"bottled water is evil"

[NWO Sentryman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0

I am skeptical of the idea that 50 billion bottles are consumed a year. How many are reused and how frequently?

As well as that, what's the citation for the claim that billions of bottles are produced each year?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0

I am skeptical of the idea that 50 billion bottles are consumed a year. How many are reused and how frequently?

As well as that, what's the citation for the claim that billions of bottles are produced each year?

According to:
http://www.icbwa.org/2000-2003_Zenith_and_Beverage_Marketing_Stats.pdf

153,083,000,000 litres of bottled water were sold in 2003.

Looks like the 50 billion bottle figure is too low.

:th:

[Vortigern99]

It's the pricing that I find absurd -- absurd that greedy bottling companies charge it, and that evidently easily-duped consumers pay it.

I worked for PepsiCo in 1999 -- as the Executive Assistant to the General Manager of the Austin branch -- and I spoke with managers who observed the irony that the same water used to make Pepsi and other beverages was sold, unflavored, for higher prices than flavored beverages with added ingredients that cost more to produce.

:boggled:

[BottledWater]

Excuse me?

[learner]

I drink a bottle of water every day while driving to and from work. I have only ever bought one bottle in my life. I refill it from the Tap in my kitchen with water I have already paid for.
It's not that I am a tight git, I just don't like paying for things twice.

[learner]

Excuse me?

You've got a lot to answer for. :)

[GrouchoMarxist]

Excuse me?

People consistently choose tap water over you.

[Puppycow]

If you are against bottled water you should be against all bottled beverages.

Sometimes it's worth it to the consumer and sometimes I prefer an ice-cold water to any other beverage. I would not buy bottled water to take home and put in my fridge though. My tap water is quite nice.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have often tried to imagine the board meeting at which someone made the first presentation on "manufacturing" and selling bottled water.

I hear the gales of laughter from the assembled members.
:jaw:

[Mirrorglass]

If you are against bottled water you should be against all bottled beverages.

Sometimes it's worth it to the consumer and sometimes I prefer an ice-cold water to any other beverage. I would not buy bottled water to take home and put in my fridge though. My tap water is quite nice.

I don't know about your house, but mine doesn't have a beer tap.

[23_Tauri]

I have often tried to imagine the board meeting at which someone made the first presentation on "manufacturing" and selling bottled water.

I hear the gales of laughter from the assembled members.
:jaw:
'Exacly. Who would ever believe that you could convince people to pay for something that comes for free out of a tap, several of which are routinely installed in every house built? :eye-poppi This when most of the world's population can't safely drink the water that comes out of their taps. Oh help my sides are splitting.

The most expensive? Bling (http://www.gizmag.com/go/6320/) is $40 for 750ml, but I think there was a Fijian mountain water that sold for more at one time.

[Skwinty]

The most expensive? Bling (http://www.gizmag.com/go/6320/) is $40 for 750ml, but I think there was a Fijian mountain water that sold for more at one time.


From your link: Proving the old adage that it's really easy to get rich people to fork over cash for stupid reasons :D

[Foolmewunz]

This is a rather West-Centric thread. Quite a number of us drink bottled water out of necessity. Seveal whole continents of us, in fact.

[23_Tauri]

This is a rather West-Centric thread. Quite a number of us drink bottled water out of necessity. Seveal whole continents of us, in fact.
Which was why I emphasised the point that this (i.e. credulous people buying water in bottles at the supermarket, water that is in many cases more contaminated that the free stuff that comes out of the tap (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7763038/Bottled-water-contains-more-bacteria-than-tap-water.html)) happens in nations where it is safe to drink tap water and in much of the world that isn't the case. Clearly, if your tap water is not safe to drink it is a different matter.

[Delscottio]

The only time I have bought bottled water is when my job used to take me around the UK. The change in taste from place to place was quite surprising, and stomach upsetting!

[Modified]

Could be fear of the unknown. Many of my former neighbors drank well water that was contaminated by a fuel pipeline leak, for years. Bottled water is unlikely to be contaminated in the long term.

Still, I see no reason to buy the little bottles when the gallon jugs of distilled or filtered water are so much cheaper.

[Foolmewunz]

Which was why I emphasised the point that this (i.e. credulous people buying water in bottles at the supermarket, water that is in many cases more contaminated that the free stuff that comes out of the tap (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7763038/Bottled-water-contains-more-bacteria-than-tap-water.html)) happens in nations where it is safe to drink tap water and in much of the world that isn't the case. Clearly, if your tap water is not safe to drink it is a different matter.


Contaminated bottled water has become a concern over here, also. The big boys (Bonaqua/Coke and Watson's - a sort of Boots style pharmacy and superstore chain) are running competing ads on the purity.

In HK it's so much that the tap water is dangerous, but that it tastes like crap. It has a horrible metallic taste to it. I believe we're also in an area with dangerously high levels of fluoride in the water table. Mostly, though it's the taste.

The high cost isn't the water - it's the advertising and the logistics, obviously.

[FreshHat]

I don't know about your house, but mine doesn't have a beer tap.

Nor mine, but my local pub has several. :beerflag:

[Piscivore]

In HK it's so much that the tap water is dangerous, but that it tastes like crap. It has a horrible metallic taste to it.

Here in Arizona it's the same problem on the opposite side of the spectrum. Tap water has this horrible alkalai taste.

[roger]

I don't know about your house, but mine doesn't have a beer tap.One day people will care enough to see that even the poorest people have the basic necessities. :( I am sad for our species.

[23_Tauri]

Here in Arizona it's the same problem on the opposite side of the spectrum. Tap water has this horrible alkalai taste.
Does the taste improve if you put it through a filter jug? If that works, then wouldn't that be cheaper and more convenient than buying water at the supermarket?

The taste of tap water varies a lot depending where you are in the UK, but I personally have never found it undrinkable. London tap water's pretty iffy taste-wise, but filtering, or boiling it and adding a tea bag, does wonders. :)

[23_Tauri]

In HK it's so much that the tap water is dangerous, but that it tastes like crap. It has a horrible metallic taste to it. I believe we're also in an area with dangerously high levels of fluoride in the water table. Mostly, though it's the taste.
One of the safest in the world, according to this site (http://www.wsd.gov.hk/en/water_resources/water_quality/water_quality_control/index.html). I'm not sure what level of fluoride the WHO would consider safe in drinking water, and what criteria are used in setting that level. Of course, a simple filter jug would not remove fluoride, you'd need a reverse osmosis system fitted under your sink to do that.

Personally, I would avoid too much fluoride, in drinking water or elsewhere, and I'm against compulsory fluoridation of water supplies, which has been introduced in some areas of the UK.

The high cost isn't the water - it's the advertising and the logistics, obviously.
I guess if people want to pay for that, then they can go right ahead. :)

[geni]

I drink a bottle of water every day while driving to and from work. I have only ever bought one bottle in my life. I refill it from the Tap in my kitchen with water I have already paid for.
It's not that I am a tight git, I just don't like paying for things twice.

Which sounds great until you realise that your average plastic waterbottle is only meant to be used once and as a result reusing it tends to result in an interesting mix of bacteria and materials that have leached from the plastic. For reuse stainless steel is probably your best bet.

[23_Tauri]

Which sounds great until you realise that your average plastic waterbottle is only meant to be used once and as a result reusing it tends to result in an interesting mix of bacteria and materials that have leached from the plastic. For reuse stainless steel is probably your best bet.
I've been re-filling a plastic water bottle from the tap and taking it into hot yoga (a steamy, sweaty, stranger-filled haven for bacterial growth) for years. I do this until the bottle falls apart and I'm not dead yet. I can't help thinking that in the modern age some elements of Western society have become too adverse to a few microbes, when it's exposure to them that builds strong immunity. However, I agree a stainless steel job is a good choice, for longevity if nothing else. I just haven't got round to buying one yet.

