3 Chapter 2: “Eurocentric Beauty Standards as Environmental Injustice: The Way Our Societal Beauty Standards Increases Our Exposure to Toxic Ingredients” by Ashlyn Johns
Introduction
Environmental justice is an approach to scholarship and advocacy that has, from its inception, been malleable and continually expanding. There might be stories that come to mind immediately when we think of an example of environmental injustice, but it is critical to look beyond those stand-out stories. We need to take a critical look at the hidden, more systemic injustices as well. Links to environmental issues are broadening as we are learning connections between social and racial disparities with environmental impacts. This chapter focuses on eurocentric beauty standards, and how critical it is to become a part of the environmental justice conversation. There is some discourse around the topic within public conversations, and some scholarly works that focus on the medical and physical scientific side; but this needs to be taken up with a communication lens. This is critical for peoples’ health and wellbeing today and for the future; these ideals and the use of harmful products have become commonplace and it needs to be criticized in order to protect people that are most at risk.
Beauty standards and environmental injustice are two concepts that are not commonly associated. Hearing ‘beauty standards’, you might initially think of the social implications. Beauty standards and cultural ideas of what is considered beautiful in the United States have damaging effects on both individuals that are encouraged to succumb to them and to the surrounding environments. This chapter uses a critical lens to recognize the environmental implications along with environmental injustice that parallels the standards of what is considered “beautiful” in America. Throughout this chapter, hopefully you will gain a critical lens inspiring you to be a more conscious consumer and to challenge the taken-for-granted norms in which we live.
Beauty Standards in America
Eurocentric Beauty Standards as Environmental Injustice
“So every month I tried to burn the blackness out of my hair, and I would then run a hot comb over it, ignoring the stench of burning protein while trying to avoid further injury to my bleeding and scabbed scalp” (Oluo, 2019, p. 156).
This is a segment from Ijeoma Oluo’s (2019) book titled So You Want to Talk About Race in which she discusses the pain that she would go through in order to get the pretty, straight hair that she saw in the commercials (Oluo, 2019, p. 155). To be beautiful in America is to be white, thin, and have long, slick hair. Minhazul Islam (2019) discusses Toni Morrison’s book The Bluest Eye, in which Morrison argues that these beauty ideals are socially constructed (Islam, 2019, p. 188). The impact of beauty standards have accelerated due to the increased use of social media. Research has shown that “increasing exposure to mediated beauty enhances internalization and fantasization by women and girls about obtaining the characteristic body shape and facial attractiveness promoted by the media” (Yan & Bissel, 2014). It is necessary to “understand how mass culture touches, influences, and shapes our values and beliefs” (Islam, 2019, p. 189). The media is essentially the main reason that these beauty standards have been so far spread throughout society (Islam, 2019, p. 192). The embodiment of these beauty standards is a major force in the overconsumption and obsession in personal care/beauty products.
Recognizing this, we are able to more critically examine the systemic issues that are at work within our society. Because of the domination of whiteness, beauty has been constructed in a way in which people of “European ancestry [are] more attractive than [those of] African ancestry” (Robinson, 2011, p. 360). Individuals in turn, put themselves at risk to obtain these unrealistic standards of beauty. Many people, whether achievable or not, will try various methods in order to alter their naturalness to strive for these standards. The risks associated with these different practices are vital to understanding, and will be discussed in a future section.
Woman With Face Mask Holding An Alcohol Bottle. Anna Tarazevich. https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-with-face-mask-holding-an-alcohol-bottle-5910953/. Free to use. https://www.pexels.com/license/
Personal Care Products
Trust in Companies
When you think of a company that cares, one you would turn to for purchasing products for your family, your baby, yourself; who would you turn to? One you might think of is Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson was even “named a 2019 Fortune World’s Most Admired Company” (Raymont, 2019, 01:18:45). Similar are the multitude of products and brands we expose ourselves to daily. If you take into consideration the products that you use for cosmetics, bathing, and personal care, many people do not question their options and grab the brands that are easily found on the store’s shelves, because why would we not trust those on the shelves?.
