro stop, there amounted 97 billboard ads alone across ten platforms. Of the eighteen containing a human figure, nine bore the label “photographie retouchée,” very discreetly tucked into the corners of the otherwise large advertisements (Figure-1).

At first glance, the ads featured a range of labels beyond just “Photographie Retouchée”, mostly stemming from (1) the ‘Manger Bouger’ (eat move) health campaign of 2001¹²; and (2) 2005 legislation requiring disclaimers on ads selling alcoholic beverages¹³. These labels were clearly distinguished by their prominent, legible, and distinct format, while the “Photographie Retouchée” message was buried within text or in the torn corner of an advertisement. Indeed, this label is legislatively distinct by specific language (or lack thereof) formalizing it. In contrast, the Manger Bouger campaign specifically requires that labels assume 100% of the width and 7% of the height, for print type advertisements¹⁴. Figure-2 illustrates “Photographie Retouchée” both as-is and under Manger Bouger size injunctions.

The more advertisements that appeared, across billboards and bus stops and metros and magazines, the more apparent it became how arbitrarily "photographie retouchée" labels were implemented. A Dior ad in a magazine bore a label, while the same photo was displayed as a street ad without the label, illustrating the glaring inconsistency with which these labels appear (Figure-3). Clearly, full and comprehensive compliance with the law was yet to be achieved.

What makes compliance with this law so difficult?

In addition to the changes to practices it might require, the language of the law itself makes it hard to accurately and consistently identify violations -- when the “weight and shape” of a model is digitally retouched -- especially when other types of modifications (like adjusting lighting) do not fall under those restrictions. Although there is threat of a large penalty, there is no explicit auditing process discussed in the legislative text and little evidence of resources to enforce compliance, or documented violations, to date.

Do these labels actually work?

A majority of research evidence indicates that single exposure to the presence of a label alone is not effective in improving body image, and can in fact be harmful by increasing comparison tendencies¹⁵. This finding does not seem to have reached many policy makers and players in industry, who have continued to favor labeling practices. Shifts in thinking towards ways of diversifying media images, including incentivizing the industry to limit digital editing (to modify weight and shape), would have the potential to reduce the negative health effects of unrealistic thin-ideal imagery¹⁶.

What’s next?

France’s initiative forms a policy-based contrast to those of companies capitalizing on the “body positive” movement (think: Aerie’s #AerieREAL¹⁷, CVS’s Beautymark¹⁸), and has put pressure on other legislative bodies, including in the US, to consider taking steps to address the harmful effects of media imagery. While unsuccessful in the US at the federal level¹⁹, a more recent bill in Massachusetts has proposed tax incentives for companies using “realistic advertising,” which could encourage media diversity while limiting the government’s involvement in media censorship. Above all, as these new policies emerge in France and beyond, they must be evaluated and held accountable. Ultimately, the health and well-being of viewers depend on it.

Acknowledgments and Funding

This study was supported by a Northeastern University SSIRF Award.

About the Authors

Elisa Danthinne is a senior undergraduate at Northeastern University. She has been a part of the Applied Psychology Program on Eating and Appearance Research (APPEAR) for over three years, leading a number of projects investigating policy, business, and perception in the US, France, and Japan.

Rachel Rodgers, PhD, FAED, is an associate professor of Applied Psychology at Northeastern University, and Director of the APPEAR lab. Her research focuses on body image and disorders with a view to preventing these concerns at the individual level and also at the macro-level through public policy and industry practices.

References

1. Grabe S, Ward LM, Hyde JS. The Role of the Media in Body Image Concerns Among Women: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Correlational Studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134(3):460-76.
2. Spettigue W, Henderson KA. Eating disorders and the role of the media. The Canadian child and adolescent psychiatry review = La revue canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent. 2004;13(1):16.
3. van Den Berg P, Thompson JK, Obremski-Brandon K, Coovert M. The Tripartite Influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance comparison. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2002;53(5):1007-20.
4. Runfola CD, Von Holle A, Trace SE, Brownley KA, Hofmeier SM, Gagne DA, et al. Body Dissatisfaction in Women Across the Lifespan: Results of the UNC‐ SELF and Gender and Body Image (GABI) Studies. European Eating Disorders Review. 2013;21(1):52-9.
5. Groesz LM, Levine MP, Murnen SK. The effect of experimental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: A meta‐analytic review. New York2002. p. 1-16.
6. Bruner R. Blake Lively Says '99.9%' of Celebrity Images Are Photoshopped While Interviewing Gigi Hadid: Time; 2018 [Available from: https://time.com/5236384/blake-lively-photoshop-gigi-hadid-interview/.
7. Décret n° 2017-738 du 4 mai 2017 relatif aux photographies à usage commercial de mannequins dont l'apparence corporelle a été (2017).
8. Loisone F. Ne pas oublier la mention "Photographie retouchée" ! : Publicite News; 2017 [Available from: https://www.graphiline.com/article/26646/photographie-retouchee-mention-obligatoire.
9. Projet Loi Relatif Sante. : Vie Publique; [Available from: https://www.vie-publique.fr/actualite/panorama/texte-discussion/projet-loi-relatif-sante.html#onglet2.
10. Friedman V. A New Age in French — Modeling. . The New York Times. 2017.
11. Krawitz M. Beauty is only photoshop deep: legislating models' BMIs and photoshopping images. J Law Med. 2014;21(4):859-74.
12. Qu’est-ce que le PNNS Manger Bouger; [Available from: https://www.mangerbouger.fr/PNNS.
13. Code de la santé publique - Article L3323-4, (2005).
14. Arrêté du 27 février 2007 fixant les conditions relatives aux informations à caractère sanitaire devant accompagner les messages publicitaires ou promotionnels en faveur de certains aliments et boissons (2007).
15. Danthinne ES, Giorgianni FE, Rodgers RF. Labels to prevent the detrimental effects of media on body image: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders. 2020;53(5):647-61.
16. Austin S, Sobel T. Photoshopping Ourselves to Death: Why advertisers should "get real" with their ad images.: Psychology Today; 2019 [Available from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/body-politics/201906/photoshopping-ourselves-death.
17. Aerie Real: American Eagle; [Available from: https://www.ae.com/aerie-real-life/.
18. CVS Beauty Mark: CVS Health; [Available from: https://cvshealth.com/about/our-offerings/cvs-pharmacy/cvs-beauty-mark.
19. H.R.4445 - Truth in Advertising Act of 2016 (2016).

Figures

[Figure-1: Billboard imagery at La Republique, starting with the all billboards from all platforms (Figure-1.1), those bearing the label (Figure-1.2), and a label example highlighted in red (Figure-1.3).]

[Figure-2: A billboard bearing a label, highlighted in red (Figure-2.1), with the label enlarged (Figure-2.2), and a comparably-dimensioned Manger Bouger advertisement (Figure-2.3).]

[Figure-3: Magazine Dior ad, highlighted in red adjacent pennies (Figure-3.1); same ad seen in Les Champs Elysees, without label (Figure-3.2).]