Opinion
Opinion

Is Deodorant a Racket?

Alliance/iStock/Thinkstock
|Updated:
0:00
Commentary

A friend of mine was sick of his clothing being ruined by sticky deodorant paste stains that neither washing nor dry cleaning could remove. One day he decided to pick up a natural deodorant which turns out to be just a block of aluminum salts. The idea is to wet it and rub it on. The block seems to last a year or longer. It worked.

Incredulous, I tried it. Lo and behold, it works. It’s just a block of salt. Rub it on daily and the troubles are gone. No more sticky substances full of wax and perfumes. No more stains. No more panic when you forget to pack the dumb thing for a trip. No more big weird packages taking up space in the toiletries cabinet.

It feels like liberation. So I’ve been telling everyone about it.

One wonders how in the world others have not figured this out. It’s one of those network goods that you think you need, obviously because you are a clean person, and never once considered some radical alternative.

My mind drifted off to an episode of “Mad Men” when a new aerosol spray arrives for the company to advertise. It was an innovation and considered better than the alternatives which were sticks and roll-ons, though not commonly in use. For every person to use a deodorant/antiperspirant in a can happened not until the mid-1960s, if you can believe it.

Then the product police got involved. It seemed at the time that there was an “ozone layer” in the atmosphere. Scientists observed what they called an emerging “hole” in the layer which meant that the sun was going to burn us up. Implausibly, they blamed aerosols and deodorants in particular.

The whole thing was ridiculous. It strains believability that tiny people spraying cans of stuff on their armpits would cause some huge atmospheric change to happen. But you know how this scenario plays itself out. Media loves nothing better than to target some great new innovation as some hidden source of planetary calamity.

Before long, the aerosols were off the market, replaced again by waxy sticks and roll-on packed with aluminum. The intuitive rationale here is that if we clog up our sweat glands, the sweat stays in the body, we don’t stink, then we can be loved by others. That’s the thinking.

The idea is still with us. Everyone spends big bucks on this stuff. The range of estimates on the global industry is between $30 and $90 billion, with most of it centered on the gullible consumers in Western industrialized countries of course. For my own part, I’ve added deodorant/anti-perspirant to the list of ridiculous and unnecessary products alongside shaving cream, shampoo/conditioner, and endless various creams as industrial rackets that cause more harm than good.

When did the deodorant bit begin? It was the 1880s with an urban product called MUM. It was a waxy cream to rub on. Here is an ad text from 1956, marketed to women:

“Should a girl (you, for instance) take the attitude that ‘They’re all alike’ (boys) ? Or should you study the habits and habitat of each man on your ‘eligible’ list ? There’s a lot to be said for ‘Boy-Watching’ ... and for being sure that you tailor your behavior to his. For example, if he’s the shy, quiet, ‘strong-silent’ type, don’t rush up to him and start a sidewalk and ask him to a party. He’ll skitter away. Try taking pen in hand and writing him an invitation. If he’s the bold, bustling athlete, don’t act girlishly coy and flutter your lashes while you talk about batting averages? ... You get the idea.

“A study of the male species pays off in popularity. But don’t get so carried away Watching that you forget to brush, manicure, scrub—with no chance of offending by body odor. This means it’s so important to use New MUM cream deodorant with M-3. It clings to the skin ... stops perspiration odor 24 hours a day. More women and girls use New MUM than any other deodorant for this simple reason. MUM is safe and reliable—won’t damage your pretty clothes or irritate normal skin. Why? Try it today!”

So there we go: MUM is the way to attract a partner. By the way, the brand is still in existence!

Here’s the question. What precisely did people do before such products existed? They washed. They used baking soda. They used salt. Both work but salt is much easier and more sanitary. And the salt block lasts and lasts with zero problems of keeping up with some crazy product that only stains and clogs.

At some point in U.S. history—certainly since the second half of the 19th century but probably even before—we as a culture became convinced that if something needs to be done, one needs to buy a product invented by some big company. I have so many friends who are convinced of this.

They buy “refrigerator cleaner” rather than use the right product which is baking soda. It’s the same with toothpaste. We buy all these crazy big tubes rather than use the much-superior baking soda. There are countless cleaning products that can be replaced by vinegar and many other natural products, thus saving cabinet space and money.

It’s particularly egregious with laundry. The machines stopped working well due to regulations on both the machine and the detergent. Instead of realizing this, we keep buying new sprays, wipes, treatments, and additives. Whole shelves are packed now with these things.

We are suckers for products even when natural minerals obviously work much better.

Of all these, the case of deodorant shocks me the most. Getting rid of that stuff and replacing it with a salt block is the single largest life upgrade that I can personally remember. It’s a game changer for sure. What shocks me is how many people do not know. Why do they not know? It’s just a matter of habit and nothing more.

Now you know the secret. Save the money. Save the clothing. Save the shelf space. Get the salt block and be done with this silliness once and for all.

Jeffrey A. Tucker
Author
Jeffrey A. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press, as well as 10 books in five languages, most recently “Liberty or Lockdown.” He is also the editor of “The Best of Ludwig von Mises.” He writes a daily column on economics for The Epoch Times and speaks widely on the topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. He can be reached at tucker@brownstone.org