Skin Whiteners, Faded Beauties--and Racism
They’re on the shelf of every drugstore: Dr. Fred Palmer, Esoterica, Porcelana, Ambi.
Skin bleaches have been around for five decades, but their advertising claims have changed to reflect the times.
In the 1950s, black women were urged to make themselves whiter: “Remove that mask of dull dark skin and give romance a chance,” or “Be lovely, be loved with lighter, brighter skin.”
These days, the ads play to a different consumer sensibility: “It makes your skin just one shade. Beautiful.” Or: “For an even toned glow.”
The creams haven’t changed, though. All have the same active ingredient--something called hydroquinone--which suppresses production of melanin, the skin’s pigment. Dr. Fred Palmer still says “Skin Whitener” right on the box.
Ritashona Simpson, a young research associate for the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, thought the labeling and claims were very strange.
“When you see a skin whitener in a black neighborhood, you wonder, can this really make your skin white?” she said. “It sounded a little fantastic to me.”
So did the differing claims of each similarly formulated product. “How can one give you an even tone, while one makes your skin white?” asked Simpson.
Good question, especially since skin bleaches, sold almost exclusively to African-American women, generate $44 million a year in sales.
I became aware of the bleaches a couple of years ago when I worked in Detroit and often drove past a billboard graced with the photos of three stunning, very light-skinned black women. “The Faded Beauties of Detroit,” said the Porcelana ad.
I always had an odd feeling about that billboard, the same one I get when I look at pale-faced pictures of Michael Jackson. His transformation strikes me as sad and leaves me cold. But then, so does the curious phenomenon of white women paying to have their lips surgically plumped.
“Nobody’s happy,” says Dr. Frank Dann, a UCLA assistant clinical professor of dermatology. Still, he said, “We don’t see people who are healthy, normal dark-skinned people coming in and saying, ‘I want to be light, I want to pass.’ I’ve never seen that. But frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with it.”
It seems to me, though, it’s not a question of right or wrong. It’s a question of social pressures and, ultimately, racism.
Last month, in a story called “Why Skin Color Suddenly Is a Big Issue Again,” Ebony magazine reported that adoption agencies say prospective black parents, “most with mid-brown to dark complexions--express an almost overwhelming preference for light-complexioned or mixed-race children.”
The same story, which ran opposite an ad for Vantex Skin Bleaching Creme, cited a recent study by Verna M. Keith, a sociologist at the University of Arizona. Keith compared lighter and darker-skinned blacks in similar jobs with similar educational backgrounds. Those with lighter complexions, she found, earn up to 50% more than those with darker complexions.
“We cannot pinpoint the source of these advantages,” Keith said in an interview, “but it appears that the lighter you are, the more opportunities you have.”
The faded beauties have the edge.
The main criticism leveled against the skin bleaches is poor labeling and false claims.
All lighteners--used with success by dermatologists to eliminate age spots, freckles and the skin darkening called “mask of pregnancy”--should be used only for short periods of time, and always with sunscreens.
“If you use fade products, you absolutely cannot get sun, not even 10 seconds of sun,” says Dann. “You have to have sunscreen.”
But consumer advocate Simpson found that half the over-the-counter bleaches do not contain sunscreen, and instructions on some of the others never mention it. Nor do most specify that the creams are ineffective over large areas of skin or with very dark skin. Some do not indicate that they should not be used for long periods of time.
Simpson also found a number of studies raising safety questions.
A 1989 U.S. Health and Human Services study suggested a link between hydroquinone and cancer in rats and mice. And several reports in American medical journals linked the creams to a paradoxical darkening called exogenous ochrinosis, in which permanent dark patches appear on the skin. (This phenomenon prompted South Africa to ban all sales of over-the-counter skin bleaches in 1990.)
“We are currently reviewing skin lighteners,” said Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Sharon Snider. “In 1982, we proposed that they be considered safe and effective for lightening age or liver spots, dark skin blotches, freckles and ‘mask of pregnancy.’ They were not approved as general skin lighteners.”
A spokesman for a group of skin bleach manufacturers said the industry is willing to consider relabeling the products. (But no company executives were willing to be interviewed.)
But Lorna Totman, director of pharmacology and toxicology for the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Assn., said the cancer studies are not applicable to over-the-counter skin bleaches because the studies involved feeding large amounts of hydroquinone to animals over long periods of time.
“We don’t feel that people need to be concerned about a carcinogenic risk,” said Totman.
Still, Simpson’s research on skin bleaches was so compelling that her boss, Mark Green, New York’s commissioner of consumer affairs, asked the FDA to seize and ban all over-the-counter skin-lightening products.
Snider said the FDA has no such plans. New labeling requirements may be issued, she said, but probably not for a few years.
This doesn’t sit well with Green.
“Tens of thousands of African-American women are using this and do not realize there are studies saying it is potentially hazardous,” he said. “They have seized and banned other products. They seized orange juice falsely labeled as fresh in 1991.”
Sure, Mr. Green, but orange juice is something everyone drinks.