[GlennB]

The high cost isn't the water - it's the advertising and the logistics, obviously.

Interesting point. When we moved to Greece we bought bottled water for a short while, until we realised the piped water in the village was excellent.
But when I bought that first 6 pack of 1.5L bottles I assumed the price I saw was for a single bottle, and that even then it was quite cheap compared to the UK.
I'd say that, in the UK at least, there's an insanely high premium on bottled water that more reflects public neurosis and snobbery than any commercial cost.

[Foolmewunz]

As long as we're on the topic of cost.....

Who pays how much where you are for a liter of locally bottled (not chi-chi stuff like Perrier or Pellegrino) water. I can get two litres for 10 HK$, roughly USD 1.25 or 0.63 a litre. That's at a 7/11 or Circle K convenience store. In bulk it's about half that price.

ETA: Liter / litre. My years of switching back and forth from USA to members(former members in case of HK) of the Commonwealth is showing.

[23_Tauri]

As long as we're on the topic of cost.....

Who pays how much where you are for a liter of locally bottled (not chi-chi stuff like Perrier or Pellegrino) water. I can get two litres for 10 HK$, roughly USD 1.25 or 0.63 a litre. That's at a 7/11 or Circle K convenience store. In bulk it's about half that price.

ETA: Liter / litre. My years of switching back and forth from USA to members(former members in case of HK) of the Commonwealth is showing.
Hi Foolmewunz. It works at cheapest at the big store (Tesco) if bought in 1.5 or 2 ltr bottles:

Tesco own brand English Spring Still Water 39p (£0.39) for 2 ltrs
Volvic 58p for 1.5 ltrs
Evian 77p for 2 ltrs
Brecon Carreg 53p for 2 ltrs

Current exchange rate on xe.com: £1.00 GBP = 12.2706 HKD

But as everyone pays water rates we've all already paid for it out of the tap, and the water where I live on the south coast tastes better than fine. But I still see people buying it by the crateload in my local store. Must be such a palavar getting it home and storing it too.

[Almo]

One day people will care enough to see that even the poorest people have the basic necessities. :( I am sad for our species.

Too many rich people are afraid of free loaders getting something they don't deserve for this to happen. Which really makes me angry.

ETA: By "rich" I mean relatively affluent. Say, US citizens making $50,000 a year would qualify.

[Belz...]

People consistently choose tap water over you.

And they should.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I drink a bottle of water every day while driving to and from work. I have only ever bought one bottle in my life. I refill it from the Tap in my kitchen with water I have already paid for.
It's not that I am a tight git, I just don't like paying for things twice.

But that's not what the topic of consuming bottled water is really about. You could as well have bought an empty re-usable bottle and filled it with tap water always. What you describe doesn't differ meaningfully from that.

Selling bottled water to most Americans has always struck me as the proverbial "selling ice to an Eskimo". I know there are some rare exceptions where the municipal water supply isn't good, but that doesn't account for MOST bottled water sales.

I'm amazed that fully half the litter I see around here is comprised of empty water bottles when St. Louis has one of the best municipal water systems, and most of us have un-metered water (so using more water costs us exactly nothing, and even bottled water users still need water service for bathing, washing dishes, etc.)

The only argument I hear is "convenience". But it's only convenient (and barely so) if you ignore most of the equation. It's certainly not convenient to ship water around in trucks burning fossil fuels rather than using existing pipelines. It's not convenient to dispose of the bottles (even by recycling them) compared to not. And it's not convenient for me to have to pick up the litter all the time.

[Halfcentaur]

I don't drink as much water as I should. Even so, my water comes from a well and has a very strange taste and smell to it. I am guilty of buying bottles of water a few times a year. I should buy a filter for my sink.

[GlennB]

But that's not what the topic of consuming bottled water is really about. ....

Selling bottled water to most Americans has always struck me as the proverbial "selling ice to an Eskimo". I know there are some rare exceptions where the municipal water supply isn't good, but that doesn't account for MOST bottled water sales.


The o/p isn't about America. MOST applies to the entire world, and in many places the piped supply might well be dodgy.

[Bikewer]

Our university just went plastic-bottle-free. (as well as smoke-free; leading to the sight of dozens of individuals standing on the sidewalk several times a day...)
Not only is bottled water not superior to most tap water in any way (at least in Western countries), the resources to produce and ship the bottles are considerable. I understand most are produced in China and shipped abroad by cargo vessel.... Not ideal from the carbon-footprint standpoint.
Some years back, when bottled "designer" waters were just starting to be big sellers, our local tabloid newspaper did a taste-test with a random group of individuals.
The winner? St. Louis county water, straight from the tap.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The o/p isn't about America. MOST applies to the entire world, and in many places the piped supply might well be dodgy.

True. That's why I specified America.

At any rate, I'm sure the U.S. consumes more bottled water than any other nation. I used some bottled water when I lived in Ecuador, but there, you refilled glass bottles most of the time (and that's all I ever did). I also had a pressure cooker, and I boiled 2 gallons every day to use for iced tea and drinking water.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Our university just went plastic-bottle-free. (as well as smoke-free; leading to the sight of dozens of individuals standing on the sidewalk several times a day...)
Not only is bottled water not superior to most tap water in any way (at least in Western countries), the resources to produce and ship the bottles are considerable. I understand most are produced in China and shipped abroad by cargo vessel.... Not ideal from the carbon-footprint standpoint.
Some years back, when bottled "designer" waters were just starting to be big sellers, our local tabloid newspaper did a taste-test with a random group of individuals.
The winner? St. Louis county water, straight from the tap.

Amen! And ditto, St. Louis City water.

I think we were rated the best in the U.S. not so long ago. Ah--here it is: http://www.stlwater.com/bestwater.php

Even using test data (measuring pollutants and what not) rather than taste, St. Louis City ranks in the top 10: http://www.stlwater.com/bestwater.php

There is no reason anyone here should pay for bottled water!

[Le Jab]

I am guilty of buying bottled. There is evidence to suggest tap water contains high levels of oestrogen contamination due to recycled urine entering the water supply, that has worked is way through numerous female users of the contraceptive pill. However, I am now told that bottled water has this too.

[Foolmewunz]

I am guilty of buying bottled. There is evidence to suggest tap water contains high levels of oestrogen contamination due to recycled urine entering the water supply, that has worked is way through numerous female users of the contraceptive pill. However, I am now told that bottled water has this too.

Good to know. I thought I was getting sentimental in my old age, as I've taken to watching old Lifestyle Channel Movies (classics like Bobby Beat Me But Now I'm Getting Better) and sniffling through them. Now I know it's all those wimmen peeing that's causing it.

Note: Estrogen does NOT have to come from women's urine. It's a man-made component that is in the plastic. The original studies on estrogen in water were concerned with it leeching out of plastic bottles. There are studies, however, that show that trace amounts of every-day pharmaceuticals are showing up in the water supply in miniscule amounts.

[AgeGap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasani#United_Kingdom :eek:

[Foolmewunz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasani#United_Kingdom :eek:

"Source - Sidcup local water supply"....

Reminds me of my favorite "scam". The WTC towers were built with their famous central service core, but water was piped only to the restrooms. Individual offices had no water taps. Everyone was required to buy from the "approved" water supplier, Polar Bear. And the plastic cap on the five gallon jugs read, "Source - New York City Water Supply". Thirty feet away you could go run the tap in the Ladies Room and get the same stuff for free, but we were buying five gallon jugs of "Ooooh, bottled water. It's better for your health...." of the same stuff! Every tenant in the building did it!