Example of the importance to examine brands critically
One of Johnson and Johnson’s most widely known products is baby powder. There has been a link between baby powder and the risk of ovarian cancer, particularly through the ingredient of talcum powder. Since these connections have not become a commonplace discourse, we need to lean into documentaries as a way to learn more. In the documentary, Toxic Beauty, Dr. Daniel Cramer, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, mentions that “talc is a mine product, magnesium silicates. And it occurs more frequently than not in veins with other magnesium silicates, which can include asbestos” (Raymont, 2019, 00:26:17). Allen Smith, the attorney of a case concerning Johnson and Johnson’s link to ovarian cancer, adds that it is not only talc and asbestos that are the problems but also multiple other heavy metals, so he says that he sees “baby powder as a delivery device for multiple carcinogens, exactly like a cigarette” (Raymont, 2019, 00:50:05).
This creates cognitive dissonance, as we are so deeply embedded with the brands we have known forever and see on the shelves. Beginning to understand the extent to which the toxic ingredients we are exposed to everyday can be overwhelming, especially when we learn that products as commonplace as baby powder have risks. Ultimately, the goal is to become more conscious and critical consumers, in order to make informed decisions rather than having a blind trust in companies’ whose goal is to make a profit.
Toxic Ingredients in Products
Baby powder is just one example of the multitude of products we are exposed to daily. One of the major impacts to discourse around ‘clean beauty’ sparked in 2008 when Rose-Marie Swift, a renowned makeup artist, learned of high levels of toxins in her blood after getting medical blood work. The technician knew she was in the cosmetic industry based solely on the chemicals present in her blood (Montemayor, 2020). This was extremely alarming, leading her to launch RMS Beauty, a makeup brand that worked to achieve ‘clean’ beauty (Montemayor, 2020). Since then, this has jolted society into a “revolution that is reshaping the clean beauty industry” (ElBoghdady, 2020). There has been a growing popularity in becoming more conscious consumers among people that are interested in taking control over the products they are using on their body; however, the impacts of the marketing techniques used by mainstream companies make it difficult to truly know what we are buying.
The chemicals used within many products contain toxins that are linked to having harmful effects on the individuals’ health that use them and are exposed to them over time. Prior studies have found that there was a link between many hair products that are used by Black women and chemicals that are endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated (Helm, et. al, 2018). This study looked at 18 products within the categories of “hot oil treatment, anti-frizz/polish, leave-in conditioner, root stimulator, hair lotion, and relaxer” (Helm, et. al, 2018, p. 449). The products were selected based on responses from a survey that inquired about the use of various products and 66 different chemicals were being tested because of “their expected presence in consumer products” (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 449). Of the 66, 45 of the chemicals were detected, and a chemical from every chemical class that was tested was found as present (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 451). The most common chemical classes found within this study were parabens, phthalates, cyclosiloxanes, fragrances, UV filters, glycol ethers, and alkylphenols (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 451-452).
The listed ingredients on the labels of many of these products did not include the accurate chemicals that were found after running this test (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 452). Although the FDA requires “intentionally added ingredients” to be listed on labels, they exempt “trade secrets, incidental ingredients including ingredients added for processing or fragrance making purposes, and fragrance chemicals” (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 452). Many of the chemicals found in these products can get excused from not being listed on the label because they were hiding in a loophole. The European Union has a Cosmetics Directive list in which chemicals are prohibited “on the basis of cancer, female reproductive toxicity, and developmental toxicity” and California’s Proposition 65 “requires labeling of chemicals listed based on the evidence of cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm” (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 435). Eleven of the products that were tested contained seven of the chemicals that are prohibited under one of these regulations and there were 16 chemicals that were detected that the EU regulates but does not prohibit (Helm, et al., 2018, p. 453). The United States only bans 11 ingredients that are found to be harmful in comparison to the European Union that bans 1,394 (Raymont, 2019, 00:35:46). With a known link to ingredients being carcinogenic (cancer causing) and endocrine disrupting (hormone impacting), we still fall victim to exposure.
