Influencers and advertisers should be forced to declare digitally altered photos on social media, the Girl Guides have said.
The charity has backed a proposed law by a backbench MP that would force social media users and advertisers to label images where bodies or faces have been edited.
The bill is designed to address unrealistic portrayals of beauty in the media and online.
Critics have said it is unenforceable.
The Girlguiding Advocate panel, whose members are aged 14 to 25, welcomed the proposals.
“The ‘perfect’ images girls are encountering in their daily lives are having a devastating impact on self-esteem and confidence,” said 15-year-old panel member Alice.
“These enhanced images create a false society where how girls look is perceived to be the most important aspect about them.”
Dr Luke Evans MP, a Tory member of the Health and Social Care Committee and a GP, was inspired to introduce the bill after seeing first-hand the effects of these images on people’s mental health.
“We know how damaging this is, as you’re warping people’s perspective of reality, whether that’s slimming down for women or bulking up for men,” he added.
The law would require advertisers, broadcasters or publishers to display a warning label when bodies or faces are digitally altered.
The stock images agency Getty has also banned retouched images from its commercial category.
He said he would like to see rule-breakers apologise and issue a correction, or be fined.
Some have said this would be difficult to enforce on social media, as it would rely on users policing themselves or others reporting them.
“While some pictures look obviously edited, there are still fine tweaks anyone can make, which can be hard to identify,” commented Unsah Malik, author of Slashed: The Ultimate Social Media and Influencer Marketing Guide.
“This begs the question to what extent the new rules will be put in place, and how much we can trust influencers to tell the truth.
“This then leaves us in the same position of setting unrealistic beauty standards.”
Nick Ede, a brand expert, said there should be flexibility in the rules.
“If you are specifically using a product that you are promoting, and don’t declare that you have manipulated an image, that is false advertising – for example, a face cream and you’ve smoothed out your skin,” he explained. “But if you are posting generic images that are part of your brand, then I don’t think you should have to have any kind of accountability.
“Treating people like they are a packet of cigarettes with what basically is a government health warning is just ridiculous.”
Dr Evans accepts that his recommendations would be hard to enforce.
“Just because it’s difficult in principle, doesn’t mean we should not do it,” he responded. “Social media companies have a role to play, allowing people to see what is true reality.
“These influencers have large audiences and need to be transparent – labelling content is not a huge ask.”
Influencers have spoken out against the proposals, saying it puts too much pressure on them.
One model with more than 700,000 followers said people can follow at their own discretion.
“It is an individual’s choice how they wish to represent themselves through social media,” Rahi Chadda added.
“It impacts their own mental health also. If by editing the photos they feel more confident, then that’s a personal choice which shouldn’t be judged.
“Transparency is something which influencers are working toward at their own pace.”
The Ten Minute Rule Bill will be heard in Parliament on 15 September. If it passes, it can be incorporated into existing legislation or debated in the House of Commons.