Thinness as Default: The M&S Ad Ban Over Extreme Thinness

In 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a Marks & Spencer (M&S) ad for portraying what it called an “unhealthily thin” model. On paper, it was a simple clothing shot. In practice, it was a visual gamble — and the regulator ruled that gamble crossed the line.

The M&S image banned by the Advertising Standards Authority ASA for portraying an “unhealthily thin” model — a reminder of how easily harmful ideals still pass as normal.

The Image That Somehow Passed Every Approval

This wasn’t some extreme editorial or edgy campaign. It was a product image dressed up as catalogue content: model in slim trousers, off-shoulder top, posed from a downward angle. Styling and lighting accentuated her frame, and collarbones became visual focal points. In the ASA’s view, the image gave the impression of unhealthy thinness.

Which raises the question: how did this slip through? At every stage — styling, photography, retouching, brand review, marketing sign-off — someone said yes. Did everyone think this was okay? Or did no one think to ask, “What are we doing to people by showing this as normal?”

This is not about shaming a person. It’s about questioning the choices brands make — and the silent approvals those choices get.

That single image can feel like permission — to restrict more, to punish the body, to hide.

The Bigger Picture Behind the M&S Ad Ban

The M&S ad ban may be over a single image, but it speaks to a much wider problem across fashion and beauty marketing. When a brand stakes its visuals on extremes, it normalises extremes by default. The pictured body becomes a benchmark, not an outlier. Over time, that benchmark bleeds into how people see themselves.

The ASA rightly pulled the image. But by then, people had already absorbed it. The ad had run, scrolled past, maybe caught a glance, made someone pause — or more often, keep scrolling while internal pressure quietly adjusted.

The M&S image banned for portraying an “unhealthily thin” model — its pose, angle, and styling highlighted features of extreme thinness.

The Impact Most People Don’t See

This is where the damage lives. Imagine scrolling fast, eyes flitting over dozens of photos daily. Each one claims normalcy. That’s how a rare aesthetic becomes daily standard. That’s how someone who’s insecure hears “thinness is expected.”

People with anorexia are up to 10x more likely to die early than the general population. [This figure] represents lives shaped and shortened by an environment where “unhealthily thin” still sells.

For those with eating disorders or body-image vulnerability, that shift is corrosive. That single image can feel like permission — to restrict more, to punish the body, to hide. Over time, it stacks: thousands of pixels shaping what you believe your body must be.

Research shows this isn’t just theory. Advertising exposure correlates strongly with body dissatisfaction, internalisation of thin ideals, and disordered eating behaviours (Bellisario Media Lab, Penn State).

In the UK, at least 1.25 million people are living with an eating disorder (BEAT), and that number is growing — especially among teenagers and young adults. The Mental Health of Children and Young People in England 2023 report found that over 57% of 17–25-year-olds surveyed showed signs of possible eating problems (NHS Digital).

Advertising exposure correlates strongly with body dissatisfaction, internalisation of thin ideals, and disordered eating behaviours

And the mortality rates are devastating. People with anorexia are up to ten times more likely to die early than the general population (National Library of Medicine). These are not abstract figures — they represent lives shaped and shortened by an environment where “unhealthily thin” still sells.

The Gap the System Leaves Exposed

This ruling exposes how limited our safeguards are. Regulators act only when the damage is visible. By the time a complaint is upheld, the image has been live for weeks. Harm spreads quietly and irreversibly.

For every banned image, thousands more go unchallenged — not because they’re harmless, but because they’ve become normal. Brands check colour, lighting, and logos with precision, yet few ever ask, “What message does this send?”

[There is] no pre-publication check that treats psychological harm with the same seriousness as misleading claims or copyright issues.

There’s no shared framework to guide those decisions. No pre-publication check that treats psychological harm with the same seriousness as misleading claims or copyright issues. That absence isn’t just a blind spot. It’s a failure of responsibility — one the industry has accepted for too long.

Turning Reaction Into Prevention

This case shows that when people speak up, action follows. Regulators pulled the image. The ad is gone. But the pattern isn’t.

We shouldn’t need to wait for public outrage to trigger change. Relying on complaints is reactive. We can make it preventative by building clear, evidence-based standards that put mental health first and stop harmful imagery before it goes live.

That’s what drives Index:MH™: creating a world where psychological safety is not an afterthought in advertising, but a basic expectation.

Agree the beauty industry should take accountability for its impact on our mental health? Add your voice.