10 Fairness Creams: An Unfair Business

About the Author

Amrita Gupta was born in Nairobi, Kenya, and moved to the United States when she was 21. She is married and is a mother of two boys, whom she home-schools. Amrita is pursuing a degree in psychology. Her hobbies include hiking and baking cakes.

This essay was composed in December 2021 and used MLA documentation.

MY SISTERS AND I GATHERED IN THE LIVING ROOM, fighting for our favorite spot around the television. We watched the familiar Indian commercials, but one new advertisement stood out:

A couple of girls are auditioning for a dance act. One gets selected to dance, while the other is asked to serve as the backstage narrator. The former tells the latter, “You are such a skilled dancer. I am surprised that you were not selected.” Her friend replies, “With a face as dark as the new moon, whom can I blame?” Her friend hands her a “Fair and Lovely” cream and promises her success. The ad ends with the dance performance and shows the audience captivated by the beauty of the girl narrating the script, now that she has used the cream and is much fairer. She is now the star of the show.

Like most South Asian girls, I grew up watching skin-lightening ads and was very familiar with the pressures to have fair skin. The basic message of the ads is that a light skin tone is desirable, as it will help one be successful in life, career, and even love. In the guise of a “beauty product,” these creams have encouraged biases against dark-skinned girls and given rise to a culture of “fair skin equals beauty and success,” something that is morally wrong.

According to the World Health Organization, “The skin lightening industry is one of the fastest growing beauty industries worldwide and is estimated to be worth US$ 31.2 billion by 2024” (WHO). The popularity of this industry has been steadily increasing in India, and it represents 50% of the skincare market (WHO). Most users of these skin products are young girls, and some start using the creams as early as ten years old (Lui). Skin-lightening products work by reducing the concentration of melanin pigment in a person’s skin. This pigment protects our skin against harmful U.V. radiation from the sun (Shah 33). The higher one’s melanin count, the darker their skin. The two major factors that determine melanin concentration are genetics and how much time one spends in the sun (Gardner). The body produces melanin when exposed to the sun.

The preference for white skin exists not only in India but also in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean nations, which also use skin-lightening creams. We find attempts to lighten skin as far back as 475-221 BC (Shah 33). For example, in China, people would swallow crushed pearls and arsenic powder (Shah 33), while in England, Queen Elizabeth I was known for bleaching her face using mercury, giving her a ghostly white appearance. The color white became a symbol of beauty, innocence, and higher social status (Charleston). In Indian history, the preference for lighter skin may have come from the invasions of the Aryans, Moguls, and British in different eras (Shah 33). All three invading peoples were of lighter complexion and favored lighter-skinned people, potentially influencing the country’s preference for lighter skin tones (Shah 33). Adapting certain viewpoints from outside one’s tradition does not necessarily have to be bad. Every culture has its own opinions on standards of beauty. But even if a person wants to aspire to those standards, that does not mean that their life’s success depends on it, as depicted in “Fair and Lovely” ads.

What is ironic about India’s obsession with whiter-looking skin is that many of the country’s religious icons and exemplars of beauty have dark complexions. For example, one of the most popular deities in Hinduism is Krishna, whose very name means dark and who is regarded as an emblem of beauty. He is depicted in literature and art as having the complexion of a dark bluish raincloud. In temples, one finds images of Krishna made of solid black stone. Krishna is sometimes called “Shyama Sundar,” which means the beautiful dark one. The deity Shiva is also depicted with a dark hue, and the name of Goddess Kali literally means “black.” Draupadi, a warrior princess, was so beautiful that all the princes competed to win her heart. She is described as dark-skinned and is also called “Krishna.” These are some of the many examples of dark-skinned heroes that we find in India’s sacred texts. In a country where people worship dark-complexioned gods and goddesses, we may assume that the ideology that fair skin is beautiful, powerful, and pure was internalized in recent times.

