This law came about in, hm, the 60s? after the first wave of outrage over things like ice cream in advertisements being made out of textured lard, or whatever.
So, showing a 3/4 pound hamburger in an ad for 99 cent cheeseburgers would be material, but using colored caulk instead of mustard probably wouldn't be.
"The food stylist’s magic tricks face regulation from the Federal Trade Commission and its truth in advertising laws. That Crisco-powdered sugar mix can substitute for ice cream if it’s representing a generic dessert on a menu, Allaben says, but not if it’s hawking a brand name like Ben & Jerry’s."
And here (http://www.cskern.com/blog/entryid/11):
"The truth is most of what you see in food photographs is real. FTC laws state that whatever you’re selling with a photo must be real in the image. To use a familiar example, if you’re selling corn flakes the flakes must be real. But then it gets interesting. You can use white glue instead of milk in your bowl of flakes because you’re not selling the milk, only the corn flakes."
So, the product being sold must be real as-it-is-sold (albeit much more carefully styled, generally). The incidentals can be embellished. A McD's quarter-pounder is a single product, and so presumably must be made with its actual ingredients in ads.
Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differently.
And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.
So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots.
I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?
I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.
The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look.
The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used.
Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)
There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.
In a nutshell, in Campbell, the company used marbles to stand-in for peas and other various vegetable ingredients. Someone complained that the ads were deceptive. The FTC pursued an enforcement action against the company. In its ruling, the FTC noted that a food product (and any ingredients) advertised must actually be the food product sold. Otherwise, the ad is deceptive.
The application to burger commercials: The advertised product must be an actual sample of the sold product. All of the ingredients in the sold product must be in the advertised product.
The ruling is not explicitly limited to the food products being advertised and sold, however it does not address any other ingredients except for those advertised and sold. Consequently, if a foodstuff is not part of the final sold product, the advertisement can use a stand-in. Consequently, the milk in cereal commercials can be glue (or paint), while the cereal in milk commercials can be plastic.