France Considers Health Warnings on Photoshopped Images

Last week, MP Valerie Boyer and 50 other politicians in the French Parliament introduced a law that would require digitally modified photos of fashion models to bear a "health warning," Reuters reports.

This law would form part of France's anti-anorexia campaign, which includes a law fining "pro-ana," or pro-anorexia, websites (see Reuters article here)

According to Boyer, who has written a government report on obesity and anorexia, "These photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents. "Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age.

"In some cases this leads to anorexia or bulimia and very serious health problems." (qtd from Telegraph)

This law comes after a recent study that shows that France has the highest percent of underweight women in Europe--5% of women--but only half of that percent recognize that they are underweight (see article here)

Photo Credit: Nuru87 on Flickr.com

"Bleu, Blanc, & Rouge” All Over

The cosmetic company L'Oreal was found guilty of racial discrimination by the The French High Court for its all-white recruitment policy for its Garnier shampoo sales teams. Earlier this year, L'Oreal was accused of whitening Beyonce Knowles' skin in an advertisement for the company's make-up line.
A fax sent out by a division (called Districom) of the recruitment agency Adecco that hired the models for the campaign read that the model should be BBR — “bleu, blanc, rouge” — which are the colors of the the French flag. This term is commonly used in the French modeling world as code for white French people born to white French parents, which would in effect exclude anyone of an ethnic minorities.

L'Oreal's defense in this case was that Garnier wanted to exclude ethnic minorities because consumers would be less likely to buy its shampoo from ethnic models in French shops.

The Paris Appeal Court fined both L'Oreal and Adecco £25,500 (or about $40,649) and ordered them to pay the same again to SOS Racisme, an anti-racist campaign group in France, who have been fighting the case for three years.

I am glad that people are starting to look at how companies market products, especially to women, in a new, more critically-aware way. I remember in 2006 when Italy banned models with a body mass index of less than 18 in response to their concern about the "too-thin" models that it was sending down the runways. Unfortunately, it took the death of Ana Carolina Reston, a Brazilian model, to get the attention of designers and people in the fashion world to take note.

As consumers and citizens, we have the power to fight back against big companies who think that they can do whatever they want at the expense of whoever might get in their way. I applaud groups like SOS Racisme and the French government's action to not stand for such blatant discrimination. This case sends the message to other companies considering committing such overt acts of discrimination for business gains, that consumers do not find this acceptable.

When I see products or companies that market in a discriminatory way, I use my power as a consumer to not buy their products and to tell my friends about the way that a certain company markets. Consumerism has significant influence over big businesses and is a powerful way to make a statement.

If you see acts of discrimination in marketing, let these companies know that as a consumer, you will not support such companies who discriminate against anyone. This can be done through taking your business somewhere else, writing a letter directly to the company, or even just tell your friends about it.

A fellow FMF intern posted a similar article on discriminatory ad campaigns about Burger King. Check out her post to get more information about standing up against businesses that tote discriminatory messages.

New Bans in France

In 2004, France passed a controversial law
banning students from wearing any clothing or jewelry with religious affiliation in public schools. This law attempted to end religious segregation, but resulted in riots and bitter resentment, especially from the large Muslim community in France. The ban later gained popularity in the news as the "headscarf ban,"as it stopped Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to public schools.

This morning, Monday June 22, President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke in front of legislators attempting to ban Burqas (the full length garments that many devout Muslim women wear) in France. Sarkozy has explained that Burqas are a symbol of oppression, and Reuters has reported Sarkozy as saying that"The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory." This statement is commonplace in western societies, who believe women should be able to wear what they want. It is argued that the Burqa is just another form of patriarchal control, an idea supported by many authors such as Joan Smith.

However, we must keep in mind that it is also offensive to women who choose to wear Burqas to assume that they don't want to be. Many women choose to wear Burqas to honor the passages in the Qur'an for pious reasons, rather than being forced to. I am interested to see the response of the French public if this ban is approved. Whereas previously the Taliban forced women to wear headscarves, does France have the right to tell women what they can't wear? What does this say about France's commitment to separation of church and state?