[23_Tauri]

I am guilty of buying bottled. There is evidence to suggest tap water contains high levels of oestrogen contamination due to recycled urine entering the water supply, that has worked is way through numerous female users of the contraceptive pill. However, I am now told that bottled water has this too.
Exactly. Unless it's from deep underground springs whether tap or bottle it's all coming from somewhere in the same system anyway. As Foolmewunz points out, there are numerous chemicals in bottled water, phthalates being one that gets particularly bad press.

[Sgt Doom]

I can only think of one place here that sells bottled water that isn't flavoured or fizzy, and it's one of those huge 5l things one normally buys when going into the middle of nowhere. Yay for commie liberal pinko European socialism and the resulting quality tap water.

[Foolmewunz]

I can only think of one place here that sells bottled water that isn't flavoured or fizzy, and it's one of those huge 5l things one normally buys when going into the middle of nowhere. Yay for commie liberal pinko European socialism and the resulting quality tap water.

I took Supamart to Zurich a few years ago, and introduced her to European tap water. She was astounded that there was no tea kettle or water cooker (just a slow-heater that you fill with water that everyone in Asia has) in the hotel room. I told her to just let the tap run. When she did it, she took a tiny sip and then smiled with a wall to wall grin.

She'd never conceived that tap water could be safe, let alone taste so good. That was the morning of our arrival. When we went out window shopping later, she bought herself a long-stemmed wine glass. For the next four days she could be seen drinking her tap water in fine crystal. I loved it. We take decent potable water for granted in the west.

[Cain]

Bottled water should be slapped with a steep "stupid tax." The same sort of tax would go on pain relievers. I almost can't believe people actually buy Advil. Who knows what else they're wasting money on.

[AgeGap]

Bottled water should be slapped with a steep "stupid tax." The same sort of tax would go on pain relievers. I almost can't believe people actually buy Advil. Who knows what else they're wasting money on.

I googled Advil and found it to be ibuprofen. As a pain killer why would it need a stupid tax?

[23_Tauri]

I googled Advil and found it to be ibuprofen. As a pain killer why would it need a stupid tax?

Agreed. Advil does, ibuprofen doesn't.

Generic ibuprofen tablets cost a fraction of the price of branded ibuprofen. I can't believe that creduloids think there is something magic about Advil or Nurofen because it's more expensive and comes in a shinier box. This is despite them being shelved alongside the unbranded ibuprofen so you can easily check the labelling and SEE with your own eyes that the active ingredient is the SAME and the SAME amount.

The stupid tax is the added cost (double) that the idiots pay:

Boots Value 200mg ibuprofen tablets pack of 16 = £0.36 = 2.25p per tablet
Advil 200mg Bottle of 325 tablets = £16.95 = 5.2p per tablet

[X]

Let's be fair; bottled water does have its uses.

At my fencing club, we do not have access to a water fountain. And the plumbing is a bit ancient, and makes the water taste really odd. So we encourage people to bring their own water, but we also supply bottled water.

In this sort of situation, bottled water is extremely convenient.

That said, we don't pay lots of money for it. We stock up on the non-branded stuff when it goes on sale. Typically, that costs us a dollar per box of 24 bottles.
We also have a donation jar for those who use the water at our club instead of bringing their own.

At roughly $0.04 per bottle, it's hardly expensive.

The rest of the time (like at home), I use tap water.

[AgeGap]

Agreed. Advil does, ibuprofen doesn't.

Generic ibuprofen tablets cost a fraction of the price of branded ibuprofen. I can't believe that creduloids think there is something magic about Advil or Nurofen because it's more expensive and comes in a shinier box. This is despite them being shelved alongside the unbranded ibuprofen so you can easily check the labelling and SEE with your own eyes that the active ingredient is the SAME and the SAME amount.

The stupid tax is the added cost (double) that the idiots pay:

Boots Value 200mg ibuprofen tablets pack of 16 = £0.36 = 2.25p per tablet
Advil 200mg Bottle of 325 tablets = £16.95 = 5.2p per tablet

But if it has better analgesic packaging or a more painkilling colour it will have much greater efficacy.
Placebo effect is the added ingredient not on the label. :)

[kittynh]

The New York City water was FABULOUS when I lived there. Some of the cleanest in the world. DC when I was growing up had a horrible SMELL. If you had to use a water fountain, you gagged. I remember the big GLASS Poland Springs jugs. I even had an old one in my room that I threw change in.

I have a well now, we get it tested, and it's safe. However, our neighbor with a different well has a HORRIBLE sulfur type smell with her water. Also a big problem for well owners here is that years and years of salt being put on the roads has resulted in contaminated wells. Even the police department and town hall here has to use bottled water for drinking. So they truck in those big bottles.

[Emet]

But if it has better analgesic packaging or a more painkilling colour it will have much greater efficacy.
Placebo effect is the added ingredient not on the label. :)

Brand loyalty is amazing--and not exclusive to drugs. Many consumers who are brand loyal are insensitive to price, and in the case of drugs, the price of a name brand drug often increases when the patent expires and generics are released.

[lomiller]

Agreed. Advil does, ibuprofen doesn't.

Generic ibuprofen tablets cost a fraction of the price of branded ibuprofen. I can't believe that creduloids think there is something magic about Advil or Nurofen because it's more expensive and comes in a shinier box. This is despite them being shelved alongside the unbranded ibuprofen so you can easily check the labelling and SEE with your own eyes that the active ingredient is the SAME and the SAME amount.

The stupid tax is the added cost (double) that the idiots pay:

Boots Value 200mg ibuprofen tablets pack of 16 = £0.36 = 2.25p per tablet
Advil 200mg Bottle of 325 tablets = £16.95 = 5.2p per tablet

There are sound economic reasons for branded products fetching a higher price then generics. It all comes down to information, the name brand product has a better chance of containing exactly what it says it contains and doing what it says it does. Sure you can offset the risk by learning more about the generics, but on average the payoff for doing so isn’t there, it’s simply more efficient to buy the name brand then research the generics for every product you use.

[carlitos]

"Source - Sidcup local water supply"....

I would bet big money that that "local water supply" is put through reverse-osmosis filtration before bottling, and then a couple of minerals were added for taste. Coca-Cola doesn't just bottle tap water.

[Emet]

delete

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Let's be fair; bottled water does have its uses.

At my fencing club, we do not have access to a water fountain. And the plumbing is a bit ancient, and makes the water taste really odd. So we encourage people to bring their own water, but we also supply bottled water.

In this sort of situation, bottled water is extremely convenient.

That said, we don't pay lots of money for it. We stock up on the non-branded stuff when it goes on sale. Typically, that costs us a dollar per box of 24 bottles.
We also have a donation jar for those who use the water at our club instead of bringing their own.

At roughly $0.04 per bottle, it's hardly expensive.

The rest of the time (like at home), I use tap water.

Do the bottles get recycled or just sent to the dump?

[23_Tauri]

There are sound economic reasons for branded products fetching a higher price then generics. It all comes down to information, the name brand product has a better chance of containing exactly what it says it contains and doing what it says it does. Sure you can offset the risk by learning more about the generics, but on average the payoff for doing so isn’t there, it’s simply more efficient to buy the name brand then research the generics for every product you use.
I do not know about your country, but in the UK this is not so. All medicines are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/index.htm).

Whether it is a medicine you buy, or one prescribed for you as part of a course of treatment, it is reassuring to know that all medicines available in the UK are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the MHRA before they can be used by patients. This ensures that medicines meet acceptable standards on safety, quality and efficacy.

If it says 200mg of ibuprofen on the box then the tablets must contain 200mg of ibuprofen. I think Trading Standards may have a regulatory role in this also.

[lomiller]

I do not know about your country, but in the UK this is not so.

Please read my post again, this isn’t about the ability to research an individual product, though there would be a price difference even if you could. Generics must sell for less because investigating them generally isn’t worth the time.

