3 ms·

Yes, sugar is hellishly expensive (in comparison). Why do you think cheap food stuffs use HFCS and similar sweetners instead of "good old fashion sugar"? Plasti

by RobAley 13y ago

Yes, sugar is hellishly expensive (in comparison). Why do you think cheap food stuffs use HFCS and similar sweetners instead of "good old fashion sugar"? Plastic is cheaper than a lot of other "traditional" or "natural" materials, it's why its often used in e.g. packaging that used to be paper/card. You can put a trademark on anything you want, it's not a patent on the substance. Evian is trademark on water, for example.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
HFCS is largely used because of the corn lobby. The market price of sugar is 17 cents per pound. The price of one of these facial products ranges from $10 to $50, and they're typically about 8 oz, so about 5 cents if it were 50% sugar. Cost is not a significant factor. The total manufacturing cost of the beads including the equipment, testing, and branding probably makes them equivalent to sugar, or perhaps more expensive.
- RobAley 13y ago
  Most plastics are ridiculously cheap to manufacture. On the scale that the manufacturers mentioned operate, the costs of equipment etc. are quite small in comparison. And don't forget, with the sugar you still have the equipment costs etc. for refining it (granulated sugar doesn't grow on trees!). And branding it as "NaturalSucroseSuperBeads TM" still costs the same. > Cost is not a significant factor. Yes, for multi-nationals, it is. Increase that 5c for plastic to 6c for sugar, and that’s potentially a million or two off the bottom line for the company. That's how large companies work. Also, if it's more expensive to use plastics for these products, why do you suppose they didn't use "NaturalSucroseSuperBeads TM" from the start? Perhaps they didn't think of it? Unlikely. If it really wasn't for cost reasons, then its likely for ease of production, product stability, or other such reasons.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    I searched briefly and found a response from The Body Shop: > This is a wider beauty industry issue and we, like many other global beauty brands, have been forced to use synthetic scrub particles for face products in the last few years as safety restrictions in some markets around the world have become more stringent. These safety restrictions require us to ensure that all scrub particles used on the face are consistently rounded in shape, which is difficult to achieve with natural particles. In order to provide a global product formulation that is stable and safe for use we have, unfortunately, had to resort to synthetic materials such as polyethylene. http://5gyres.org/posts/2013/04/26/get_plastic_off_my_face_and_out_of_my_water_an_open_letter_to_the_body_shop/ http://5gyres.org/posts/2013/04/26/get_plastic_off_my_face_a... I agree that there may be other reasons to choose plastic over sugar - companies don't generally do things that are bad for them - I was only disputing the disparity in the raw cost of the ingredients. Personally I've noticed that sugar based scrubs don't hold up as well, they tend to either dry out in the jar or get too wet. Fussy consumers who want life to look like a TV commercial are part of the problem here.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
cynwoody 13y ago
Sugar is artificially expensive. It's the government's fault, via tariffs and production caps. It's time to make the sugar barons eat dirt (but free of tiny plastic beads — that would be cruel and unusual).
- RobAley 13y ago
  Indeed, and Oil is artificially cheap (other subsidies aside, production, consumption and disposal of plastics usually don't include the pricing of externalities). Nevertheless, that is how it's priced, and that is why it's not used by these companies by choice.

by RobAley 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

HFCS is largely used because of the corn lobby. The market price of sugar is 17 cents per pound. The price of one of these facial products ranges from $10 to $50, and they're typically about 8 oz, so about 5 cents if it were 50% sugar. Cost is not a significant factor. The total manufacturing cost of the beads including the equipment, testing, and branding probably makes them equivalent to sugar, or perhaps more expensive.

RobAley 13y ago
Most plastics are ridiculously cheap to manufacture. On the scale that the manufacturers mentioned operate, the costs of equipment etc. are quite small in comparison. And don't forget, with the sugar you still have the equipment costs etc. for refining it (granulated sugar doesn't grow on trees!). And branding it as "NaturalSucroseSuperBeads TM" still costs the same. > Cost is not a significant factor. Yes, for multi-nationals, it is. Increase that 5c for plastic to 6c for sugar, and that’s potentially a million or two off the bottom line for the company. That's how large companies work. Also, if it's more expensive to use plastics for these products, why do you suppose they didn't use "NaturalSucroseSuperBeads TM" from the start? Perhaps they didn't think of it? Unlikely. If it really wasn't for cost reasons, then its likely for ease of production, product stability, or other such reasons.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I searched briefly and found a response from The Body Shop: > This is a wider beauty industry issue and we, like many other global beauty brands, have been forced to use synthetic scrub particles for face products in the last few years as safety restrictions in some markets around the world have become more stringent. These safety restrictions require us to ensure that all scrub particles used on the face are consistently rounded in shape, which is difficult to achieve with natural particles. In order to provide a global product formulation that is stable and safe for use we have, unfortunately, had to resort to synthetic materials such as polyethylene. http://5gyres.org/posts/2013/04/26/get_plastic_off_my_face_and_out_of_my_water_an_open_letter_to_the_body_shop/ http://5gyres.org/posts/2013/04/26/get_plastic_off_my_face_a... I agree that there may be other reasons to choose plastic over sugar - companies don't generally do things that are bad for them - I was only disputing the disparity in the raw cost of the ingredients. Personally I've noticed that sugar based scrubs don't hold up as well, they tend to either dry out in the jar or get too wet. Fussy consumers who want life to look like a TV commercial are part of the problem here.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

cynwoody 13y ago

Sugar is artificially expensive. It's the government's fault, via tariffs and production caps. It's time to make the sugar barons eat dirt (but free of tiny plastic beads — that would be cruel and unusual).

RobAley 13y ago
Indeed, and Oil is artificially cheap (other subsidies aside, production, consumption and disposal of plastics usually don't include the pricing of externalities). Nevertheless, that is how it's priced, and that is why it's not used by these companies by choice.