Should magazine ads promoting anti-aging serums be allowed to feature photos of faces that have been graphically enhanced? When an advertiser touts its "innovative" anti-cellulite cream, is it fair to pair the copy with an image that has been doctored?

We don't think so, a majority of Canadians agree with us, and we're trying to do something about it.

The results of a national poll shows a majority of Canadians - 71% - consider the use of digital enhancement technology unacceptable in application to beauty product advertising campaigns.

The responses to questions about the prevalence, impact and acceptability of altered images revealed discomfort among both male and female consumers, and across all ages polled. The questions were included in an omnibus survey conducted by Stratcom last fall, which reflects the views of a nationally representative sample of 1,202 Canadian adults.

The survey found that women are slightly more likely than men to believe that images have been altered always or most of time (88% vs 80%), and young Canadians are considerably more skeptical of the authenticity of images than older people: 46% of 18-34 year olds think images in ads and magazines are always doctored, in contrast to only 28% of those over the age of 60.

78% of Canadians believe that the digital enhancement of model and celebrity photos to make them seem younger and slimmer has a negative impact on how women feel about their bodies. Women (86%) and young people (84%) are particularly concerned about this, although even a majority of men (70%) and people over 60 (68%) share similar concerns.

Perhaps not surprisingly, given these views, 71% of Canadians feel the digital enhancement of images of women in ads that promote anti-cellulite or anti-wrinkle cream is not acceptable.

Says Media Action director Shari Graydon, "Canadians are essentially saying it's indefensible for an advertiser to use graphically manipulated images to illustrate claims made on behalf of a beauty product purporting to improve appearance.

"We expect accuracy in reporting and want journalists to illustrate their stories with authentic, unaltered images. Why should corporate communicators be permitted to ignoresuch standards? At a time when public confidence in the marketplace is at a record low, it's time for a recommitment to the principles of ‘truth in advertising'."

Last year in response to a consumer complaint, the industry's self-regulating body, Advertising Standards Canada, ruled that a mascara commercial "misled viewers because the depiction could not have been achieved unless false eyelashes or lash inserts were used."

"We were encouraged by this precedent," says Graydon. "Dozens of other ads for anti-cellulite and anti-aging cream mislead viewers every day because the flawless skin they depict is impossible to achieve without airbrushing."

In the United Kingdom, magazine publishers are talking about developing an ethics code on re-touching - spurred in part by public outrage over the untimely deaths by starvation of a couple of fashion models. In contrast, the recent complaints to Advertising Standards Canada, the industry's voluntary regulator, have been dismissed.

But women and men alike share our view that consumers have a right to expect "truth in advertising" when it comes to photographs, as well as their accompanying text.

Please click here for information on our public forum, where we'll debate this issue. If you want to be in on the discussion or join our protest, click here. We'll count you in and keep you updated on further developments.