A Tasty History of Edible Underwear

Liia Galimzianova/iStock via Getty Images
Liia Galimzianova/iStock via Getty Images

One night in the early 1970s, while consuming wine and smoking marijuana, David Sanderson came up with an idea. He remembered that his older brother had an expression for when David was annoying him: “Eat my shorts.”

What if, Sanderson wondered, people really could eat their own shorts?

He related the idea to his partner, Lee Brady. As a possible result of that same marijuana consumption, Brady believed it was a fantastic idea. And while many people would have been content to let it rest once sobriety settled in, Sanderson and Brady were convinced that an edible undergarment was a concept worth pursuing. They even had the perfect name for their invention: Candypants.

The novelty gift item briefly took the country by storm. Bowled over by the concept of edible underwear, consumers bought Candypants with such fervor that the factory had trouble keeping up with demand. The business grossed $150,000 a month. Sanderson and Brady appeared on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Everyone, it seemed, had a cheeky comment to make about Candypants.

While its inventors profited from the craze, they had to navigate some popular misconceptions. Originally, edible underwear was never intended to be sold in adult novelty stores. They really weren’t meant to be worn, either. Nor were they supposed to be eaten. Candypants were a risqué gag item that cracked a conservative market by presenting as an innocuous novelty. But some powerful figures involved in the darker corners of the adult entertainment industry had other plans for Sanderson and Brady's novel invention.

 

Sanderson and Brady were a couple in their early 20s living in Chicago when the idea for Candypants blossomed. The two had an entrepreneurial bent, importing Tibetan artwork and even organizing a theater troop, the Puck Players, to perform in Chicago-area elementary schools. These earnest performances were met with some measure of revolt, as Sanderson recalled in a 2015 interview with KCRW. The students, he said, were fond of replacing the P on their truck with an F.

The Candypants venture began with the men inviting friends over to their apartment and using garbage bags to take measurements for underwear sizes. (Presumably, it was easier to cut a pattern into the bags than it would have been a bolt of fabric.) Once they had sizing for both men's and women's options, the two pondered how to make the product something that could actually be consumed. While visiting a baking factory on a scouting trip, they noticed that the company had a bag of yeast that could be thrown in a vat. The bag was biodegradable and edible. Maybe, they thought, this was the answer.

An ad for Candypants edible underwear depicts two models wearing the novelty item
An original advertisement for Candypants circa the 1970s.

To find the right kind of edible material, Sanderson and Brady teamed up with Derek McManus, an analytical chemist originally from England. Over a period of months, the three settled on a recipe that consisted of modified food starch, glycerin, inverted sugar, mannitol, lecithin, artificial color, and artificial flavor. All of the ingredients were approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The brief itself would be processed in a sheet, then cut to garment specifications. To bind the sides, they used licorice strips. The partners named their company Cosmorotics, Inc.

Cosmorotics had one immediate problem: When they applied for a patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, their design was rejected because the words candy and pants were mutually exclusive. The office had no idea how to conceive of an edible article of clothing. This was successfully appealed, but it paled in comparison to a bigger problem. How could they let people know that Candypants existed?

Fortunately, the pair had a friend who ran a bath and boutique shop and agreed to put Candypants on display. Because the store was close to the University of Indiana, several students picked up a pair on a whim. One of those students happened to be a reporter for the school newspaper who decided to write a story about this peculiar retail item, and the story got picked up by the Associated Press. Virtually overnight, word spread about Candypants.

When the orders began piling up, Cosmorotics opened a factory in Chicago, where a giant machine squeezed out the edible material in two different flavors: wild cherry and banana split. (A third option, hot chocolate, had a foul taste and was said to be brown in color, an unfortunate choice for simulation underwear. It was quickly discontinued.) The underwear, which retailed for $4.95, was packaged in cellophane with a written caution to unwrap it only when it was ready for use. “Candypants may dry out,” the warning read.

 

By early 1976, Cosmorotics was having trouble keeping up with the demand. With Valentine’s Day looming, lingerie shops, pharmacies, and even motorcycle shops were selling through their inventory. Curiously, Candypants could also be found in major retail chains like Bloomingdale’s and Montgomery Ward—a fact that Sanderson attributed to their conscious attempts to keep Candypants firmly in the territory of a novelty gift item and not presented as a kinky sex accessory in adult bookstores.

“We’re trying for a universal market,” Sanderson told the Los Angeles Times in 1976.