Most people won’t go though even 1 container a year so saving $2 doesn’t even justify the time it takes to find out what the active ingredient is. Even if you could justify the time it takes on a single product you don’t know that ahead of time so you need to save even more to make up for all the times it wasn’t worth your while.

[Mirrorglass]

Please read my post again, this isn’t about the ability to research an individual product, though there would be a price difference even if you could. Generics must sell for less because investigating them generally isn’t worth the time.

Most people won’t go though even 1 container a year so saving $2 doesn’t even justify the time it takes to find out what the active ingredient is. Even if you could justify the time it takes on a single product you don’t know that ahead of time so you need to save even more to make up for all the times it wasn’t worth your while.

The two seconds of your time it takes to read the front of a package are worth $2? Man, you must have a pretty awesome job.

[23_Tauri]

The two seconds of your time it takes to read the front of a package are worth $2? Man, you must have a pretty awesome job.
This.

Also....
I don't understand what I misinterpreted about your post, Iomiller. You said "the name brand product has a better chance of containing exactly what it says it contains and doing what it says it does." But I explained that in the UK medicines contain exactly what they say they contain because the industry is rigorously regulated. Whether Mr Bloggs Value Ibuprofen or Nurofen or Advil, if the ingredient list says 200mg of ibuprofen that's what will be in the tablets.

If people want to pay double the price for a shiny box they're going to dump in the bin or for the placebo effect because they're so dumb they don't realise the products are the same once you throw the shiny box away, then that's up to them. But it's stupid, IMO.

[lomiller]

The two seconds of your time it takes to read the front of a package

Do you know what the laws are regarding generic drugs from looking at the package? Does it tell you how likely those laws are to be enforced?

This isn’t about whether you should buy the generics if you already know about active ingredients, how likely they are to contain what they say and so on, it’s about whether it’s worthwhile to systematically spend time finding out those things to begin with, and for most people it isn’t

[23_Tauri]

Most people won’t go though even 1 container a year so saving $2 doesn’t even justify the time it takes to find out what the active ingredient is.
This I also question. Ibuprofen is one of those products that comes in a range of packaging sizes, from 16s up to 96 tablets per unit box/bottle. This allows consumers to tailor their purchasing decisions to their household needs, based on their known use. Why would someone who knows they only take ibuprofen occasionally buy a family-sized pack when they can buy a smaller one?

[Mirrorglass]

Do you know what the laws are regarding generic drugs from looking at the package? Does it tell you how likely those laws are to be enforced?

This isn’t about whether you should buy the generics if you already know about active ingredients, how likely they are to contain what they say and so on, it’s about whether it’s worthwhile to systematically spend time finding out those things to begin with, and for most people it isn’t

Well, do you, then, know the laws regarding non-generic drugs? If not, how do you know what you're buying in any case? If yes, did the law really only refer to brand-name drugs? Where I live, at least, it's all one law.

[lomiller]

But I explained that in the UK medicines contain exactly what they say they contain because the industry is rigorously regulated.

You are still not getting it, it’s not about whether no name brand ibuprofen is or is not genuine it’s about the time it takes to assure yourself it’s likely to be. What are suggesting is the equivalent of the person who is convinced to drive an hour out of their way to save $0.02 a gallon on gas.

[23_Tauri]

Do you know what the laws are regarding generic drugs from looking at the package? Does it tell you how likely those laws are to be enforced?

This isn’t about whether you should buy the generics if you already know about active ingredients, how likely they are to contain what they say and so on, it’s about whether it’s worthwhile to systematically spend time finding out those things to begin with, and for most people it isn’t
But in the UK we don't need to "systematically spend time finding out", because the MHRA do it for us. And yes, I think you'll find that they do their job adequately because the UK is a developed nation with all that that entails. Who doesn't know enough about active ingredients to be able to compare the words "200mg of ibuprofen" on one packet with the words "200mg of ibuprofen" on the packet in the other hand?

[23_Tauri]

You are still not getting it, it’s not about whether no name brand ibuprofen is or is not genuine it’s about the time it takes to assure yourself it’s likely to be. What are suggesting is the equivalent of the person who is convinced to drive an hour out of their way to save $0.02 a gallon on gas.
As I said in my post above, the likelihood of Boots Value ibuprofen (or whatever) containing what it says it contains is the same as Advil containing what it contains, because they all go through the same checking procedure with a single, regulatory body.

It's not the same as driving an hour out of your way to buy cheaper petrol because it doesn't take an hour to read the back of a packet of tablets.

[Foolmewunz]

I would bet big money that that "local water supply" is put through reverse-osmosis filtration before bottling, and then a couple of minerals were added for taste. Coca-Cola doesn't just bottle tap water.

I tend to agree on the Coke UK fiasco. Reverse osmosis is their big selling point for Bonaqua, after all.

In the example I gave, though, it was just tap water. There were no reverse osmosis water companies in the 60s. Polar Bear was just filling jugs with good clean New York water. In the WTC, if you had an entire floor (we did in a later job), you could run plumbing lines to you cafeteria or kitchen. But if you were on a multi-tenant floor, you had no water in your suite so you bought the bottled stuff.

To be fair, it made sense to some people. You got a contract for, say, 6 x 5 gallong jugs a week (water was just water back then and I recall no one religiously drinking two or three litres a day), got it delivered and the empties taken a way, and it cost about $25 a week. It's just when you multiply it out that you realize how much they were making because they had a lock on the WTC contracts and could deliver a thousand bottles to 50 customers on one truck.

[lomiller]

You are definitely going way off into the weeds so lets start back at the top.

Information asymmetry has a very real very understandable effect on selling price. It's what allows Warren Buffet to spot undervalued companies better then you can, it's why con men try to convince you that you are smarter then they are, it's even why the price of a new car drops by thousands of dollars just by driving it home.


What you are doing is starting under the presumption people know what the active ingredient in Advil is, know what the dose is, know what the dose of the generic is, know what the laws covering generics are, know how well those laws are enforced, know what the generic drug makers record is on obeying those laws, know what the generic drug makers history of quality control is, etc, etc, etc.

The problem with your analysis is that all of this information has a legitimate effect on the price people are willing to pay. You are in effect making unfounded assumptions about things that effect the price and then complaining that the price doesn't come out as you expect.

Beyond that you are making the further assumption, also unfounded, that people should learn these things because it helps get them a better deal, but that would imply they did the same type of research for every item. For small purchases it simply doesn't pay off to find out everything you need to know to get the best possible deal. If you happen to know, good for you you get a good deal, but it's unlikely that you will get any return on your time if you attempt to systematically learn everything you need to get the best deal on every purchase.

[Stray Cat]

You are still not getting it, it’s not about whether no name brand ibuprofen is or is not genuine it’s about the time it takes to assure yourself it’s likely to be. What are suggesting is the equivalent of the person who is convinced to drive an hour out of their way to save $0.02 a gallon on gas.
I have a rule where I never fill up with petrol when I'm out buying Ibuprofen.

I also always try to fill up with unbranded 'petrol' too because I can't be bothered researching if that Shell/Texaco has the ingredients it claims to have... you know... petrol. :confused:

[Stray Cat]

What you are doing is starting under the presumption people know what the active ingredient in Advil is, know what the dose is, know what the dose of the generic is,
In the UK, by law it has to state active ingredients and dose clearly on the packet.

know what the laws covering generics are, know how well those laws are enforced, know what the generic drug makers record is on obeying those laws, know what the generic drug makers history of quality control is, etc, etc, etc.
Overcomplication of a simple situation here.
As Tauri has pointed out, there is a regulatory body that does all that.

The problem with your analysis is that all of this information has a legitimate effect on the price people are willing to pay.
Nope. Advertising, branding and marketing have an effect on the price people are willing to pay for a product, which is why drug companies use brand names in the first place.

