If you've ever seen commercials or print advertising for food (especially fast food), you've probably noticed how really good it looks. Now there's nothing wrong with making food look as attractive as we'd want our kids to look in their graduation photos. But how far would we be willing to go?

Not nearly as far as food photographers, apparently. Someone recently contacted the website for McDonald's Canada, asking why the food in their commercials looked, well, much better than it did if you ate there. To its credit, McDonald's Canada was willing to answer the question:

[McDonald's Canada/YouTube]

Now of course, what's done in Canada may not be the proceedure in, say, the US. But I'd be shocked if it were terribly different. Nor does it imply that the less-photogenic version of foods that you actually get anywhere are any worse in calorie or fat content or less tasty than their super-attractive brethern.

But it still leaves me wondering: does the food industry think we're so naive as to not know this is going on?