Hispanic/Latinos and Skincare: Disparities in Product Development, Marketing, and Toxicity

December 2020 | Volume 19 | Issue 12 | Editorials | 1258 | Copyright © December 2020


Published online November 25, 2020

Aileen A. Dowa and Michael J. Murphy MDb

asi Skin Organics®, Canton, CT
bDepartment of Dermatology, UConn Health, Farmington, CT

characterized by skin rashes, neuropsychiatric disorders, and other adverse health effects, have been reported following the use of skin-lightening products among Hispanic/Latinos in the southwestern US (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas) and Mexico.12

While the US FDA closely monitors the chemicals that go into foods, drugs, and medical devices, cosmetics are not subjected to similar scrutiny.13 Cosmetics do not have to obtain FDA approval before going to market, unless the product claims to treat or prevent disease or alter the body in any way (in which case the product is classified as a drug). To date, only 11 chemicals are prohibited or restricted by the FDA for use in cosmetics.13 A number of independent organizations and other advocacy groups have started to provide information to consumers of potential toxins, while promoting the formulation of safer products by skincare brands. These include the Environmental Working Group (Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database), Made Safe®, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and Cosmetic Ingredient Review.13 Dermatologists, aestheticians, and other skincare providers should also strive to make their patients aware of the growing literature around the use of chemicals in cosmetics – in particular, helping to educate Hispanic/Latinos and other populations with skin-of-color to make more informed skincare choices. However, to date, few patients are counseled regarding safe cosmetics use. In one study, only ~23% of 128 women surveyed had received advice in this regard.14

The burgeoning “Clean Beauty” movement advocates for the avoidance of known or suspected toxic compounds in skincare products, and the use of natural and organic ingredients that are believed to be safer while still effective.15 Natural products are becoming increasingly popular among consumers as alternative topical skincare solutions. In 2019, they represented the top growth contributor of US skincare sales, with 30% market share.15 Importantly, more than 40% of Hispanic/Latino women have expressed a preference for skincare solutions made with natural, organic ingredients.16 However, a recent systematic analysis revealed relatively few (n=7) peer-reviewed clinical studies evaluating safety and efficacy of natural skincare ingredients (for hyperpigmentation) in women of Hispanic/Latino race and ethnicity.17 The paucity of robust cosmetic trials in this setting reflects the reported generalized low representation of Hispanic/Latino subjects compared with other groups (including African Americans) in clinical studies in dermatology.18 Human clinical trials for safety and efficacy of skincare products must strive for representative study cohorts especially with respect to ethnic diversity, in particular Hispanic/Latinos.

Anatomical and biochemical variations between Hispanic/ Latinos and other demographic groups influence the rate of onset, severity, and type/pattern of age-related skin changes, prioritizing cosmetic concerns among individuals.1,19,20 It is important to recognize that racial, ethnic, and social identity among Hispanic/Latinos also imbues a cultural influence on standards of beauty, attitudes toward appearance, and treatment choices and expectations.1,19,20

Product development and marketing by the global skincare industry sets cosmetic standards across cultures, but has long promoted many Western concepts of beauty (ie, aesthetic and societal benefits of lighter/whiter skin).3 This can lead to an internalizing of skin color/tone dissatisfaction among Hispanic/ Latinos and other racial/ethnic groups, while at the same time promoting colorism and externalizing discrimination in skincare and beauty.3 Colorism describes within-group and betweengroup prejudices that favor and privilege lighter over darker skin types.3

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread preconceptions and targeted advertising take advantage of mainstream beauty norms to influence the use of Caucasian-focused skincare solutions, and in some cases, potentially toxic and harmful products, while simultaneously hindering the design and testing of racially and ethnically inclusive skincare solutions that are both safe and effective.

DISCLOSURES

Ms. Dow is the founder of si Skin Organics®. Dr. Murphy has no conflicts of interest to report.

REFERENCES

  1. Fabi S, Montes JR, Aguilera SB, et al. Understanding the female Hispanic and Latino American facial aesthetic patient. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(7):623- 632.
  2. Zheng Q, Wangari-Talbot J, Bouez C, Verschoore M. Photoaging and photoprotection in United States Hispanic population. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(3s):s121-123.
  3. Zota AR, Shamasunder B. The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(4):418.e1-418.e6.
  4. TABS Analytics. TABS Analytics’ Third Annual Beauty Study (2016). Available at: https://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/11/prweb13856111.htm. Accessed August 10, 2020.
  5. Houghton A, Thayer C. Latinos and Beauty as We Age: A Cultural Reflection. Washington, DC: AARP Research, October 2019. Available at: https://doi. org/10.26419/res.00345.001. Accessed August 10, 2020.
  6. Romero-Franco M, Hernandez-Ramirez RU, Calafat AM, et al. Personal care product use and urinary levels of phthalate metabolites in Mexican women. Environ Int. 2011;37: 867-871.
  7. Harley KG, Berger KP, Kogut K, at al. Association of phthalates, parabens and phenols found in personal care products with pubertal timing in girls and boys. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(1):109-117.
  8. Binder AM, Corvalan C, Calafat AM, et al. Childhood and adolescent phenol and phthalate exposure and the age of menarche in Latina girls. Environ Health. 2018;17:32.
  9. Watkins DJ, Sanchez BN, Tellez-Rojo MM, et al. Phthalate and bisphenol A exposure during in utero windows of susceptibility in relation to reproductive hormones and pubertal development in girls. Environ Res. 2017(b);159:143- 151.
  10. McKelvey W, Jeffery N, Clark N, et al. Population-based inorganic mercury biomonitoring and the identification of skin care products as a source of exposure in New York City. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:203-209.
  11. Dickenson CA, Woodruff TJ, Stotland NE, et al. Elevated mercury levels in pregnant woman linked to skin cream from Mexico. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:e4-e5.
  12. Chan TY. Inorganic mercury poisoning associated with skin-lightening cosmetic products. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011;49(10):886-891.
  13. Kessler R. More than cosmetic changes: Taking stock of personal care product safety. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(5):A120-127.
  14. Marie C, Cabut S, Vendittelli F, Sauvant-Rochat MP. Changes in cosmetics use during pregnancy and risk perception by women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(4):383.
  15. The Beauty 2020-2030 Forecast. Available at: https://www.gcimagazine.com/ business/marketing/The-Beauty-2020-2030-Forecast-569283581.html?utm_ source=Most+Read&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=Most+Read. Accessed August 10, 2020.
  16. Kantar Worldpanel. Preferences for Organic/Natural in Beauty and Personal Care See Growth Space. Available at: https://www.gcimagazine.com/ marketstrends/segments/natural/Preferences-for-OrganicNatural-in-Beautyand- Personal-Care-See-Growth-Space-261828421.html. Accessed August 10, 2020.
  17. Murphy M, Dow A. Natural cosmeceutical ingredients for management of hyperpigmentation in Hispanic/Latino women. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. (in press).
  18. Charrow A, Xia FD, Joyce C, Mostaghimi A. Diversity in dermatology clinical trials: A systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(2):193-198.
  19. Alexis AF, Obioha JO. Ethnicity and aging skin. J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(6):s77-80.
  20. Venkatesh S, Maymone MBC, Vashi NA. Aging in skin of color. Clin Dermatol. 2019;37(4):351-357.

AUTHOR CORRESPONDENCE