Quantcast
Connect with us

H&M apologizes for too-tan swimsuit model

Published

on

Swedish cheap-and-chic fashion giant H&M on Thursday apologised over a swimwear campaign featuring a deeply tanned model that sparked outrage among cancer groups.

“We are sorry if we have upset anyone with our latest swimwear campaign. It was not our intention to show off a specific ideal or to encourage dangerous behaviour, but was instead to show off our latest summer collection,” the company said in an email sent to AFP.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We have taken note of the views and will continue to discuss this internally ahead of future campaigns,” it added.
H&M’s apology came after the Swedish Cancer Society and other critics blasted advertisements featuring Brazilian model Isabeli Fontana wearing brightly-coloured swimwear accentuated by a dark-brown tan.

“The clothing giant is creating, not least among young people, a beauty ideal that is deadly,” the cancer society wrote in an opinion piece in Sweden’s paper of reference Dagens Nyheter Thursday.

“Every year, more people die in Sweden of (skin cancer) than in traffic accidents, and the main cause is too much sunning,” the group said.

“Regardless of how the H&M model got her tan, through sunning or a computer programme, the effect is the same: H&M tells us we should be very tan on the beach,” it said.

“It is sad to write this, but H&M will through its latest advertising campaign not only sell more bathing suits but also contribute to more people dying from skin cancer.”

ADVERTISEMENT

H&M has previously come under fire for using very thin models in its advertising campaigns.

[Brazilian model Isabeli Fontana in New York in 2011. AFP Photo/Mike Coppola]


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here’s why Trump contradicted his own White House on the Supreme Court rulings

Published

on

Following the Supreme Court's pair of 7-2 decisions rejecting President Donald Trump's claim to have absolute immunity from subpoenas, he blasted the ruling on Twitter, claiming he being unfairly targeted and the victim of "prosecutorial misconduct." However, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany released a statement saying that "President Trump is gratified by today’s decision."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘They deserve it’: Republican strategist tells GOP it’s their own fault for going down with Trump because ‘they know better’

Published

on

Republican strategist Susan del Percio said that there is no excuse for GOP members who failed to do the right thing and fight back against President Donald Trump when they had the opportunity.

Speaking to MSNBC's Joy Reid Thursday, del Percio called Trump "the anchor" around the GOP's necks, "dragging them down."

"But, you know what, they deserve it," she continued. "There are Republicans out there that deserve this because they know better. They should have been better on impeachment. They should have been holding him accountable all along. Now they are scared and worried about themselves. Well, boohoo, you brought it on. there's no excuse."

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

‘The monarch has taken a body blow’: Ex-prosecutor explains why Court ruling is devastating for Trump

Published

on

On MSNBC Thursday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery broke down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling against President Donald Trump on immunity from subpoenas.

"I think what it says is that the monarch has taken a body blow as a result of what will be an historic decision, as we've indicated," said Flannery. "I think that the position of the DA in New York is very special, because he can speed this up in a way that the House can',t and has a specific strength, I think, in this case, that it is criminal."

"The most significant thing about it is this is the first Supreme Court case in which there's ever been agreed that a prosecutor could subpoena a president," added Flannery. "Prior prosecutions have been federal, that have been treated by the Supreme Court. So this is a big difference. The majority of the court, 7-2, basically said, from 1740 on, the public is entitled to the testimony, to the evidence of any person. They said that the documents — the question is the character documents, not the character of the person. In this case, what we have is a situation which I bet that the DA is going to go to the court as soon as possible, move to compel an appearance to their subpoena, and going to have the discussion as to what if anything may be limited or excluded and get production as quickly as possible."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image