Anti-Pollution Skincare Isn't Reaching the People Who Need It Most

[View on the web]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [Instagram]( Feature [Pollution Affects the Poor Most of All, but Anti-Pollution Skin Care Is Expensive]( [Women walking in a city]( In early March of 2016, the Japanese cosmetic company Shiseido [unveiled]( a massive billboard in Madrid. Awash in the company’s signature pinkish-red and featuring a towering image of the brand’s Ultimune serum, the billboard seemed like a typical skin care advertisement in every way but one — five lines in the lower left-hand corner that claimed that the billboard, filled with titanium dioxide, would help purify the air around the sign, removing pollutants from cars and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That same year, researchers at the University of British Columbia [published a study]( linking exposure to nitrogen dioxide — a pollutant that comes from things like car exhaust or power plant emissions — to the formation of dark spots on the skin. Then, in June of 2016, the New York Times [published a guide]( to skin care products aimed at protecting skin from the impacts of pollution. Anti-pollution skin care, it seemed, was finally going mainstream. But is it actually getting into the hands of those who need it most? Skin care has, in recent years, grown into a cultural and capitalist juggernaut. Since July of 2016, subscribers to Reddit’s skin care group, “SkincareAddiction,” have [increased 100 percent](. In 2017, skin care sales represented [45 percent]( of the US beauty industry’s annual gains. Globally, the skin care industry [accounts]( for some $130 billion, and is expected to grow to over $135 billion by 2021. At the same time, pollution — particularly air pollution, spewed daily by cars and power plants — has increased throughout both the developing and developed world. In 2016, a study from the World Health Organization found that air pollution had grown globally by [eight percent]( in just five years. In major urban areas like [Beijing]( and [Delhi](, particulate pollution — the kind of dangerous air pollution that can penetrate deep into lungs — regularly reaches hazardous levels. In the United States, swiftly following the 2016 presidential election, the Trump administration began its systematic dismantling of environmental regulations, repealing the Clean Power Plan — which would have placed stricter emission limits on power plants — and pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement. Taken together, the rise in pollution coupled with a growing global appetite in skin care products created a perfect marketing opportunity for cosmetic brands. In the fall of 2017, the Business of Fashion [declared]( that “for beauty marketers, ‘anti-pollution’ is the new ‘anti-ageing.’” Suddenly, luxury skin care lines like [Shiseido](, [Sunday Riley](, [Murad](, and [Kiehls]( debuted products explicitly labeled as anti-pollution, promising to boost skin health and protect one’s outer barrier from the insidious touch of pollutants like smog and ozone — while also hoping to capitalize on an emerging niche in the skin care market that, in the United Kingdom alone, brought in more than [$4 million]( in the first half of 2017. None of this is to say that anti-pollution skin care is a snake oil. There’s ample science connecting the ingredients most commonly found in anti-pollution products — antioxidants like [vitamin C]( or [vitamin E](, or soothing compounds like those found in [green tea]( — to real skin benefits. Those products have been included for years in products without carrying the promise of protecting against, or reversing the damage from, pollution, however. Vitamin C, in particular, is often the primary ingredient in skin care products that brighten and even skin tone — which can have the associated benefit of reducing any discoloration or pigmentation caused by pollution. (There’s less evidence that products promising to create a barrier against pollution — creams that literally claim to keep particulate matter from getting into your skin — are actually effective in fighting skin damage.) [Read the rest of the story here>>]( Ad from our sponsor News [Dress Codes Are One More Way to Police Students’ Bodies]( [students wearing jeans]( When a Maryland seventh-grader showed up to school wearing ripped jeans in June, a teacher made her [duct tape the skin exposed by the holes](. The incident stands out as the latest controversial approach a school has taken to enforce its dress code. In recent years, schools have made headlines for their dress-code policies regarding leggings, shorts, tops, [prom outfits](, [hair styles](, and [bras](. Now, add ripped jeans to the list. Owing to increasing criticism from students, parents, and experts, some schools have revised their policies or apologized to students singled out because of their clothing. Still, these incidents keep occurring, and many say such dress codes are just one more way to police girls’ bodies — particularly those of girls of color, as well as LGBTQ students. Nicole Williams, the mother of the Maryland girl, [complained to the media about her daughter being duct taped](. “The idea that they came up with … to put duct tape on a child — when they can clearly see bare skin — I believe they should have called me first and gave her a chance to change her clothes,” Williams told Washington, DC, station Fox 5. In a written statement, Marvin Jones, interim principal of Benjamin Stoddert Middle School, apologized to Williams for not calling her beforehand but made no mention of scrapping the school’s duct tape approach to ripped jeans. The Williamses are black, and a recent [report from the National Women’s Law Center about dress codes]( found that African-American girls in the DC area are disproportionately cited for violating dress-code policies. A 2017 report from the American Sociological Association also found that [black girls are heavily targeted by said policies](. The [large number of black girls told they’re dressed inappropriately]( compared to other students likely stems from interlinked gender- and race-based stereotypes. In addition to having their clothes scrutinized, black girls have received [dress-code citations for wearing their hair in natural styles]( like braids or afros. Native American students with long hair or mohawks have also been penalized by schools for embracing traditional styles. And [LGBTQ students are disproportionately cited for dress-code violations]( for not conforming to gender standards. [Read the rest of the story here >>]( Did a friend forward you this email? [Sign up for the Racked email newsletter](. [MORE GOOD STUFF TO READ TODAY](#) - [Ousted Co-CEO Is Back at Deciem]( - [You Can Soon Buy Custom Fast Fashion from Japan’s Biggest E-Comm Company]( - [The Hideous Joy of the Rat Tail]( Ad from our sponsor From the Archives A selection from the editors at Racked [a man in a flag print shirt]( [Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code]( Wearing the American flag might be more controversial than you think. [Read More]( [wet hot american summer]( [The Particular Style of Summer Camp]( A love letter to Rainbow flip-flops and shared dresses. [Read More]( Ad from our sponsor [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [Instagram]( This email was sent to {EMAIL}. Manage your [email preferences]( or [unsubscribe]( to stop receiving emails from Racked. Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036. Copyright © 2016. All rights reserved.