How Can This Happen? Product Marketing & Regulation
We tend to trust the products on the shelves, but we know that mainstream products often contain harmful ingredients that link to serious health issues and risks, how can this happen? One of the main issues that has risen over the years of the clean beauty movement’s growth, has been the inconsistency in definitions of the various terms, and disagreements on which ingredients are considered harmful (Montemayor, 2020; ElBoghdady, 2020). The debate over what is clean versus natural versus organic versus vegan has expanded immensely, all of which are buzzwords that attract people’s attention but vary based on their actual meanings (ElBoghdady, 2020). One of the major reasons this happens is a lack of regulation from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), giving companies the power to decide their own meanings for the terms. Companies are not required to disclose what they mean when they say they are clean, creating a wave of “cleanwashing” (Cook, 2024).
The FDA is not required to regulate the ingredients used in beauty products and beauty companies do not have to disclose full information about their ingredients (Curwood, 2018; FDA, 2022). This is problematic because as we have seen through the discussion thus far, many personal care products contain harmful toxins, yet the companies are not required to be transparent about their ingredients.
Exposure to Toxic Ingredients as Environmental Justice
Toxins in personal care products become an issue of environmental injustice when we consider eurocentric beauty standards and the impact on our exposome. In a call to action article written in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ami Zota and Dr. Bhavana Shamasunder (2017) pointed out the impact that multicultural beauty products have on the over $400 billion dollar beauty industry (Zota & Shamasunder, 2017). They include that “African American consumers purchase 9 times more ethnic hair and beauty products than other groups, Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic beauty market segment, and Asian Americans spend 70% more than the national average on skin care products” (Zota & Shamasunder, 2017). Exposome is “the measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how they relate to health and disease” (Hossenbaccus, et al., 2021). The exposure to these ingredients that are known to be carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting impact our health in disproportionate ways.
This is also seen as an issue of environmental injustice through Rob Nixon’s (2011) concept of “slow violence”, which he defines as “violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is not typically viewed as violence at all” (Nixon, 2007, p. 2). Often, slow violence is challenging to link to a specific source due to its graduality and subtleness. There are many accounts of slow violence occurring, but it tends to get less attention due to the more flashy instances that we see through image events in the media, that is until there is enough uproar and evidence of a specific link between the individuals in harm and the source of that wrongdoing.
The issues at play regarding the beauty industry, beauty ideals, and the consumers impacted is a prime example of a matter of slow violence and the impact to our exposures. Because of the overuse of personal care products, particularly by brands that we have been accustomed and taught to trust, there is a clear overlook of the threat of this level of violence. But, “Black women have higher rates for hormone-related health conditions” which includes earlier puberty, “preterm birth, uterine fibroids, and infertility” (Vcadmin1, 2018). Black women are also at higher risk for being diagnosed with and dying from Breast cancer in “more aggressive forms… than white women” (Teteh, et al., 2019, p. 2). When we consider these statistics along with the known increased risks these products often include, along with the known increased use of products by minority groups in order to strive towards beauty standards, we can begin to see the link between these beauty norms and environmental injustice. As consumers, it can be disheartening to learn about these links with the lack of regulation. However, there are resources available to help self-educate and become conscious consumers. Many brands are beginning to take on the “clean beauty” tagline. But as we discussed, that cannot always be trusted since the term is not regulated. Thus, education and transparency become critical. The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit who has “shined a spotlight on outdated legislation, harmful agricultural practices and industry loopholes that pose a risk to our health and the health of our environment” since 1993 (Who We Are, 2023). In addition to research, the EWG has created resources for consumer education, including suggested advocacy involvements and educational materials. A tool that can be extremely helpful is the EWG Healthy Living app. This app has ratings on more than 120,000 food and personal care products, so you can begin to engage with ingredient awareness by either searching the app or scanning a barcode (EWG’s healthy living app, 2023).