The package to a pair of Candypants edible underwear is pictured
The packaging for Candypants.
Amazon

By 1976, Sanderson, Brady, and McManus were selling $150,000 in Candypants every month. Store owners would get calls for high-volume orders. Nunneries bought them in bulk to give away at bingo games. They went to nursing homes and bridal showers.

But as the volume of orders increased, Sanderson and Brady began having trouble sourcing some of the edible ingredients. They would order 9000 pounds of flavoring, and receive just nine pounds.

As it turned out, people in the business of adult novelties had taken notice of Candypants. And they wanted to take a bite out of them.

Sanderson and Brady discovered that the people behind adult bookstores—which, in the 1970s, was a business often connected with organized crime—were irate that Candypants were not being stocked on their shelves. They intended to produce knock-off versions that would compete with Candypants for material and satisfy the demand at sex shops.

 

Struggling to keep up with orders in the face of competition, Cosmorotics turned to an unlikely ally: Iva Toguri D’Aquino, also known as “Tokyo Rose,” a woman who had once been convicted of treason for broadcasting Japanese propaganda during World War II. (She was pardoned by Gerald Ford after serving three years of a 10-year sentence.)

D’Aquino owned a mercantile exchange in Chicago. She told Sanderson and Brady to connect with a factory in Japan that made rice paper wrappers for candy and medication. The rice paper was edible—and better yet, it was not under the thumb of the mafia. With a new source, Cosmorotics was able to continue churning out Candypants for hungry consumers around the country.

Iva Ikuko Toguri D’Aquino; originally a mug shot, taken at Sugamo Prison on March 7, 1946
Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

Sanderson and Brady enjoyed their modest fame and literal fortune, buying a mansion in Chicago and installing a disco that played host to parties. They befriended David Bowie, who knew the photographer who had shot ads for Candypants. They expanded the line to include mint and passion fruit flavors, as well as an edible bra they dubbed Teacups. They also released Notables, a stationery package consisting of edible notepad paper and a pen that was caramel-flavored. (The envelopes were not meant for consumption.)

Eventually, the knock-offs began to overshadow the brand identity of Candypants. In the 1980s, the men accepted an offer to purchase the company—made, they said, by a man who paid them in a briefcase full of cash. Sanderson and Brady moved to Florida and eventually married in 2015. They currently have no affiliation with Candypants, which are still being sold on Amazon (in even more flavors).

From one simple night of accidental brainstorming, the men had cultivated an empire. It wasn’t a bad outcome for a product that seemed ill-suited for either of its intended purposes. A 1976 test taste declared Candypants tasted like a rain slicker. Wearing them was not practical, either.

But Sanderson knew it was the package, not the contents, that was the real attraction. In a survey, Cosmorotics found that 85 percent of Candypants buyers never even opened the box.

Super Bowl: When Tie-In Novelty Cereals Ruled the 1980s

Louise McLaren, Flickr // CC BY 2.0
Louise McLaren, Flickr // CC BY 2.0

The tidal wave of merchandising following the release of Star Wars in 1977 was a fundamental transformation in how pop culture could be monetized. Thousands of items, ranging from clothing to toys, were produced from dozens of licensees. Fans could wake up on Darth Vader bedsheets, brush their teeth with a Yoda toothbrush, and slip on a Chewbacca backpack before catching the school bus.

The lone exception to that escapist morning routine? Breakfast cereal. It wasn’t until 1984—seven years after the original Star Wars hit theaters—that fans could purchase C-3POs, a puffed-wheat breakfast concoction that featured the golden droid on boxes. The delay was the result of changing tastes in the realm of product licensing. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the major cereal companies figured out that people wanted to literally consume their entertainment.

 

Cereals have long relied on colorful characters as a way of marketing their wares. Tony the Tiger was introduced by Kellogg’s in 1951 and quickly became the solo mascot for Frosted Flakes after cohorts Katy the Kangaroo, Newt the Gnu, and Elmo the Elephant fell by the wayside. Store aisles were soon stocked with boxes bearing Toucan Sam (Fruit Loops); Snap, Crackle, and Pop (Rice Krispies); and the dubiously ranked Cap’n Crunch.

As the decades wore on, the characters became intergenerational, able to appeal to kids and adults who remembered them from their youth. But it was also hard to muscle in on the market with so many of those mascots dominating shelf space. It wasn’t until the 1980s that cereal makers took notice of census reports hinting at a growing population of kids under the age of 9 and began plotting ways to appeal to tiny, outstretched hands at grocery stores. Their solution was existing brand recognition. Why spend time and effort creating a new cereal mascot when they could effectively lease one with a built-in fan base?

