In spite of how it is naturally pre-determined by the amount of melanin in our bodies, skin color is often indistinguishably aligned with how we live our life.
In some cases, our complexions can drive how much money we earn, where we live or whether we’re considered guilty or innocent. And for those of us who are born with deeper hues of this all-too-important organ – one specifically designed to protect us biologically – sometimes we find it can also be the greatest threat to our well-being, actually controlling whether we live or die.
The past three years have shined a spotlight on important conversations about the complexities of colorism and its social hierarchy in the cosmetics industry. Companies were challenged to address why they’re thriving on the bias against darker skin, their irresponsible granting of wishes to brighten it, and how their manufacturing, marketing and media reporting of it remains troublesome.
Skin bleaching – the act of using substances or treatments to lighten one’s skin tone physically – has been around for a long time. According to Yaba Blay Ph.D., a professor, researcher, producer, and one of the world’s leading voices on colorism (through her dynamic work, she aims to spread real, social consciousness), the practice dates back to the Victorian era. In this age, powder and lead paint were precursors to foundation. She notes it was during a time when race was being solidified as a concept and whiteness was deemed pure, one in which white women were intensely invested. Queen Elizabeth I was known to ingest arsenic complexion wafers, essentially little bits of poison to yield that ghostly look she desired.
Skin Bleaching: A Worldwide Epidemic
In an interview with Byrdie, Blay shares. “When we start looking at skin bleaching across the world, particularly in the African diaspora, we see {it} exploding around the time of independence, which is a bit ironic, right? But that was about the colonial powers and colonial countries using commodity racism—they were using whiteness as a way to sell products.” Well, considering the way whiteness was blatantly prioritized and lauded all over the world, one could argue why it’s no surprise those of African descent would want access to the option to take it during that time.
Today, we often hear of the popularity of skin bleaching happening in the Caribbean and Ghana, but it’s widely utilized everywhere, including India, Southeast Asia and the United States, where expansions of skin-lightening products acutely nourish the cycles of deeply-rooted, impossible-to-reach, Eurocentric beauty standards. However, albeit a multi-billion dollar business – with projections to reach 12.3 billion by 2027, according to Global Industry Analysts – it shows excessive physical dangers.
According to the World Health Organization, the vast amounts of cases where users experience skin infections, thinning of the skin, body odor and kidney disease from bleaching creams continue to grow at alarming rates, as many are formulated with mercury. Doctors say Black skin is dark for a reason, and when you use a chemical to ask your body to stop producing melanin, there are health complications. The European Union, Ghana, Nigeria, Canada, the Philippines and Uganda have banned cosmetics containing mercury. Australia, Rwanda and Japan have banned skin-brightening products that contain hydroquinone, a controversial yet highly popular lightening ingredient. However, in some of these countries, a booming black market of products made with these ingredients are still easy to find.
Despite their potentially dangerous side effects, the demand for skin-bleaching products remains high. And until recently, the reporting of the business was fixed in slanted points of view, directly glorifying beauty brands while making spectacles of consumers and their difficulties, with an overwhelming focus on criminalizing those Black women who choose to bleach their skin: “Whether from the perspectives of Black folks or from those of whites, our communal voyeurism into skin bleaching tends to focus almost solely on the individuals who bleach their skin, and not the global institutions that make skin bleaching a viable option. And it’s a problem,” Blay wrote in a piece for Ebony.
Dr. Blay’s statement still holds true. A 2018 study published in Plos One – a peer-reviewed open-access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science; it covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine – followed the earnings of more than 4,000 subjects, taking into account their complexions. The study found that those with the darkest skin tones were projected to earn over half a million dollars less in their lifetime than their fairest-skinned colleagues.
Time for a Change
With petitions and open letters to beauty companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson and Amazon asking to stop making “whitening” products, the public pressure seems to be working. Johnson and Johnson announced it would discontinue manufacturing of two skin-brightening lines and Amazon removed several skin lighteners from its site. Although Unilever says their brand Fair & Lovely, a product marketed to promote skin lightening, was never a skin-bleaching product, has changed the product’s name to Glow and Lovely, having made changes to packaging and marketing by removing before-and-after images and shade guides. The company has also removed wording such as “fair,” “white/whitening,” and “light” from packaging and promotions.
Is it Affecting Real Change?
To date, many beauty brands that have long promoted “whitening” are swiftly making an about-face and changing course. However, product changes are one thing, but the issue runs deeper. In reality, can a rebrand truly do much to govern centuries of fostering that made skin bleaching a billion-dollar industry?
Instead of pointing the finger, experts say understanding and having honest, universal conversations about the driving forces behind why skin bleaching is so popular is a step in the right direction. Zoila Darton, founder and creative director of WORD Agency, shares with Allure: “You can quietly pull down products or change the name, but that does not change what’s happening in the homes of our youth”…”the first step is to discuss history.”
