n the Middle East and Asia, Unilever announced the rebranding of Fair & Lovely, its flagship skin cream in India and Asia, to Glow & Lovely, and L’Oreal Group said it would remove the words ‘white/whitening’, ‘fair/fairness’ and ‘light/lightening’ from all of its skin care products.  “We recognise that the use of the words ‘fair’, ‘white’ and ‘light’ suggest a singular ideal of beauty that we don’t think is right, and we want to address this,” Sunny Jain, president of Unilever’s beauty and personal care division, said in a statement.  While activists like Bollywood actress Nandita Das had been calling out colourism — discrimination based on skin tone — for years through campaigns like Dark Is Beautiful, the slew of changes didn’t come until the police killing of George Floyd, an African-American man, last year sparked a wave of protests against racism in the US and around the world.  Suddenly, the promotion of skin-whitening products seemed glaringly out of step with consumer sentiment and corporate statements in support of racial justice and equality. But while many consumers applauded the rebrandings, others felt that they didn’t go far enough. They pointed out that companies were still selling products that lighten skin tone, even if they had changed the labels.  But it’s not that simple. Despite widespread media coverage of the backlash against skin-whitening products, it’s still big business in many parts of Asia, and it’s growing. According to Unilever, 300 million people choose to buy its skin cream formerly known as Fair & Lovely every year, and the Financial Times reported that the brand drives more than US$500 million in annual sales for the FMCG giant.  Globally, skin whitening is projected to be a US$31.2 billion market by 2024, up from US$17.9 billion in 2017, according to Global Industry Analysts. The biggest demand is in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, where routine use of skin whiteners ranges from 25 per cent in Mali to 77 per cent in Nigeria, according to the World Health Organization. The figure is 40 per cent in China, Malaysia, the Philippines and South Korea.  This leaves brands in a difficult position. Should they live their values of diversity and inclusion by exiting the skin-whitening market? Or accept that different markets around the world have different views of what is beautiful and cater to those demands?  A dark history To understand the problem some people have with skin-whitening products, you need to understand the origins of colourism in those parts of Asia with a history of European colonialism, such as the Philippines.  The legacy of Spanish rule in the country can still be seen in the mestizo population, those who are deemed to have lighter skin, a sharp nose and deep-set eyes due to their mixed ancestry. Those with darker skin and more indigenous features are called moreno or morena.  But it’s the fact that a person’s skin tone impacts their career prospects and social standing that drives many people to use skin-whitening products.  “In the postcolonial context, having lighter skin is often seen as an outward, visible sign of social success,” Catherine Tetteh, founder of Melanin Foundation, told Inside Retail.  Brands that sell skin-whitening products not only benefit from this perception, they perpetuate it by equating lighter skin with greater beauty and desirability in their advertising campaigns.  “I believe that persistent racial discrimination, the hierarchy of races based on skin color, and apartheid form the underpinning of the desire to change one’s physical appearance,” Tetteh said. Colourism is also present in countries without a history of European rule, such as Japan, where pale skin has long been the ideal. “When the norms of beauty which prevail in a given society are fair complexions, characteristics that do not align with them can often induce a negative self-evaluation in people with a dark complexion,” Tetteh said. Skin whitening can also present a health risk to the people who engage in it. Many products contain dangerous levels of mercury, which suppresses the production of melanin but can also lead to harmful side effects, such as kidney damage, skin rashes, discolouration and scarring, reduced resistance to bacterial and fungal infections, as well as anxiety, depression, psychosis and peripheral neuropathy.  “The products used for skin whitening are drugs diverted from their therapeutic effects. They contain extremely harmful chemicals such as mercury, hydroquinone, cortisone, vitamin A and topical corticosteroids,” Tetteh said.  “The side effect is the destruction of internal organs and of the melanin, which can no longer play its protective role. These products endanger not only the people who use them, but also their offspring as these harmful chemicals stay in the body long after use.” Continued demand Unsurprisingly, those who sell skin-whitening products have a different perspective. For starters, they note that skin whitening is something of a misnomer, since the primary purpose of many mainstream products is to even skin tone, rather than actually whiten skin.  As Dr Vicki Belo, the owner of Belo Medical Group in the Philippines, points out, people may use skin whiteners to reduce dark spots from sun damage and old blemishes.  “A lot of people like to be morena but they still want the same [even] colour,” she told Inside Retail. However, the celebrity doctor also believes skin whitening is a personal choice, and while she doesn’t encourage anyone to lighten their natural skin tone, if they choose to do so, she thinks they should have access to safe products.   “We are very careful about all the ingredients that we choose,” she said about Belo Essentials, her popular brand of skin-whitening products.  “My number one criteria is that the ingredients have to be safe. If they are good at whitening, but they are not safe, never mind.” Other proponents of skin whitening say the desire for lighter skin is not inherently racist.  “Ages ago, Asians thought that pale white skin [was] a symbol of beauty,” Dr Ban Jae Yong, a dermatologist at the Banobagi plastic surgery clinic in South Korea, told Inside Retail.  “Pursuing beauty is a matter of human instinct and seems to be considered a social culture.” Brightening is the new whitening So, where does this leave brands? Global research firm Mintel’s associate director of beauty and personal care in Southeast Asia Sharon Kwek believes companies will continue to serve the market but move away from the explicit use of terms like ‘whitening’ and ‘lightening’. “Expect to see greater adoption of the health-oriented, feel-good ‘brightening’ term, skin health to fit the wellness movement, as well as a further downplay of ‘whitening’,” she told Inside Retail.  According to Mintel’s research, the leading claims in skin and body care product launches in Asia over the last five years were hydrating/moisturising (66 per cent) and anti-ageing (28 per cent), followed by brightening/illuminating (27 per cent).   “As the beauty industry advances and consumers’ attitudes to skin needs and priorities shift, expect to see other claims such as brightening or illuminating rise as whitening claims alone will not be compelling enough,” Kwek said.  “The whitening claim has reshaped over time along with consumers’ varying mindsets and ethical values.” Spotlight on Seasun Society Seasun Society is a Bangkok-based skin care brand founded in January 2020 by former model Madi Ross and Lak Kulnthomyotin, the director of leading model management agency Area Mgmt. In addition to providing simple, plant-based skin care for all skin types, the brand aims to help customers feel confident and beautiful in their own skin by celebrating different skin tones.  “We’re proud to be one of the first Asia-born skincare brands which doesn’t promote skin whitening or changing who you naturally are,” the Seasun Society says on its website.  “We believe that the narrow standards of beauty promoted in the mainstream media can have a huge effect on the way we feel about ourselves. We celebrate beauty in all forms and in all skin tones.”