Not a week goes by that I’m not yelling at my son about eating snacks in his bedroom. Initially, I wasn’t opposed to the idea, but after years of finding stale and rotted food underneath his bed and behind his furniture, I finally put my foot down (getting fresh wall-to-wall carpeting installed also prompted the dictate).
Nevertheless, whenever I enter his room, I still discover the remnants of his discarded feasts (his subtle attempts at hiding his activities are not impressive). Hard candy is one of his biggest weaknesses, particularly Jolly Ranchers and Life Savers. I didn’t think this generation was familiar with these confections, but my son seems to have a constant supply on hand. Personally, I’m not a fan. There was a time many years ago, but I don’t think I’ve put a Life Saver in my mouth in over three decades.
Recently, I was at a business meeting where a safety director gave a presentation that mentioned Life Savers, boasting that the candy was developed after a man lost a child to choking. Apparently, the man was so distraught about the senseless loss of his son that he vowed no other child should die in a similar way. Therefore, he created a candy with a hole in it, so if a person were choking, they could still get air into their lungs.
I had never heard this claim and was fascinated by the story. Part of me actually felt terrible, given that I had accosted my own child for simply having the candy in his possession.
As I was driving home from the meeting, I started contemplating whether a candy lodged in someone’s throat would be less harmful if it contained a tiny hole. Something told me that it was an unrealistic claim. When I got home, I jumped online and started to research the assertion. It didn’t take long to discover the truth.
In reality, a candy maker, Clarence Crane from Cleveland, Ohio, created the idea for Life Savers in 1912. The loss of a child did not prompt the idea, nor was Crane looking for a solution to choking. He was in the business of making chocolate, but he faced a problem: chocolate sales plummeted during the summer months due to the heat. Crane needed a product that wouldn’t melt, so he turned to peppermint candy as an alternative.
At the time, most peppermint candies were imported and came in square-shaped mints. Looking for a way to stand out, Crane sought the help of a local pill manufacturer who used a special machine to create round tablets with a hole in the center. The resulting shape resembled a life preserver, a widely recognized symbol of safety (especially following the Titanic disaster that same year). This inspired Crane to name his new mints “Life Savers.”
Despite his creative idea, Crane lacked the facilities to mass-produce Life Savers. In 1913, he sold the formula and rights to a businessman named Edward Noble for just $2,900. Noble saw the potential and made a key marketing move by packaging the candies in foil-wrapped rolls instead of the standard cardboard tubes, keeping them fresh and easy to carry.
Noble also revolutionized candy sales by placing them near cash registers in stores, which is still a common marketing tactic today known as “point of purchase.” He aggressively advertised Life Savers as the “candy mint with the hole,” the brand quickly took off.
Initially, Life Savers only came in a peppermint flavor called Pep-O-Mint. Over time, new flavors like Wint-O-Green, Butter Rum, and the famous “Five Flavor” fruit mix were introduced. The brand expanded significantly, becoming one of America’s most iconic candies.
Today, Life Savers remain a beloved candy, known for their distinctive shape and variety of flavors. What started as a simple idea to create a heat-resistant mint became one of the most recognizable sweets in history.
This week’s feature, “Snow White,” wanted to be sweet. Its goal was to be sweet. It tried really hard to be sweet. But in the end, it just wasn’t sweet.
There was a time when I rooted for Disney. I deeply loved and appreciated the enterprise (I was even one of the original visitors to Disney World in Florida when it opened). But the once-grand company has lost its way, and it’s painfully apparent with its newest release.
The only good reason to attend this film is if you have kids in tow. Younger viewers won’t see through the choppy storyline and uninspired performances. Sure, there’s some admirable CGI, but no amount of special effects can make up for a lackluster storyline… something Disney was always the master of.
A sour “C-” for “Snow White,” now playing in theaters everywhere.
Got a question or comment for Dom? You can email him at [email protected].
