Julia Roberts & Christy Turlington L'Oreal Ads Banned In U.K. (PHOTOS, POLL)

Britain's Advertising Standards Authority has pulled a pair of ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington for being overly-airbrushed, the Guardian reports.

Member of Parliament Jo Swinson first alerted the campaign watchdog to Lancome's two-page ad showing Roberts as shot by Mario Testino and a spot for Maybelline's "Eraser" foundation featuring Turlington.

According to the BBC, Swinson said the manipulated photographs could impact an individual's body image:

"We should have some honesty in advertising and that's exactly what the ASA is there to do. I'm delighted they've upheld these complaints," she said.

"There's a big picture here which is half of young women between 16 and 21 say they would consider cosmetic surgery and we've seen eating disorders more than double in the last 15 years.

"There's a problem out there with body image and confidence. The way excessive retouching has become pervasive in our society is contributing to that problem."

Swinson added, "Excessive airbrushing and digital manipulation techniques have become the norm, but both Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts are naturally beautiful women who don't need retouching to look great. This ban sends a powerful message to advertisers -- let's get back to reality," the Guardian writes.

The beauty giant, for its part, did acknowledge that the pics had been taken to ye olde Photoshoppe. From the Independent:

L'Oreal admitted post-production techniques had been used in its advert featuring Turlington to "lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows".

However, the beauty firm said it believed the image accurately illustrated the results the product could achieve.

It also said the flawless skin in the image of Roberts was down to her "naturally healthy and glowing skin", adding the product had taken 10 years to develop.

The ASA previously banned a YSL Belle D'Opium commercial for simulating drug use, nixed "indecent" Diesel billboards and said no to two misleading Louis Vuitton print ads. However, the group decided there was nothing wrong with a particular Miu Miu ad depicting what some dubbed a "significantly underweight" model.

What do you think?

Quick Poll

Should these ads be banned stateside?

ABSOLUTELY! They're way too retouched.

NO WAY! All beauty ads are aspirational.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

WATCH:

Comments

[DaniFoxy]

11:04 AM on 08/01/2011

Can we ban Julia Roberts here in the US? I mean from any more movies or any public appearances? Please?

[MJJBunny]

04:51 PM on 07/31/2011

I can't agree more. Truth in advertising should be something we shouldn't have to worry about. I'd love to have my face airbrushed too, but in the real world I have to live with my wrinkles. Of course I've earned them.

[shukurac]

10:59 PM on 07/30/2011

It's about time they addressed these false advertising issues. This needs to be done in the US as well.

[ToniQ]

05:21 AM on 08/01/2011

>It's about time they addressed these false advertisin­g issues. This needs to be done in the US as well.

Fat chance, corporatization was well underway before the Supreme Court declared corporates were entitled to (unlimited $) free speech just like average people.

[BlackYowe]

02:39 AM on 07/30/2011

I saw the adds a couple places and said to myself how silly to use these obviously fake glamor shots. It's so lame.

[JediGoddess]

08:42 PM on 07/29/2011

There is a difference between airbrushing a zit off your face rather than making your face look like it belongs in a wax museum. I applaud them for banning these ads. I realize that they are retouched but there are other people out there who believe that this is how this product really makes them look. It also does instill unrealistic ideals of body image. I want to see pores! Its like looking at Barbie dolls. Both of these woman are in their 40's, I think a non airbrushed photo-shoot of them would be inspirational rather than these pretend wax figure photos. Its sending the message that yes they are beautiful and 40 but only after we completely airbrushed everything off their face.

[Lora Taber]

08:33 PM on 07/29/2011

The thing is, women in their forties and fifties ARE beautiful and sexy. Why must advertising, and pretty much all visual media, force us to worship youth and feel so darned afraid of age? Give me a fully formed, confident, vibrant woman any day.

[Maargen]

03:18 PM on 07/29/2011

Yay! It's great to see advertisers held accountable for misleading the public.

Now, if we could just ban politicians that do the same thing...

[HaitianChick]

01:57 PM on 07/29/2011

White women past 30 NEVER look this good. How misleading

[Jodi Lampert]

12:19 PM on 07/29/2011

I LOVE this.

[syds180turn]

12:04 AM on 07/29/2011

All of the make-up and hair-coloring ads are misleading. We all know that these people don't look like the commercial or ad has portrayed them. They're all photo-shopped and airbrushed to within an inch of their lives. We also know that these actresses and models aren't sitting in their bathroom dyeing, curling and straightening their own hair. The wrinkle, line erasers and smoothers are the ones that are the most funny... they see an improvement in a few weeks...yeah right, with botox, collagen and Dr. Nip, Tuck and Suck on retainer. I'm glad Britain took a stand and banned these ads because there is no way in Hell you can look 19 yrs old with some "youth in a bottle"...you can't look 19 again with full blown plastic surgery. It's time for people to stop worrying about getting older, stop trying to be a teenager and for goodness sakes stop with the mind screwing of 60 is the new 40, 50 is the 30 and 40 is the new 20....there's no new nothing. Yes, some of these ads contribute to all sorts emotional issues, but the truth being is they WE make ourselves crazy and only WE can stop the mania. Just be happy at whatever age you are and however you look because every day above ground is a good day. Enough already.

[Assumed Name]

11:56 PM on 07/28/2011

What with the Brits banning L'Oreal and the Canadians banning Fox and the Irish giving the Pope what for, why can't we do somethin' extraordinary? (Goodness knows we have fodder...)

[Helloise]

10:45 AM on 07/29/2011

Very smart to tie all those things together, which basically represent a revolt against air brushing in every context.

[Assumed Name]

11:05 AM on 07/29/2011

Well, no, it's not a revolt against air brushing in every context, but it is revolt against something "big" in every context whether it be big business or...well, I was going to say "big religion", but big business will do.

(As for being v. smart, I am...and it's much better than being a smart @ss. ;)

[Silverwolf72]

06:48 PM on 07/28/2011

Swinson said the manipulated photographs could impact an individual's body image:
Isn't that the purpose of makeup to change your self image.
I could see calling it false advertising though.

[sf girl]

06:01 PM on 07/28/2011

L'Oreal admitted post-production techniques had been used in its advert featuring Turlington to "lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows".

However, the beauty firm said it believed the image accurately illustrated the results the product could achieve.

Ha! If the product could achieve these results they wouldn't have had to airbrush Turlington's picture. Ridiculous. It's false advertising, plain and simple.

[Susan Barr]

05:48 PM on 07/28/2011

I think the ads suggest that you can erase years off of your face by using the product and if that were the case, then have the women use the product for 6 months or so and show before and after rather than air brushing the pic. Julia Roberts no longer looks like that!! They have made her skin look like a 20 year old and that is deceptive. However, with all that said, people SHOULD know their is no fountain of youth in a bottle.

[Highball]

04:13 PM on 07/28/2011

Of course they should not be banned in the US. That is simply not the way, and I'm not even convinced that such a ban would be constitutional.

[HeresaClue]

01:17 PM on 07/31/2011

There is nothing unconstitutional about banning false advertising.

[Highball]

01:23 PM on 07/31/2011

All advertising is false advertising, by that definition.

Here, we would have the state deciding that a particular company's ads should be banned because ... why, now, exactly?

We have a 1st amendment. The UK doesn't. The presumption, in the US, is that speech is allowed. There have to be very, very serious reasons to ban speech (You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example; child pornography; etc.). But laws that ban "regular" speech, such as they have in France and Germany banning NAZI memorabilia or Holocaust denial, is protected here in the US.