Someone might argue that in the Western world, young women undergo indoor tanning treatments to gain more glowing, “healthier” looking skin, and that is commonly accepted in our society. Tanning booths also target melanin in the skin, but in the opposite direction: they increase melanin to get the desired skin tone. Tanning also changes a person’s skin color and carries the same (if not more) health risks as skin-lightening creams. So, what’s the difference? If by applying makeup or getting a tan, I feel more beautiful and confident, then what is wrong with using skin-lightening creams for the same reasons? All beauty products or cosmetic procedures carry some risks, yet they are happily accepted by society. In the same way, should not skin-lightening products be accepted like any other beauty product?

While this argument may be accepted to a certain extent, we must acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right. Tanning is potentially very harmful to a person’s health. According to the FDA, “the risk of melanoma (cancer) of the skin increases by 75 percent when tanning bed use starts before age 35” (Office of the Commissioner). Medical evidence of the dangers of tanning has led countries around the globe to make tanning under the age of 18 illegal (Netburn). In the U.S., the FDA requires tanning booths to carry a clear warning label of their dangers, and many states require a parent’s consent for those under 18 (Netburn). Whether tanning booths should be totally banned is a discussion for another time, but when we compare them with skin-lightening creams, we can see the differences in how they are treated. Whereas tanning booths have seen significant global restrictions, especially among young girls, skin-lightening creams are readily available for all ages, and their side effects are never labeled.

As we examine the argument in relation to other beauty products, we find that makeup use and skincare are generally meant to enhance a person’s natural beauty, not structurally change their biological or genetic makeup. For example, I have always been conscious of the structure and appearance of my nose. Applying makeup may help me feel and look more beautiful, but it will not alter my nose. If my goal were actually to change the shape of my nose, I would need to get professional medical help, even though it is a cosmetic procedure. By going to a medical doctor, I understand the risks of surgery, and I will be able to make a better decision on my different options. When it comes to skin color, it should be treated in the same manner. The skin is the largest organ of the human body (Nunez). My skin is something that I was born with, and playing around with melanin to change my skin color comes with great risks. Therefore, skin-lightening procedures should only be allowed under the care of a licensed dermatologist.

Compared to other beauty routines or products, skin-lightening creams create colorism and bias. By undergoing plastic surgery, I am not going to get a better job, career, or love. The shape of a person’s nose is not the key to all kinds of success, and most beauty companies do not advertise their product as such. In contrast, skin-lightening advertisements in India blatantly amplify the poisonous message that “light skin equals every success.” Most cosmetic companies, like Unilever, which produces “Fair and Lovely,” have their headquarters in a Western country, and they would never dare to advertise their products at home as they do in India. Regardless of when or how colorism started in India, broadcasting a product to “improve” skin tone only adds fuel to the fire and is irresponsible.

Other than social risks, skin-lightening creams contain many harmful chemicals that can cause several side effects. Frequently, these toxic ingredients are not even disclosed in the ingredient list of the commodity. A study carried out in Saudi Arabia found that approximately 18 out of 33 skin-lightening products contained one or more toxic ingredients that, in most cases, were not listed on the packaging (Al Saleh 195). The most toxic ingredients found were mercury, hydroquinone, and steroids. In most countries, creams containing these ingredients are only available by prescription. Although it may be argued that the quantity of these ingredients is minimal, they are still unsafe for skin application when we take into consideration different usage factors. The Saudi Arabia study concludes that

many of these ingredients are harmful and pose health risks if we take into account the frequency of application, the duration of practice, area of the body applied, and their use during pregnancy and/or periods of lactation. (Al Saleh 195)

According to “Fair and Lovely” packaging directions, their product must be applied twice a day until the desired result is achieved. They do not provide information on when to stop using the cream.

If these creams are used over long periods of time and over large surfaces of the body, possible side effects include “patchy hyper- or hypopigmentation, skin atrophy, stretch marks and delayed wound healing.” The creams “can also mask or, on the contrary, promote or reactivate skin infections. Cases of skin cancer have also been attributed to skin-lightening cosmetics” (PubMed). We know melanin is meant to protect the skin against the sun, and if the goal of skin-lightening creams is to decrease this pigment, it is only common sense that, eventually, there will be adverse reactions, such as the increased risk of skin cancer.

