Get ready, America: your celebrities in magazines are about to start looking a lot like the rest of you. In other words, expect to see models and such types to be a lot less photoshopped in pictures next year.

In a release from the National Advertising Division, they approved of Proctor & Gamble’s decision to “discontinue mascara advertising” that falsely purported that some of their products would give you “2X more volume” compared to regular eyelashes and that it was “20% lighter” than the most expensive alternative. The product at issue, CoverGirl NatureLuxe Mousse Mascara, did not deliver on P&G’s promise because, well, it couldn’t. The “effect” of the mascara on the model depicted in the ad were “enhanced in post production.”

P&G were hoping to slide by NAD’s watchful eye by including a disclaimer on their ad that basically disavowed themselves of any responsibility when consumers got home, applied the mascara, and then realized that their lashes look nothing like the lashes on the model in the CoverGirl ad. NAD director Andrea Levine explained their objection to P&G’s ad further with Business Insider after they asked her if this was a “de facto ban on all Photoshop”:

“You can’t use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a woman’s face and then – in the mice type – have a disclosure that says ‘okay, not really.’”

Business Inside also provided an elaboration of NAD’s decision to stop P&G’s use of photoshopped images:

“… [P&G] advised NAD it has permanently discontinued all of the challenged claims and the photograph in its advertisement. NAD was particularly troubled by the photograph of the model – which serves clearly to demonstrate (i.e., let consumers see for themselves) the length and volume they can achieve when they apply the advertised mascara to their eyelashes. This picture is accompanied by a disclosure that the model’s eyelashes had been enhanced post production.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-moves-toward-banning-use-of-photoshop-in-cosmetics-ads-2011-12#ixzz1gjooQXV5

Who can argue with that?

NAD’s decision to curb P&G’s use of ads that promise unrealistic results could have a big impact on how they advertise their other products (you’ve probably used some of them at some point in your life) not to mention how other corporations use post-production enhancement to sell you products that will never do what they say they will do.

To see some of the more drastic effects that one talented graphic whateverartist can do with Photoshop, check out Natalia Taffarel’s website. If we don’t see actors and models and musicians photoshopped within an inch of their life in magazines anymore, we won’t actually recognize anybody ever again.