General Mills, then and now one of the leading cereal manufacturers, owned toy company Kenner. Kenner, in turn, had a licensing deal with American Greetings, owners of the popular Strawberry Shortcake property. In September 1982, General Mills debuted a Strawberry Shortcake cereal, the first to be based on a licensed fictional character. To the great satisfaction of General Mills executives, it was a major success. Shortcake fans devoured it.

Quickly, General Mills pursued an E.T. cereal, based on the smash 1982 movie. Arriving in 1984, the company believed a sequel—which never materialized—would keep it flying off shelves. A Pac-Man cereal followed. When neither product managed to reach Shortcake-level success, General Mills stopped pursuing licenses in 1985. But that was hardly the end of tie-in corn puffs.

Ralston Purina, a conglomerate that counted both breakfast cereal and dog food among its offerings, was faced with only minimal market share when compared to the “Big Two” titans: General Mills and Kellogg’s. Because launching a brand-new cereal was such an expensive proposition—marketing costs could grow to $40 million during the first year alone—it made more sense for Ralston to capitalize on existing properties, where their expenditure might only be $10 to $12 million. Their first attempt was a sugary riff on Cabbage Patch Kids. Released in 1985—at the point in Cabbage Patch mania where adults were getting into physical altercations over the dolls—it sold well, and Ralston seemed to have found its niche.

 

The next few years would see a number of Ralston products hit stores. Cereals based on Donkey Kong, Spider-Man, Gremlins, Rainbow Brite, Barbie, Hot Wheels, and Batman made what would otherwise be generic cereals palatable to a youth demographic and had novelty beyond the brand associations. The company’s Nintendo Cereal System in 1989 had one box with two different bags of multi-colored cereal. Others, like Batman, came with super-sized prizes like a coin bank that was shrink-wrapped to the box. Never mind that many of the concoctions were almost identical—the Spider-Man and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cereal had pieces resembling Ralston’s Chex cereal relabeled “spider webs” or “ninja nets.” Fans of the properties ate it up.

Owing to their status as a tie-in product, these cereals had one fatal flaw: They typically sold well for just 14 to 18 months, whereas Tony the Tiger could keep moving flakes for decades. But by the time one cereal began to decline, another was ready to take its place. If Ralston’s Jetsons grew stale on shelves, Bill and Ted's Excellent Cereal was ready to go. The company found its most enduring tie-in with its marshmallow-stuffed Ghostbusters cereal, which remained a bestseller for an incredible five years running. (Propped up by an animated series and a 1989 sequel, it kept the property visible. C-3POs, in contrast, suffered from a lack of any new Star Wars movies after 1983.)

Not everyone could make the premise work. Quaker’s Mr. T cereal bombed. Ralston’s own Prince of Thieves cereal, an attempt to capitalize on 1991’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves movie, was victimized by contractual limitations. Star Kevin Costner refused to appear on the box, diminishing the association.

 

Ralston continued the tie-ins into the 1990s, with the Family Matters-endorsed Urkel-Os joining cereals based on The Addams Family, Batman Returns, and others, usually paying a 3 to 5 percent royalty on each box sold to the licensors. While it made Ralston profitable, it also made them appealing for a buyout. To cement their status as cereal king, General Mills wound up buying Ralston in 1996 for $570 million. The deal largely put an end to the licensing promotions.

Today, there’s nostalgia for these edible gimmicks. Funko, the company behind the Pop! vinyl figures, maintains a line of themed cereals based on Pac-Man and less obvious properties like The Golden Girls. Unopened boxes of Batman cereal pop up on eBay from time to time. Some cereal loyalists even try to replicate the flavors, mixing Lucky Charms and Crispix to mimic the distinctively chalky taste of Spider-Man cereal. But for the most part, the industry has fallen back on the same standbys that were popular 70 years ago.

As one brand executive put it: Kellogg’s doesn’t need the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles when they’ve got Corn Flakes.

Overall Charm: Remembering Hasbro's My Buddy Doll

Kendrick Shackleford, Flickr // CC BY 2.0
Kendrick Shackleford, Flickr // CC BY 2.0

If your toy company's boy-oriented doll doesn’t set the world on fire, you might take comfort in the fact it partially inspired a series of slasher movies. That was the case for My Buddy, an oversized doll first introduced by Hasbro in 1985 that failed to make waves on store shelves but informed the creation of the carrot-topped spree killer doll Chucky in writer Don Mancini and director Tom Holland’s 1988 film Child’s Play.

