trying to create consumer guilt
is not the only communications option. Consumers are massively exposed to image advertising on bottled water or air travel. Why is it wrong to fight on the same ground?
The situation is complicated elsewhere because we live in a media environment and have a general discourse where bans on ads in which cars make trees grow and flowers bloom would be considered government intrusion on freedom of speech.
So there is a point - still, as regulation is better it should remain the ultimate goal.
If we just wave the "this-should-be-regulated" flag while sniffing at attempts to score points within the media environment (judgement of their quality and likely effectiveness set aside for the sake of argument), I suggest we are comfortably ignoring the way the world works. The image-makers, meanwhile, go on creating their "reality".
