jellyjigger
Est. Contributor
- Messages
- 139
When researching the official reasoning given by corporations as to why plastic-backed products have been phased out over the years, one of the reasons people rarely talk about got me thinking after I read about it a few days ago. Besides the mainstream majority of people with incontinence might be put off by the crinkle of plastic backing, we've also heard these other official excuses:
1> plastic is bad because it doesn't breathe - has it ever been studied that bed-sores for example occur less with cloth-like products?
2> plastic is bad because it may contain lead - do cloth-like products actually contain different, less harmful checmicals?
3> plastic backing is bad for the environment/carbon emissions - does cloth-like compost better / have a lower carbon impact?
Someone mentioned in 2017 at https://www.adisc.org/forum/threads/plastic-backed-abena-m4.112529/ that in the UK, the NHS had passed a law that *covered* diapers had to be breathable. Somewhere else I also read that the UK had passed "green" laws that imply some politician must have made the case that plastic-backing is bad for the environment but cloth-like is better, possibly in some way. As someone in the US, I don't know about these laws. Can someone from the UK shed any light on the science (or pseudo-science) behind this?
What if there are similar forces at work at other giant adult diaper manufacturing companies? What if those corporate "officials" making bold decisions (such as to eliminate plastic-backing in all of their products for example) do so not for the consumer, but to appeal to regulatory agents and government officials as a result of these laws? As for the public, we only get the standard one-liners: "cloth-like is better for your skin", and the list goes on. All of this makes the company appear to be "ahead of the curve", progressive and environmentally friendly. As a result those officials make huge bonuses and they move up the chain while cheapening the product each time they re-design it. If you assume for the moment that the "environmental friendliess" perception of the product is the single most important reason for getting rid of plastic-backing (besides public perception of cloth-like backing feeling more like real underwear), this could explain another phenomena I've noticed throughout the decades.
Take Abena for example. Sofar, they tried at least twice (possibly 3 times) in the past 10 years to completely discontinue plastic-backing from their products. They will likely keep trying too, unfortunately, but WHY? Obviously the demand must have been too high, and/or if they made people consume their cloth-backed products by force, those customers would revolt and at the very minimum switch to someone else's cloth-backed products. This also leads me to believe they aren't even making small batches of the M4's, L4s. I speculate these are regularly produced items in production plants.
So the phenomena is that the plastic-backed products are not listed on their website, giving the appearance that they successfully DISCONTINUED them. If you weren't a regular adisc reader, you might guess, that the plastic-backing with Abena is no more. I've seen this pattern for other companies websites too, where it appears the only thing they make are female and male pull-ups. The Depend website for example has gone back and forth removing the max-protection briefs entirely and then it reappears years later despite they have yet to ever stop producing it and it had nothing to do with the public outcry when they silently turned them cloth-like, for a short period of time.
So whether this practice is right or wrong, do you think the goal of these companies is to pretend to be environmentally friendly, and as such, hide the fact that they secretly manufacture plastic-backed products to niche industries and institutions?
1> plastic is bad because it doesn't breathe - has it ever been studied that bed-sores for example occur less with cloth-like products?
2> plastic is bad because it may contain lead - do cloth-like products actually contain different, less harmful checmicals?
3> plastic backing is bad for the environment/carbon emissions - does cloth-like compost better / have a lower carbon impact?
Someone mentioned in 2017 at https://www.adisc.org/forum/threads/plastic-backed-abena-m4.112529/ that in the UK, the NHS had passed a law that *covered* diapers had to be breathable. Somewhere else I also read that the UK had passed "green" laws that imply some politician must have made the case that plastic-backing is bad for the environment but cloth-like is better, possibly in some way. As someone in the US, I don't know about these laws. Can someone from the UK shed any light on the science (or pseudo-science) behind this?
What if there are similar forces at work at other giant adult diaper manufacturing companies? What if those corporate "officials" making bold decisions (such as to eliminate plastic-backing in all of their products for example) do so not for the consumer, but to appeal to regulatory agents and government officials as a result of these laws? As for the public, we only get the standard one-liners: "cloth-like is better for your skin", and the list goes on. All of this makes the company appear to be "ahead of the curve", progressive and environmentally friendly. As a result those officials make huge bonuses and they move up the chain while cheapening the product each time they re-design it. If you assume for the moment that the "environmental friendliess" perception of the product is the single most important reason for getting rid of plastic-backing (besides public perception of cloth-like backing feeling more like real underwear), this could explain another phenomena I've noticed throughout the decades.
Take Abena for example. Sofar, they tried at least twice (possibly 3 times) in the past 10 years to completely discontinue plastic-backing from their products. They will likely keep trying too, unfortunately, but WHY? Obviously the demand must have been too high, and/or if they made people consume their cloth-backed products by force, those customers would revolt and at the very minimum switch to someone else's cloth-backed products. This also leads me to believe they aren't even making small batches of the M4's, L4s. I speculate these are regularly produced items in production plants.
So the phenomena is that the plastic-backed products are not listed on their website, giving the appearance that they successfully DISCONTINUED them. If you weren't a regular adisc reader, you might guess, that the plastic-backing with Abena is no more. I've seen this pattern for other companies websites too, where it appears the only thing they make are female and male pull-ups. The Depend website for example has gone back and forth removing the max-protection briefs entirely and then it reappears years later despite they have yet to ever stop producing it and it had nothing to do with the public outcry when they silently turned them cloth-like, for a short period of time.
So whether this practice is right or wrong, do you think the goal of these companies is to pretend to be environmentally friendly, and as such, hide the fact that they secretly manufacture plastic-backed products to niche industries and institutions?
Last edited: