Food advertising is often discussed as a bag of visual tricks: perfect lighting, careful stacking, shine and selective angles. The better question is what the entire advertisement makes a reasonable customer believe about the product.
Words are not the only thing making a claim
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission evaluates an advertisement’s overall “net impression.” A claim can be explicit or implied by words, images, symbols and context. An advertiser cannot escape responsibility simply because a misleading idea was suggested visually.
Attractive presentation and false material claims are different
A carefully lit sandwich can still be the sandwich being sold. The problem becomes more serious when presentation creates a materially false impression about quantity, origin, ingredients, health effects or another characteristic that could influence a purchase.
Visual storytelling can say “local” without using the word
The FTC has warned restaurants that imagery such as fishermen and boats can imply that seafood is fresh or locally caught. If the food is not what the overall presentation suggests, imagery can contribute to deception.
A beautiful image cannot substitute for substantiation
Health-related claims for foods need appropriate scientific support. The same rule applies to implied claims: a visual presentation cannot communicate a benefit that the evidence does not support.
The real “trick” is the impression left after the ad
Food styling can make an ad attractive. It cannot make an unsupported claim true. Read the image, words and context as one message.