The watchdogs, led by Parliament Member Jo Swinson, proposed that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ban all retouched images aimed at those 16 and under, while ads for adults should state how much airbrushing has been done.
Today, the ASA, issued a ruling on the Twiggy ad, calling it misleading, but not socially irresponsible.
"We considered that the combination of references to "younger-looking eyes...and the post-production re-touching of Twiggy's image around the eye was likely to mislead," the ASA says on its site.
Adding that since the ad was targeted for a more mature woman it was "unlikely to have a negative impact on perceptions of body image among the target audience and was not socially irresponsible."
Procter & Gamble, Olay's manufacturer, responded to the ASA by saying it was routine practice to use post-production techniques to "correct for lighting and other minor photographic deficiencies before publishing the final shots as part of an advertising campaign."
P&G continued by saying that when the ad was questioned in the media in July 2009, they concluded that there had been some "minor retouching around Twiggy's eyes which was inconsistent with their policies," so they withdrew the ad and replaced it with one that had not been airbrushed (shown above).
What responsibility do you think companies have to label retouched images? Leave a comment!