Giant multinational brands such as Unilever are free of such illegal toxic chemicals and claim that their products do not aim to lighten skin but only “improve skin health and protect skin from external aggressors, UV rays and environmental pollution” (Unilever). Yet when we see their ads (until very recently), their toxic message is loud and clear. One such ad by “Fair and Lovely” got their parent company Unilever into hot water:

In the ad, a dark-skinned daughter hears her father lament the family’s low economic status. After she starts to use ‘Fair and Lovely,’ her skin becomes visibly lighter, she lands a higher-paid job as a flight attendant, and the family’s circumstances improve. This commercial marked a more aggressive era in the marketing of colorism. (Vijaya)

Unilever was ultimately forced to withdraw the ad after receiving severe backlash from the public. This is not the only instance when these companies have received pushback. In 2020, the South Asian community around the world protested skin-lightening creams and demanded that companies, such as “Fair and Lovely,” take responsibility for their contribution to colorism in the country. This pressure from the public compelled the company to change its name to “Glow and Lovely” (Jones). Unilever also removed shade guides that were inserted in packaging to help consumers keep track of their progress in lightening their skin (Jones).

Changing the name of a company, dropping shade guides, and making colorism less obvious in ads does not change the motivation of these companies, nor does it change the ingredients of the product. Companies continue to market and sell a product that decreases melanin without medical supervision, has potential side effects, and encourages colorism in societies. Simply banning certain brands due to health concerns is also not enough. The bigger threat that these creams pose is the psychological effects they have on young women around the globe. Women are made to feel that their self-worth and success depend only on their skin color, something they were born with. Making these products completely illegal may not be possible, but at least there should be restrictions on their accessibility. These products should not be sold freely in the market but should be available only through prescription by a dermatologist.

As I look back at my 12-year-old self, watching the “Fair and Lovely” ad, I remember not being disturbed by it. I thought it was normal to aspire for beauty in this way. I was fortunate that I grew up in a family where all four sisters were of different shades, and we were protected from the idea of changing our skin color, but this is not the case for countless girls around the world. A global effort must be made to remove skin-lightening products from the market and restrict their use to the supervision of a dermatologist. If we do not take this drastic step, then these profit-seeking companies will continue to encourage young women to change their skin tone and, in this way, increase colorism in India. At this very moment, some girl somewhere may be watching a skin-lightening ad and internalizing the idea that no matter how hard she works and how beautiful she looks, she will never attain success unless she becomes a few shades fairer. This unfair business must be stopped.

Works Cited

Office of the Commissioner. “Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/indoor-tanning-risks-ultraviolet-rays.

Pubmed. “Skin-Lightening Cosmetics: Frequent, Potentially Severe Adverse Effects.” Prescrire International, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 20 Sep 2011, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21954516/.

Shah, Syeda Hajira, et al. “Estimation of Mercury and Hydroquinone Content in Skin WhiteningCreams and the Potential Risks to the Health of Women in Lahore, Pakistan.” Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists, vol. 31, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 33–41. https://dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=149238378&site=ehost-live.

Unilever PLC. “Unilever Evolves Skin Care Portfolio to Embrace a More Inclusive Vision ofBeauty.” Unilever, Unilever PLC, 10 Dec. 2021, www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2020/unilever-evolves-skin-care-portfolio-to-embrace-a-more-inclusive-vision-of-beauty/.

Vijaya, Ramya M. “Analysis | Dangerous Skin Bleaching Has Become a Public Health Crisis.Corporate Marketing Lies behind It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 14 June 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/15/dangerous-skin-bleaching-has-becomepublic-health-crisis-corporate-marketing-lies-behind-it/?noredirect=on.

WHO. “Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments: Mercury in Skin Lightening Products.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 1 Jan. 1970, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330015.