I am not tragically colored. There is no great sorrow dammed up in my soul, nor lurking behind my eyes. I do not mind at all. I do not belong to the sobbing school of Negrohood who hold that nature somehow has given them a lowdown dirty deal and whose feelings are all hurt about it. Even in the helter-skelter skirmish that is my life, I have seen that the world is to the strong regardless of a little pigmentation more or less. No, I do not weep at the world—I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife.
― Zora Neale Hurston, Dust Tracks on a Road (1942).
Colleen Campbell’s important and fascinating new article, Intersectionality Matters in Food and Drug Law, explores the complexities of skin lightening products and how to mitigate the damage they cause. She lays out two major problems with these products. They contain harmful ingredients, including mercury, which disproportionately poison dark-skinned women, their primary target. They also exploit and reinforce colorism, a system of bias that grants more social and economic capital to light-skinned over dark-skinned people.
The paper goes to the heart of the political economy of food and drug law. As Campbell explains, “To critique the commercialization of race and beauty is to confront racial capitalism head on in the areas where it hits the deepest: intimacy, self-expression, sexuality, performance, acceptance, and love.”
And all this happens in the void where Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) oversight should be. Cosmetics is an 8.6-billion-dollar industry that is highly under-regulated, likely because it is a feminized enterprise. Campbell begins by situating her analysis within feminist scholarship then expands her perspective to include intersectionality and critiques of essentialism. She persuasively argues that these lenses are vital to seeing that Black women experience unique harms at the hands of the FDA’s indifference, laxness, and corporate deference. Skin lightening peddlers feed off of “hegemonic beauty standards that idealize proximity to Whiteness” to profit from misogynoir.
Campbell’s careful handling of the topic leaves room for consumer agency where others seek simplistic solutions. Campbell does not recommend banning these products both because people might turn to even more dangerous alternatives and because she recognizes their strategic use as tools to navigate the realities of a world that worships whiteness. Instead of laying blame or shame on users, she acknowledges their rationality, complicating the problem and potential responses in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
Campbell provides an interesting but tragic history of cosmetics regulation, from freckle waxing to the co-optation of Black is Beautiful. Ultimately, she argues for a public health approach that recognizes the systemic nature of race and gender-based oppression through marketing and corporate greed. The paper is an essential read for students and scholars of race and markets.
