Beauty standards in the Philippines are increasingly being questioned as health authorities, researchers, and regulators link narrow ideals, particularly lighter skin, flawless texture, and youthfulness, to mental health strain, discrimination, and unsafe cosmetic practices.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mercury-containing skin-lightening products remain hazardous and continue to circulate globally, including through online sales, despite being banned in many countries.
In the Philippines, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly issued public health warnings against unauthorized cosmetic products, including skin-lightening items flagged for prohibited ingredients through the ASEAN Post-Marketing Alert System.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed Philippine studies have examined how skin-lightening practices among young adults are associated with psychological distress, underscoring that beauty ideals can translate into measurable health concerns.
Globally, new surveys and systematic reviews have strengthened calls for inclusive beauty by documenting how constant exposure to idealized images, especially on social media, can intensify body dissatisfaction and appearance pressure.
Beauty standards in a country that lives online
The Philippine debate over beauty ideals cannot be separated from the country’s digital landscape. According to Digital 2026: The Philippines, published by DataReportal, the country had about 98 million internet users by the end of 2025, equivalent to 83.8% of the population, while social media user identities reached roughly 95.8 million, or 81.9% of Filipinos. Based on DataReportal’s analysis, this scale of connectivity means that beauty norms, whether inclusive or exclusionary, are repeated daily through feeds dominated by filtered images, influencer marketing, and algorithm-driven recommendations.
Nevertheless, being constantly online does not simply increase access to information; it also increases exposure to comparison.
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis by Bonfanti and colleagues, published in Body Image, examined more than a decade of international studies and found consistent associations between online social comparison and body image concerns.
The authors noted that appearance-focused platforms can amplify dissatisfaction, particularly when users repeatedly compare themselves with idealized or edited images. The review did not claim that social media alone causes mental illness; rather, it documented a robust relationship that helps explain why beauty standards now carry measurable psychological weight.
READ: Skincare Boom Raises Safety Concerns Over Whitening Products in the Philippines
Colorism and the persistence of “fairness” ideals
In the Philippine context, discussions of inclusive beauty often center on colorism, or unequal treatment based on skin tone within the same ethnic or racial group.
Scholars studying beauty and colonial history have long noted that lighter skin in the Philippines became associated with higher social status through Spanish and American colonial periods, when labor was stratified between indoor and outdoor work.
This hierarchy was later reinforced by advertising and entertainment that repeatedly framed “fairness” as aspirational.
On the other hand, the current moment marks a shift from quiet acceptance to public critique. Morena pride campaigns, social media conversations about colorism, and criticism of “before-and-after” whitening advertisements have reframed skin tone from a matter of individual preference to a structural issue.
Consequently, the fairness ideal is no longer treated only as a marketing choice but as a social norm with implications for dignity, opportunity, and health.
When beauty pressure becomes a health risk
Inclusivity in beauty is not only cultural; it is also a public health issue. According to WHO, mercury-containing skin-lightening products can damage the kidneys and nervous system and pose risks to pregnant women and children. WHO has further warned that these products remain available to consumers through informal markets and online platforms, even in countries where they are banned.
Furthermore, WHO links cosmetic regulation to the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a global treaty that requires participating countries to prohibit the manufacture, import, and export of cosmetics containing mercury above 1 part per million (1 ppm), including skin-lightening creams and soaps. The Convention’s controls are designed precisely because demand for lighter skin has historically created markets for unsafe products.
In the Philippines, enforcement is ongoing. Based on FDA advisories published on its official website, the agency continues to warn the public against specific unauthorized cosmetic products, many of which are marketed for whitening or rapid complexion changes. These warnings are issued under Republic Act No. 9711, or the FDA Act of 2009, which strengthened the agency’s authority over health products, including cosmetics. Hence, when the FDA cautions consumers against violative products, it is acting within a clearly defined legal mandate.
Nevertheless, regulation faces practical limits in a digital marketplace. Products can be relabeled, sold through third-party resellers, or promoted via social media accounts that blur the line between personal recommendation and commercial sale. Consequently, WHO’s warning that banned mercury products continue to circulate online remains particularly relevant in a country where shopping and scrolling increasingly overlap.
READ: Glow from the Inside Out: How Self-Awareness Transforms Your Health and Beauty
Philippine evidence: skin lightening and psychological distress
Recent Philippine research has helped ground these concerns in local data. In a 2024 cross-sectional study published in the Journal of Public Health and Emergency, Regencia and colleagues examined the relationship between skin-lightening product use and psychological distress among Filipino emerging adults.