You are in effect making unfounded assumptions about things that effect the price and then complaining that the price doesn't come out as you expect.
Again nope... I haven't read that anyone is complaining about the higher price of the branded products, just that when the generic is just as effective because it contains the exact same active ingredients (as thoroughly tested by a regulatory body), people are stupid to buy the more expensive branded version... Which is only more expensive because of the advertising, branding and marketing.

Beyond that you are making the further assumption, also unfounded, that people should learn these things because it helps get them a better deal, but that would imply they did the same type of research for every item.
No research necessary. As stated above (several times).
It seem you are supporting the exploitation of stupid people by fleecing them with over priced branded products.

For small purchases it simply doesn't pay off to find out everything you need to know to get the best possible deal.
"200mg ibuprofen" is all you need to know... wow literally seconds reading a package in a shop and I've saved over 50% on that product.

If you happen to know, good for you you get a good deal, but it's unlikely that you will get any return on your time if you attempt to systematically learn everything you need to get the best deal on every purchase.
I'm guessing if one doesn't know what the drugs one is buying do, one shouldn't be buying them. On the other hand... When I buy a meat pie, I'm not really bothered what sort of meat it contains as long as tastes nice.

[23_Tauri]

When I buy a meat pie, I'm not really bothered what sort of meat it contains as long as tastes nice.
In that case, can I interest you in one of the 'specials' sir? ;) Mua-ha-ha-ha!

[23_Tauri]

You are definitely going way off into the weeds so lets start back at the top.
Nope, I don’t think I’m in the weeds but we do seem to be at cross purposes. I’ll try and address your points as best I can without repeating myself.

Information asymmetry has a very real very understandable effect on selling price. It's what allows Warren Buffet to spot undervalued companies better then you can, it's why con men try to convince you that you are smarter then they are, it's even why the price of a new car drops by thousands of dollars just by driving it home.
Information asymmetry? A posh phrase for saying that the company selling the product knows something the consumer does not? But this scenario we are discussing here about pain-killing pills is just not that complicated! Two pills, same active ingredient, same information on the packaging, same regulatory body carrying out the same checks. This is not the same as buying a used car or an undervalued company.

What you are doing is starting under the presumption people know what the active ingredient in Advil is, know what the dose is, know what the dose of the generic is,
With respect I think it is you that is making the assumption that people don’t know what the active ingredient in Advil is, because you are saying that the additional cost of Advil over a non-branded ibuprofen tablet is worth it. I am saying that anyone who can read can work out what the active ingredient is and its dosage because there’s only one listed on the side of the box. It’s not a fancy face cream with 30 ingredients listed.

…..know what the laws covering generics are, know how well those laws are enforced, know what the generic drug makers record is on obeying those laws, know what the generic drug makers history of quality control is, etc, etc, etc. .
If we lived in a developing nation (no offence meant to the policy makers and enforcement agencies of those countries) then maybe this stuff would be relevant, but we don’t, or at least I don’t. The MHRA is a well-respected, thoroughly audited, established organisation of the highest calibre. It has to be, it regulates the quality of medicines in my country. I think it’s not foolhardy to trust this organisation to do what it say it does. Check out their website page How We Regulate (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/index.htm) for more information.

The problem with your analysis is that all of this information has a legitimate effect on the price people are willing to pay. You are in effect making unfounded assumptions about things that effect the price and then complaining that the price doesn't come out as you expect. .
As Stray Cat has pointed out, the price differential is all about branding, advertising and marketing, not the contents of the product. I’m not complaining, just pointing out that the price differential is a tax on the stupid, because unlike buying a used car or a failing company, it’s really easy to compare two brands of painkiller.

Beyond that you are making the further assumption, also unfounded, that people should learn these things because it helps get them a better deal, but that would imply they did the same type of research for every item.
Nope, they only need to do it once and realise that 200mg of ibuprofen is 200mg of ibuprofen no matter what the shape and colour of the tablet or the shininess rating of the box.

For small purchases it simply doesn't pay off to find out everything you need to know to get the best possible deal.
Of course it does. How many packets of headache tablets is a person going to buy in a lifetime? That adds up. I still don’t follow what this “everything you need to know” is when we are talking about a product with ONE active ingredient. If this was a £50 face cream with 40 ingredients and I wanted to research them all then you might have a point, but we’re not talking about the latest age defying cream from Clarins, are we?

If you happen to know, good for you get a good deal, but it's unlikely that you will get any return on your time if you attempt to systematically learn everything you need to get the best deal on every purchase.
See above. We are discussing ibuprofen tablets. And yes I do know because I take ten seconds out of my life to check the bit on the back of the box that says “active ingredients”.

[Stray Cat]

In that case, can I interest you in one of the 'specials' sir? ;) Mua-ha-ha-ha!
Mmmmm... yes please, is yours the pie shop below the barbers in the high street?

[23_Tauri]

Mmmmm... yes please, is yours the pie shop below the barbers in the high street?
That's the one. Turn left at The Slaughtered Lamb, and come and taste my pies, young man. Always the freshest, local meat and well hung too. ;)

[lomiller]

Overcomplication of a simple situation here.

No you are oversimplifying the issue. Information asymmetry matters, you can’t ignore it if you want to understand the price difference between items. You are ignoring it, then complaining there should be no price difference. You simplification *is* the cause of your incorrect conclusions, end of story.

Saying “there are laws to cover that” changes nothing, it just pushed some of the information to questions like knowing the law, knowing if it’;s enforced, knowing whether the generic drug maker has violated it in the past, knowing if the generic drug maker has satisfactory quality control to comply with it consistently, etc. This is information that factors into the price of generics and you have to account for it if really want to understand their price relative to brand names

[Stray Cat]

No you are oversimplifying the issue. Information asymmetry matters, you can’t ignore it if you want to understand the price difference between items. You are ignoring it, then complaining there should be no price difference.
Where am I complaining that there should be no price difference?
Of course there should be a price difference. It costs money to design and print glossy packaging and it costs money to advertise and market a brand... that is the only place where the price difference is justified as the active ingredients are exactly the same.

You simplification *is* the cause of your incorrect conclusions, end of story.
Is it the end of the story?... really?
Only in a world where you have to misrepresent what people are actually saying in order for you to be right in your assertions.

Saying “there are laws to cover that” changes nothing, it just pushed some of the information to questions like knowing the law, knowing if it’;s enforced, knowing whether the generic drug maker has violated it in the past, knowing if the generic drug maker has satisfactory quality control to comply with it consistently, etc. This is information that factors into the price of generics and you have to account for it if really want to understand their price relative to brand names
This is soooooo wrong. The exact same law applies to the branded drugs as it does to the generic ones, therefore one can not be presumed to be more rigorously tested for compliance than the other. Unless you are so credulous as to blindly believe that because you saw an advert for it on telly, it'll be OK.

[23_Tauri]

Saying “there are laws to cover that” changes nothing, it just pushed some of the information to questions like knowing the law, knowing if it’;s enforced, knowing whether the generic drug maker has violated it in the past, knowing if the generic drug maker has satisfactory quality control to comply with it consistently, etc. This is information that factors into the price of generics and you have to account for it if really want to understand their price relative to brand names
What you seem to be saying is that because it comes from a more well-known company, who are advertising their brand of ibuprofen on telly and charging more for it, then their product is more likely to have more rigorous quality control and can be trusted more than a lesser-known, cheaper brand that has no expensive marketing. Leaving aside for one minute the safeguard called the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (because I hate to repeat myself) let's look at a company that produces a cheap ibuprofen tablet and see if they're the sort of dodgy back-street, one-man with a PO Box address business that you might not trust. Let's pick Galpharm, who produce cheap, generic ibuprofen tablets in a box of 16 for 35p.

