There was a small series of these ads in the 1950s. This was before a big public awareness campaign about the dangers of asphyxiation from thin plastic, especially to small children. While the material technically dates to the early 1900s, it was still new to the public in the 1950s, who had not yet come to appreciate its dangers.

In 1959, New York City Health Commissioner Leona Baumgartner, herself a physician, staged a famous and viscerally disturbing photo of her own face wrapped in a thin plastic bag, to vividly illustrate the risk. I'll link it here, but not inline it.

Also in the 1950s, the risks to wildlife from improperly disposed plastics was not widely understood, a critical problem that persists to this day for both ocean and land animals.

Cellophane

Cellophane

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 1 month ago*

Pretty on brand for Du Pont.

https://salishsearestoration.org/w/images/1/1d/Dupont_1935_how_dynamite_streamlines_streams.pdf

(It's a news clipping but a pdf so it doesn't post right, so link.)

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    If you don't have a condom
    Cellophane will do.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago
    [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    WRAP YOUR BABY IN PLASTIC. SEAL HIM UP. KEEP HIM FRESH.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Cellophane isn't plastic. I wish true Cellophane was used more frequently, perhaps especially if an improved version of "coated" cellophane were possible. I'm displeased that plastic and polyethylene mostly replaced it...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Oh so this is who we blame for all the messaging on plastic bags that says they can suffocate children

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It's ads like this that make me think the whole advertisement industry of the 50s was staffed by complete idiots. Some of the copy these ads have ... sheesh.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    To me, vintage ads have a lot more meaningful and resonable copy than modern ads.

    Sometimes the science is wrong (because they didn't really understand) and sometimes they outright lie about the product (because they could get away with it!) but the core of the advert is about what tangible benefit it can bring you or what problem it solves.

    These days we live in a world where every practical domestic household problem is long solved, and so ads are now all about image and lifestyle marketing - no actual content, just "buy this and it will make you sexy and popular!" for absolutely every type of product.

    I know which I prefer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago

    Were the disturbing imagery? I mean if this disturbs you I believe I advise you to advoid the internet because you will see some shit you can't unsee and you will want to. Luckily you never saw website were it nothing but watching people die. I saw Saddam Hussein hanged on YouTube before it was removed. One most disturbing was watching a woman use a dildo on attached to a sawsall. Same sight woman shove a whole two liter bottle up her butt. But there worse then that out there.

  • source