Based on standardized measures of depression, anxiety, and stress, the study reported that both perceptions about skin tone and the frequency of skin-lightening product use were associated with higher levels of psychological distress within the study sample.
The authors were careful to note the study’s limitations, including its cross-sectional design, which cannot establish causality.
Nevertheless, the findings are significant because they demonstrate that beauty ideals are not abstract cultural concepts; they are linked with measurable mental health indicators among young Filipinos.
In addition, the study has been summarized by academic institutions in the Philippines, helping bring the discussion beyond journals and into public discourse.
Global data: beauty pressure quantified
Globally, the push for inclusive beauty has also been fueled by large-scale surveys that attempt to quantify how much beauty pressure costs people. One of the most cited is The Real State of Beauty: A Global Report, released by Dove under Unilever and based on surveys across multiple countries. According to the report, 51% of women with low body esteem said they would give up a year or more of their life if it meant achieving their ideal appearance.
It is important to note that this is a brand-funded report rather than a government survey. Nevertheless, its methodology and findings are publicly available, and the report is frequently cited in academic and policy discussions because it provides a concrete, global snapshot of how deeply appearance pressure is internalized. When read alongside independent peer-reviewed evidence, it adds context rather than standing alone.
Platforms and amplified vulnerability
Meanwhile, the role of digital platforms has become part of the evidence base rather than speculation.
Reuters has reported on internal research from Meta indicating that teenagers who already experienced body dissatisfaction were more likely to be shown eating-disorder-related or harmful body-focused content than their peers.
The report also emphasized that the findings did not prove direct causation, but they raised concerns about how recommendation systems may intensify vulnerability.
Consequently, beauty standards today are not shaped only by advertisers or celebrities. They are also influenced by algorithmic systems that decide what content is repeatedly shown, liked, and rewarded.
Hence, inclusivity debates increasingly extend to platform accountability, digital literacy, and youth protection.
READ: The Unseen Connection: How Beauty Standards Impact Mental Health
Inclusion beyond skin tone: texture, aging, and visible conditions
Inclusive beauty is often reduced to broader shade ranges, but advocates argue that it must go further. Real inclusion also means normalizing acne, scars, hyperpigmentation, stretch marks, wrinkles, and gray hair, features that are common but routinely edited out of public images.
Likewise, inclusion matters for people with visible medical conditions. According to a 2024 systematic review on vitiligo prevalence published in dermatology literature, the condition affects an estimated 0.5% to 2% of the global population, depending on region and methodology. Vitiligo, an autoimmune disorder that causes loss of skin pigmentation, is therefore not rare, yet it remains underrepresented in mainstream beauty imagery.
For hair loss, StatPearls, an evidence-based clinical resource hosted by the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information, estimates that the lifetime risk of alopecia areata is about 2%. These figures matter because they show that visible differences are part of everyday human variation, not exceptions that need to be hidden or explained away.
What inclusive beauty demands
The evidence suggests that inclusive beauty operates on three interconnected levels.
First, it is a safety issue, grounded in WHO warnings and FDA enforcement against hazardous products. Second, it is a mental health issue, supported by Philippine and global studies linking appearance pressure with psychological distress. Third, it is a representation issue, rooted in epidemiology that shows how common many “excluded” features and conditions are.
On the other hand, inclusivity does not mean denying the existence of beauty preferences. It means questioning why certain preferences become rigid standards with social penalties attached, and why those penalties are often paid by women, young people, and those whose appearance falls outside a narrow ideal.
Verified records show that beauty standards are not neutral. According to WHO, unsafe skin-lightening products persist because demand remains strong; according to the Philippine FDA, unauthorized cosmetics continue to surface despite regulation; and according to peer-reviewed Philippine research, skin-lightening practices are associated with psychological distress among young adults.
Meanwhile, global surveys and systematic reviews demonstrate that appearance pressure is widespread and amplified by online comparison.
Hence, inclusive beauty is not about lowering standards or promoting complacency. It is about aligning social norms with reality, recognizing diversity as normal, protecting people from harm, and reducing stigma that pushes individuals toward unsafe products or silent distress.
In a Philippines that is overwhelmingly online, this shift will not happen overnight. But the lesson from the evidence is clear: when society widens its definition of what is acceptable and visible, it does not erase beauty, it makes room for people to exist without having to damage their health or their sense of self just to belong.
Photo by Nicholas Kusuma on Unsplash