Galpharm International, based in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, is the leading private label medicine supplier in the UK, now owned by Perrigo.

http://www.perrigouk.com/

Perrigo operate to the highest pharmaceutical GMP standards and is MHRA approved.

There is nothing dubious or dodgy about this company that would lead me to be suscpicious of its products over those of Pfizer, who make Advil. Why do you trust one more than the other?

[lomiller]

What you seem to be saying is that because it comes from a more well-known company, who are advertising their brand of ibuprofen on telly and charging more for it, then their product is more likely to have more rigorous quality control and can be trusted more than a lesser-known, cheaper brand that has no expensive marketing.

When a brand name has quality issues like Toyota last year or legal issues like BP will face due to the recent Gulf oil spill it becomes common knowledge fairly quickly and more prominent brands generally faces tighter regulatory scrutiny. Consumers are far more likely to know about issues with a name brand product then a generic, and this contributes to the price they are willing to pay.


There is nothing dubious or dodgy about this company that would lead me to be suscpicious of its products over those of Pfizer, who make Advil. Why do you trust one more than the other?
You continue to make the same error. Whether the products are truly identical or not is irrelevant the price defence comes from how readily information is available for the two products and the fact that the average person is more likely to have heard if there were quality issues with the brand name product.

Consider the case where someone buys a new car, drives it home then wants to return it to the dealership. It’s exactly the same vehicle they bought, but it’s worth considerably less because anyone buying needs to consider the possibility that the first owner learned something about that particular vehicle that made it less valuable to them then it was only an hour earlier. They price this uncertainty into what they are willing to pay, and the price for which the car can be bought drops by thousands of dollars. This occurs even if the vehicle were exactly identical to the ones still on the lot and the first owner didn’t learn anything negative about it.

[Stray Cat]

You continue to make the same error. Whether the products are truly identical or not is irrelevant the price defence comes from how readily information is available for the two products and the fact that the average person is more likely to have heard if there were quality issues with the brand name product.
You continue to make the same error by not acknowledging that it is the packaging, marketing and advertising of brand name good that makes them more expensive. The customer is much more likely to be taken in by packaging and brand name (by virtue of their telly ads) than they are to be aware of "how readily information is available".
These people are stupid and deserve to pay more for a product which is the same as the much cheaper generic drug right next to it on the shelf.

Consider the case where someone buys a new car, drives it home then wants to return it to the dealership. It’s exactly the same vehicle they bought, but it’s worth considerably less because anyone buying needs to consider the possibility that the first owner learned something about that particular vehicle that made it less valuable to them then it was only an hour earlier. They price this uncertainty into what they are willing to pay, and the price for which the car can be bought drops by thousands of dollars. This occurs even if the vehicle were exactly identical to the ones still on the lot and the first owner didn’t learn anything negative about it.
We aren't talking about buying a car, we're talking about buying branded versus generic drugs.
I'm not aware of any generic cars on the market, I think they are all branded.

[23_Tauri]

When a brand name has quality issues like Toyota last year or legal issues like BP will face due to the recent Gulf oil spill it becomes common knowledge fairly quickly and more prominent brands generally faces tighter regulatory scrutiny. Consumers are far more likely to know about issues with a name brand product then a generic, and this contributes to the price they are willing to pay.
No, more prominent brands don't face tighter regulatory control. All medicines in the UK are subject to the same controls, as I've pointed out. Now you're telling me that consumers don’t buy lesser known brand (because the cheap ones are still a brand, just not a household name brand) because they think that company might have been the subject of a lawsuit in the past that they haven’t heard about, but if Pfizer was sued then they’d know about it? This seems pretty ridiculous to me, particularly in view of the fact that most people who buy Advil couldn’t tell you who owns the brand anyway. No, they buy Advil because they’ve seen in on the telly and because marketing works. Why else would Pfizer have the world’s 25th largest advertising expenditure? Because they know it makes people buy their product not the next one which is cheaper but the same.

http://www.adbrands.net/us/pfizer_us.htm

Advertising Age estimated global measured advertising expenditure of $1.5bn in 2008 (including Wyeth), making Pfizer the world's #25 advertiser.

You continue to make the same error. Whether the products are truly identical or not is irrelevant the price defence comes from how readily information is available for the two products and the fact that the average person is more likely to have heard if there were quality issues with the brand name product.
If these issues were important to the consumer Pfizer would be spending a good chunk of that $1.5 billion on telling people about the quality of their product, how the manufacturing process produce a consistent, pure product. But they don’t. They spend it on telling them that it will get rid of their headache faster than anything they’ve ever tried before because this is what the consumer cares about. The consumer is taken in by the advertising message and thinks that Advil will cure a headache faster than cheap, unknown brand ibuprofen.

Consider the case where someone buys a new car, drives it home then wants to return it to the dealership. It’s exactly the same vehicle they bought, but it’s worth considerably less because anyone buying needs to consider the possibility that the first owner learned something about that particular vehicle that made it less valuable to them then it was only an hour earlier. They price this uncertainty into what they are willing to pay, and the price for which the car can be bought drops by thousands of dollars. This occurs even if the vehicle were exactly identical to the ones still on the lot and the first owner didn’t learn anything negative about it.
What Stray Cat said. You’re comparing apples with oranges, Iomiller. That cars lose a chunk of their value the moment they’re driven off the forecourt is a unique case. It’s not because something might be wrong with the vehicle and the customer is taking a risk because there are warranties on used cars to cover that. If it goes wrong they can take it back to the dealer in exactly the same way a customer can take a brand new car back to the dealer. It’s all to do with the kudos of owning a brand new car, sitting on those leather seats knowing no-one else’s butt has sat on them, etc etc. The moment a car is even 6 months old, even if under a full warranty from the dealer, the value will have dropped because it no longer has that caché of being a new car.

[ZirconBlue]

The only argument I hear is "convenience". But it's only convenient (and barely so) if you ignore most of the equation. It's certainly not convenient to ship water around in trucks burning fossil fuels rather than using existing pipelines. It's not convenient to dispose of the bottles (even by recycling them) compared to not. And it's not convenient for me to have to pick up the litter all the time.

I don't buy bottled water often, but when I do, it is certainly more convenient for me to just toss the bottle in the trash/recycling bin than to tote and empty re-usable bottle back home and wash it.

The stupid tax is the added cost (double) that the idiots pay:

Boots Value 200mg ibuprofen tablets pack of 16 = £0.36 = 2.25p per tablet
Advil 200mg Bottle of 325 tablets = £16.95 = 5.2p per tablet

I buy generics of almost all drugs that I can. Advil, though, I will buy if it's on sale, because the coating is smoother and less nasty-tasting than that on the generic ibuprofen.


With respect I think it is you that is making the assumption that people don’t know what the active ingredient in Advil is, because you are saying that the additional cost of Advil over a non-branded ibuprofen tablet is worth it. I am saying that anyone who can read can work out what the active ingredient is and its dosage because there’s only one listed on the side of the box.

Nevertheless, I suspect that few Americans [ETA: I know that this is an International forum, but I didn't want to presume to speak about people in other countries, so I'm restricting my comment to just Americans.] know what the active ingredient in Advil is, because most of them won't even bother to read that part of the label. My wife knows that Tylenol doesn't bother her stomach, but Advil does. Nevertheless she still can't ever seem to remember that the former is acetaminophen, and the latter is ibuprofen.

On the other hand, most stores that sell them now, typically have the generic equivalent right next to the name brand product, with similar-colored packaging*, and a note on the front of the box saying "compare to Advil". And sometimes have additional shelf tags showing the price comparison between the generic and name-brand versions.


People are stupid, basically.






*I find it amusing that, while Advil and Motrin have the same active ingredient (ibuprofen), the generic companies will make generic versions of both. Same active ingredient, but cosmetic differences to the tablets and packages, so that they look similar to each of the name brand products.

[FattyCatty]

Where am I complaining that there should be no price difference?
Of course there should be a price difference. It costs money to design and print glossy packaging and it costs money to advertise and market a brand... that is the only place where the price difference is justified as the active ingredients are exactly the same.

I'm not sure that this is always the case; doesn't it also cost money for R&D to develop or discover new drugs? This is a cost the patent holder assumes that the generic manufacturer doesn't have.

That said, I also buy generics, even without the confidence in the U.S. regulatory agency you seem to enjoy in the U.K.;)

[Dr. Keith]

I buy generics of almost all drugs that I can. Advil, though, I will buy if it's on sale, because the coating is smoother and less nasty-tasting than that on the generic ibuprofen.

Why are they the only ones who use the M&M coating?

I always buy Generic when I can, but occasionally I'll buy some Advil on the road or at an airport where my choices are limited and it is a tasty reminder of how much better the Advil coating is than any other drug I have ever taken. Well, those stamps you just lick . . . but that was totally different.

[23_Tauri]

I'm not sure that this is always the case; doesn't it also cost money for R&D to develop or discover new drugs? This is a cost the patent holder assumes that the generic manufacturer doesn't have.
But isn't it the case that the company that manufactures a new drug holds on to the patent for a number of years so that they can charge a premium, thereby recouping the cost of their R&D? They then lose the patent, allowing any company to manufacture that drug. Ibuprofen isn't a new drug, which is why no-one holds the patent and anyone can manufacture it and put it on the shelves. Therefore the added cost of Advil or Nurofen must be because of advertising and marketing, not R&D.

[ZirconBlue]

Why are they the only ones who use the M&M coating?

If you ever find out, let me know. They also have that M&M shape, while the generics are more of a regular pill shape.

[Stray Cat]

If you ever find out, let me know. They also have that M&M shape, while the generics are more of a regular pill shape.
Here in the UK, ASDA (owned by Walmart) has a generic ibuprofen that has a sweet, smooth coating, that makes it easy to swallow. Their paracetamol on the other hand doesn't. But still... swallowing a slightly rough pill is often more pleasant than suffering from the pain you are trying to rid yourself of.

ETA: And much easier when helped along by a nice cool glass of tap water... no need for special pill swallowing water out of a bottle :D.

[Babbylonian]

Question: What are you folks who "taste the difference" doing with your pills? Apart from someone who has an esophageal stricture or a swallowing dysfunction, medications should go down the throat faster than they can be tasted, especially if taken with water (which is always a good idea).

On bottled water: In most parts of the US with water treatment plants and the like, bottled water is a silly luxury item; "silly" because, as many have said, the bottled water just came out of someone else's tap instead of your own, and if the home water doesn't taste right then that's a reason to install a filter and/or call a plumber. For portability, a bottle made of good plastic or metal can last for years instead of loading landfills with cheap plastic bottles (the recycling percentages aren't great with plastic).

As for using the same argument against sodas and the like, well, at least you can't get those from your home faucet for less than pennies.

On branded versus generic drugs: If you live in a modern, industrialized country, spending extra on brand-name drugs when generic equivalents are available is silly. If you don't trust the FDA (or its local equivalent) to regulate generics, there's no reason to trust them to regulate the brand names; this is particularly true since the manufacturer of each generic drug likely also manufactures and sells other, branded drugs.

[lomiller]

You continue to make the same error by not acknowledging that it is the packaging, marketing and advertising of brand name good that makes them more expensive.
Incorrect, the name brand costs more because they can sell it for that price. The reason they can sell it for that price is that the typical consumer has more insight into what they are buying with name brand products.

No, more prominent brands don't face tighter regulatory control..


Regulators always target the larger, higher profile producers for investigation much more often then smaller, lower profile producers.


If these issues were important to the consumer Pfizer would be spending a good chunk of that $1.5 billion on telling people about the quality of their product, how the manufacturing process produce a consistent, pure product. But they don’t. They spend it on telling them that it will get rid of their headache faster than anything they’ve ever tried before because this is what the consumer cares about.
Again you continue to miss the point entirely. This is about information not product quality. As an aside more “proof the product quality is comparable” only serves to highlight the importance of information in consumer price points.

This seems pretty ridiculous to me, particularly in view of the fact that most people who buy Advil couldn’t tell you who owns the brand anyway.
Advil is a recognisable brand in it’s own right.

[Babbylonian]

Incorrect, the name brand costs more because they can sell it for that price. The reason they can sell it for that price is that the typical consumer has more insight into what they are buying with name brand products.
No, they really don't, not if they're buying brand-name Advil versus generic ibuprofen. All they really have is more exposure to advertising for Advil, Motrin, Tylenol, Excedrin, Bayer, etc. That's not "insight," that's "indoctrination."

[lomiller]

That's not "insight,"

So you think a quality condole issue in a generic will receive the exact same amount of public attention as would a similar problem in a name brand?

[Stray Cat]

Incorrect, the name brand costs more because they can sell it for that price.
The only reason they can sell it for the higher price is because people are too stupid to realise it's no different from the generic version. They see ads for it, recognise the brand name and packaging and pick it up without looking at the generic version.

Regulators always target the larger, higher profile producers for investigation much more often then smaller, lower profile producers.
And you'll have some proof of this?
You think that the same companies who produce brands don't also produce generics for other suppliers?

Advil is a recognisable brand in it’s own right
Maybe but there is no company called Advil for the regulatory bodies to investigate, therefore if they messed up a batch, who would know that an investigation and fine for Pfizer Inc is connected to that particular brand?
Not the stupid consumer who only buys it because they saw it on telly and doesn't understand that the generic does the same job just as effectively.

[Babbylonian]

So you think a quality condole issue in a generic will receive the exact same amount of public attention as would a similar problem in a name brand?
Given that I've seen recalls of generic drugs discussed in the news, yes.

Why? Have a lot of people been sickened/killed by generic drugs that I haven't heard about? Are you aware of some insidious regulatory problem that results in generic drugs not being publicly recalled when something is found to be wrong with the manufacturing process?

If you have that kind of information, it's wrong of you not to share it.

[lomiller]

The only reason they can sell it for the higher price is because people are too stupid to realise it's no different from the generic version.

No they can sell it for a higher price because there is more uncertainty associated with the generic. The consumer can either spend time researching in order to reduce this uncertainty or they can pay more for the name brand. You may feel it’s “stupid” to chose the latter, but I’m not particularly interested in discussing your feelings.

[ZirconBlue]

Here in the UK, ASDA (owned by Walmart) has a generic ibuprofen that has a sweet, smooth coating, that makes it easy to swallow.

Interesting. Unfortunately not true of any of the various generics I've tried here.

Their paracetamol on the other hand doesn't. But still... swallowing a slightly rough pill is often more pleasant than suffering from the pain you are trying to rid yourself of.

Of course. That's why I'll only buy the name brand when it's on sale.

ETA: And much easier when helped along by a nice cool glass of tap water... no need for special pill swallowing water out of a bottle :D.

:D

Question: What are you folks who "taste the difference" doing with your pills?

I (A) put it in my mouth, and then (2) drink water to wash it down. In step (A) the pill is in contact with my tongue, and, therefore, I can taste it. If it's vile tasting, like uncoated aspirin, the taste may linger even after step (2). Advil have a slightly sweet coating, but, too me, the more important feature is that it is smoother and easier to swallow.


Apart from someone who has an esophageal stricture or a swallowing dysfunction, medications should go down the throat faster than they can be tasted, especially if taken with water (which is always a good idea).


I don't have any of those issues, as far as I know. Maybe I can just taste things faster than you can. (Fastest Taste Buds in the West!) Also, it's not uncommon for rougher textured pills to leave an unpleasant sensation in my throat. It feels like the pill is stuck in there, but I believe it's probably just rubbed me the wrong way.



As for using the same argument against sodas and the like, well, at least you can't get those from your home faucet for less than pennies.

I bought some "root beer concentrate" to make homemade root beer this week. Haven't tried it yet, though.

[lomiller]

Given that I've seen recalls of generic drugs discussed in the news, yes.

And of course you know of the top of your head who made the generic in question? If not you are proving my point for me and even if you do you are not proving your own point because that's a silly peice of tivia. Most people have more important things to worry about.

[Stray Cat]

So you think a quality condole issue in a generic will receive the exact same amount of public attention as would a similar problem in a name brand?
As the brand names regularly have many more non active ingredients, they would be much more likely to suffer from quality control issues.

Inactive ingredients in Advil:
Acetylated monoglycerides, colloidal silicon dioxide, cornstarch, croscarmellose sodium, methylparaben, microcrystalline cellulose, pharmaceutical glaze, pharmaceutical ink, povidone, pregelatinized starch, propylparaben, sodium benzoate, sodium lauryl sulfate, stearic acid, sucrose, synthetic iron oxide, titanium dioxide and white wax

Inactive ingredients in generic ibuprofen:
Typically talc or carnauba wax

And yet the two tablets do exactly the same thing with the exact same effect.

[Babbylonian]

And of course you know of the top of your head who made the generic in question?
Nope.
If not you are proving my point for me and even if you do you are not proving your own point because that's a silly peice of tivia. Most people have more important things to worry about.
So, you ask the question then immediately regard any potential answer as a "silly piece of [trivia]." In other words, you're saying that it doesn't matter who manufactured the pill. Thanks for ending this conversation in agreement with the rest of us. I'm sure you'll enjoy the savings over ridiculous brand-name prices!

By the by, I can't remember (probably because ibuprofen has been available generically for so long) once being prescribed Advil or Motrin by a doctor. I have, on the other hand, been prescribed ibuprofen several times. Clearly, my physicians haven't cared enough about my health to prescribe me the good drugs.

[Stray Cat]

No they can sell it for a higher price because there is more uncertainty associated with the generic.
Well I think I can prove the effectiveness of advertising and branding (I've been in the business for over 20 years), I think you'd have trouble proving that people are suffering from uncertainty with the generic.
Much more likely they are simply unaware that it is essentially the same product with the same end result.

The consumer can either spend time researching in order to reduce this uncertainty or they can pay more for the name brand.
Yes, they pay more for the brand they know... and they only know it because it is advertised on telly and they recognise it by it's strong branding and packaging.

You may feel it’s “stupid” to chose the latter, but I’m not particularly interested in discussing your feelings.
Then why did you even join the discussion? You joined in as a result of someone suggesting a "Stupid Tax" on consumers who purchase branded drugs.
Since then you have been the defender of the stupid... and a fine job you're doing there.

[X]

Do the bottles get recycled or just sent to the dump?


They get sent to recycling.

[23_Tauri]

Regulators always target the larger, higher profile producers for investigation much more often then smaller, lower profile producers.
Evidence?
Page 7 of MHRA Brochure Medicines and Devices Regulation (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=CON2031677&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest)
The MHRA licenses and authorises:
• Different brands of existing medicines
• Generics (identical but cheaper versionsof existing branded medicines)
There's no targeting of larger, higher profile companies or products. They are all treated the same. I hope that the FDA, or whoever, does the same in the USA.

Again you continue to miss the point entirely. This is about information not product quality. As an aside more “proof the product quality is comparable” only serves to highlight the importance of information in consumer price points.
Yes, it is about information, you're right there. It's about the information that people get through advertising, which is a specific message tailored to make people buy a product.

Anyway, earlier you were stressing that it was about quality, because you were suggesting that people buy the brand names they've seen on the telly because they can be assured of the quality, which they can't with the generic versions.

Advil is a recognisable brand in it’s own right.
You're moving the goalposts. You were talking about companies facing litigation. Toyota and BP were the examples you gave. Advil is not a company. If Pfizer were found to be in breach of the law and it hit the evening news hardly anyone would make automatically know that they make Advil. These are the people who don't read the active ingredients on the packet. You think they're researching the company behind the brand? (Particularly hard to keep up with in pharms because they're forever in takeovers and buying out their competitors) :)

[23_Tauri]

As the brand names regularly have many more non active ingredients, they would be much more likely to suffer from quality control issues.

Inactive ingredients in Advil:
Acetylated monoglycerides, colloidal silicon dioxide, cornstarch, croscarmellose sodium, methylparaben, microcrystalline cellulose, pharmaceutical glaze, pharmaceutical ink, povidone, pregelatinized starch, propylparaben, sodium benzoate, sodium lauryl sulfate, stearic acid, sucrose, synthetic iron oxide, titanium dioxide and white wax

Inactive ingredients in generic ibuprofen:
Typically talc or carnauba wax

And yet the two tablets do exactly the same thing with the exact same effect.
Yeah, and at least with the generic ibuprofen you're rest assured you're not getting all the nasty stuff alongside it. Eek! :eek:

Pharmaceutical ink? Is that so they can write 'Advil' on the pills with their pharmaceutical pens?

[katy_did]

No they can sell it for a higher price because there is more uncertainty associated with the generic. The consumer can either spend time researching in order to reduce this uncertainty or they can pay more for the name brand. You may feel it’s “stupid” to chose the latter, but I’m not particularly interested in discussing your feelings.

I'm just not sure you're right that people feel "more uncertainty" about a generic brand, at least for any logical reason (as opposed to buying a brand name because 'I saw it on TV and the lady's headache got better really quickly'). I buy generic brands where the content of the tablets is identical, and I can't say it's ever occurred to me that they might not contain what it says on the packet. If anything, I tend to think of the generics as being an unadorned version of the brand names, without the sugar coating.

[23_Tauri]

If anything, I tend to think of the generics as being an unadorned version of the brand names, without the sugar coating.
....and without the 'won't do anything for your headache symptoms' acetylated monoglycerides, colloidal silicon dioxide, cornstarch, croscarmellose sodium, methylparaben, microcrystalline cellulose, pharmaceutical glaze, pharmaceutical ink, povidone, pregelatinized starch, propylparaben, sodium benzoate, sodium lauryl sulfate, stearic acid, sucrose, synthetic iron oxide, titanium dioxide and white wax, as Stray Cat has pointed out.

With that list, maybe you're quite glad you went for the generic one, right, katy_did? :D

[Foolmewunz]

Generic vs Private Branding(PB)

If you go into CVS and are a regular, you are far more likely to trust the CVS PB ibuprofen than the Bob's Madvil brand. Especially when Bob's and CVS' both sell for $12 for 100 tablets and Advil or Motrin are about triple that price.

(Generics under PB are no longer thought of as the inferior alternative that we all associated with the black and white label aisle in the supermarket. A large retailer I work with has found that they can sell their own PB copy paper at similar or higher prices to Hammermill (with no middle man) because their customers are loyal to their store and to their unconditional guarantee - you don't like it? Return it. No questions asked. )

Getting this back to bottled water, that's why Watson's in Hong Kong outsells Bonaqua. Watson's is a Walgreen's/Boots type chain, and their customers associate their name with health/beauty/pharma. Getting into bottled water was a marketing stroke of genius. It was originally a PB only in their own stores (and Park N'Shop, the supermarkets owned by the same company). Now it's got its own brand and Watsons Water is in every store. People seek it out. Offices get it delivered. Households, too.


ETA: I haven't been in a CVS in years because I'm over here, but their PB had the M&M type coating. It was red and circular. (I have a history of really bad teeth and lived on the stuff!)