This link between endocrine disrupting and carcinogenic ingredients and environmental injustice becomes evident when we consider the slow violence impact to our exposure. With the lack of regulation and power major companies hold, beginning to understand ingredient awareness can be challenging to confront. However, it is critical to become conscious consumers, seek out transparency, and know the risks in order to make informed decisions and advocate for change.
References
Cook, L. (2024, February 20). Cleanwashing – Dirty tactics you need to know. One Seed. https://oneseedperfumes.com/blogs/news/cleanwashing-dirty-tactics-you-need-to-know?s rsltid=AfmBOoqKEzY5AGFu_2LBeilntvNrhNZBtRR8MFBXffI4S_smA73TOVMy
Curwood, S. (Host). (2018, June 8). Toxic Black Hair Products [Audio Podcast]. Living on Earth. https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?program ID=18-P13-00023 segmentED=4
ElBoghdady, D. (2020, March 11). ‘Clean’ beauty has taken over the cosmetics industry, but that’s about all anyone agrees on. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/clean-beauty-has-taken-over-the-cos metics-industry-but-thats-about-all-anyone-agrees-on/2020/03/09/2ecfe10e-59b3-11ea-ab 68-101ecfec2532_story.html
EWG’s healthy living app. Environmental Working Group. (2023a). https://www.ewg.org/apps/
FDA. (2022, March 2). FDA authority over cosmetics: How cosmetics are not FDA-approved. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda-authority-over-cosmetics how-cosmetics-are-not-fda-approved-are-fda-regulated
Helm, J., Nishioka, M., Brody, J., Rudel, R. Dodson, R. (2018). Measurement of Endocrine Disrupting and Asthma- Associated Chemicals in Hair Products Used By Black Women. Environmental Research, 165, 448-458. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.03.030
Hossenbaccus, L., Linton, S., Ramchandani, R., Gallant, M. J., & Ellis, A. K. (2021). Insights into allergic risk factors from birth cohort studies. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 127(3), 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2021.04.025
Islam, B. (2018). The Color Complex (Revised): The Politics of Skin Color in a New Millennium: Review of The Color Complex. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12268
Montemayor, C. (2020, May 12). The Clean Beauty Movement is Killing The Environment. Lady Science. https://www.ladyscience.com/essays/clean-beauty-movement-is-killing-the-environment
Nixon, R. (2011). Slow Violence and The Environmentalism of the Poor. The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Oluo, I. (2019). So You Want to Talk About Race. Hachette Book Group.
Raymont, P., Ord, S., Starurulakis, C., Starurulakis, L., et. al. (Producers) & Ellis, P. (Director). (2019). Toxic Beauty [Video File]. Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0846VMCF3/ref=atv_hm_hom_1_c_iEgOEZ _2_2
Robinson, C. (2011). Hair as Race: Why “Good Hair” May Be Bad for Black Females. Howard Journal of Communications, 22(4), 358-376. doi: 10.1080/10646175.2011.617212
Teteh, D., Ericson, M., Monice S., Dawkins-Moultin, L., Bahadorani, N., Clark, P., et al. (2019). The Black Identity, Hair Product Use, and Breast Cancer Scale. PLoS ONE, 14 (12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225305
Vcadmin 1. (2018, May 5). Hair Care Products for Black Women May Disrupt Hormones. Vista Health and Wellness. https://vista-health.com/hair-care-products-for-black-women-may-disrupt-hormones/ Who We Are. Environmental Working Group. (2023). https://www.ewg.org/who-we-are
Yan, Y. & Bissel, K. (2014). The Globalization of Beauty: How is Ideal Beauty Influenced By Globally Published Fashion and Beauty Magazines. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 43 (3), 194-214. DOI: 10.1080/17475759.2014.917432
Zota, A. R., & Shamasunder, B. (2017). The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 217(4), 418.e1-418.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.020
Media Attributions
- pexels-anntarazevich-5910953