In 1985, toy stores were stocked to the brim with some of the most indelible properties of the decade. Coleco’s Cabbage Patch Kids were a bona fide phenomenon, ringing up $540 million in sales the year prior. Masters of the Universe was Mattel’s hit, with both the action figures and ancillary products doubling the take of the Cabbage people.

Then there was My Buddy, which seemed to straddle the gender lines the other major toy companies had drawn. The Cabbage Patch dolls were highly desirable among young girls; boys gravitated toward the veiny, sword-wielding characters of the He-Man franchise. In marketing My Buddy, Hasbro hoped to pioneer a new toy category: a doll line for boys.

The idea was not totally alien to the market. As far back as the early 20th century, boys played with dolls regardless of whether the toys were marketed specifically toward them or not. The difference was that the dolls were often depicting adult men and women. As time went on and manufacturers began focusing on dolls resembling infants, interest on the part of young male consumers began to trail off.

Hasbro reversed that trend in 1964 with the introduction of G.I. Joe, a line of 12-inch, fabric-outfit military figures intended to do for boys what Mattel’s Barbie had done for the female demographic. Though Joe would go on to inhabit smaller, molded plastic sculpts in the 1980s, the idea of boys playing with plush toys was still of interest. With My Buddy, Hasbro banked on the doll’s heft—at an imposing 23 inches, it was a fair bit larger than the Cabbage Patch line—to ensnare juvenile consumers.

My Buddy was intended to be a companion for boys perceived as more active than girls, canvassing neighborhoods on Big Wheels, clutching My Buddy as they climbed into tree houses, and possibly making him an inadvertent object in a game of touch football. Clad in durable overalls, My Buddy seemed designed for extended trips through dirty terrain.

“My Buddy is positioned as macho,” Hasbro's senior vice president of marketing Stephen Schwartz told The Boston Globe in 1985. “It’s soft macho, but it’s still macho. We show them climbing up trees, riding their bikes. We didn’t position it like a girl doll, soft and sweet.”

Excited by the potential, Hasbro backed My Buddy with an effective ad campaign led by an infectious song:

Unlike other toys with complex personal narratives, My Buddy possessed no agency. He was simply there to accompany his human on adventures. Hasbro’s intent was easily discerned through ad copy: “A little boy’s special friend! Rough and tough, yet soft and cuddly.”

Amid a competitive toy year, the $25 My Buddy fared well in 1985. While Cabbage Patch Kids remained a goliath, Hasbro had four of the top 10 bestselling toys on the market: Transformers, G.I. Joe, My Little Pony, and My Buddy, which ranked eighth on the list.

That success would not last. If boys did not find fault with playing with dolls, some adults did, expressing puzzlement that My Buddy would hold appeal for the blood-and-guts dominion of the boys toys market. Los Angeles Times columnist Bevis Hillier called My Buddy “an unprepossessing creature who also has overalls and freckles but has managed to get his cap on the right way round. With his big, goggling eyes, he is half winsome, half bruiser.” Hillier went on to express doubt that a boy would find the prospect of dressing the doll in his own retired baby clothes enticing.

My Buddy and his various offshoots—there was a Kid Sister—hung on for a few years before disappearing from shelves. The doll market for boys was mostly relegated to Wrestling Buddies, a line of WWE-themed stuffed companions that encouraged boys to drop elbows and grapple them to the floor. My Buddy, with his largely pacifistic persona, invited no such confrontations. Despite Hasbro’s hopes, My Buddy failed to signal a breakdown in gender-specific toys. Mattel’s She-Ra line, an action figure spin-off of He-Man targeted toward girls, failed to take off. My Pet Monster, a plush toy for boys, came and went.

Hasbro subsidiary Playskool continued manufacturing My Buddy into the 1990s. Today, the overall-clad figure is mostly remembered as a model for the murderous Chucky, the doll villain at the center of the Child's Play franchise.

While it never gained iconic status beyond being a horror movie influence, My Buddy did offer a bit of foreshadowing in how toy companies market to consumers based on gender. In 2017, the first male American Girl doll, Logan, was released. Not long after, Mattel ran ads depicting boys playing with a Barbie Dream House and girls with Hot Wheels. My Buddy may not have been a raging success, but its attempts to deconstruct some of the persistent stereotypes in the toy world were ahead of their time.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER