Sugar is a weirdly emotional business. When you walk into a corner shop and see your favorite chocolate bar looking just a little bit thinner or costing twenty pence more, it feels personal. People get genuinely angry about it. But the story of the Mars Bar and the legendary supply chain collapses of the 1970s and 80s isn't just about corporate greed or "shrinkflation"—it’s actually a messy, chaotic look at how global politics, labor strikes, and the price of cocoa beans almost broke the world’s most famous sweet.
Most people don't realize that Mars, Incorporated is one of the most secretive companies on the planet. Based in McLean, Virginia, the Mars family has historically avoided the press like the plague. No public shares. No quarterly earnings calls for us to dissect. This secrecy is why, when the Mars Bar changed or disappeared from shelves during the industrial unrest of the late 20th century, the rumors went wild. People thought they were being cheated.
Honestly, the truth was much more boring but also more stressful for the folks in the factories.
What Really Happened with the Mars Bar and the Sugar Crisis
In 1974, the world went through a sugar shock. Prices didn't just go up; they exploded. We are talking about a 400% increase in a single year. For a company like Mars, which relies on massive volumes of sugar and milk, this was a disaster. You’ve likely heard your grandparents talk about how "everything was better in the old days," but in 1974, candy manufacturers were literally panicking because they couldn't secure the raw materials to keep the lines running.
The Mars Bar became a symbol of the UK's economic struggle. While the US version of the bar (which is actually more like a Milky Way) was doing fine, the British Mars Bar—the one with the thick malt nougat and caramel—faced a supply chain nightmare.
Then came the strikes.
The Slough Factory Tension
The Slough trading estate in England is the spiritual home of the British Mars Bar. It’s a massive, sprawling complex. During the "Winter of Discontent" and various labor disputes in the late 70s, the production of sweets wasn't seen as an "essential service" like electricity or trash collection. When the trucks stopped moving, the chocolate stopped flowing.
It wasn't just about the money. It was about the ingredients.
👉 See also: Why Amazon Stock is Down Today: What Most People Get Wrong
Mars has always maintained a "five principles" philosophy: Quality, Responsibility, Mutuality, Efficiency, and Freedom. But it’s hard to have "Efficiency" when the port workers are on strike and your shipment of Ecuadorian cocoa beans is rotting on a dock. This led to the first major instances of what we now call shrinkflation. Instead of raising the price to a level that would alienate working-class families, Mars—and their rivals like Rowntree and Cadbury—started tweaking the weight.
You weren't imagining it. The bar actually did get smaller.
The Recipe Mystery: Why Does It Taste Different?
If you talk to a chocolate purist, they’ll swear the Mars Bar changed forever in the 90s. They aren't entirely wrong, though it wasn't a "secret conspiracy" to ruin your childhood. It was a response to health regulations and the shifting cost of vegetable fats versus cocoa butter.
Cocoa butter is the most expensive part of the bean. If you can replace even a tiny percentage of it with palm oil or other vegetable fats, you save millions. Mars has been more protective of their recipe than most, but they haven't been immune to the pressure.
- 1980s: The bar was substantial, heavy on the malt.
- 2002: The "re-launch" saw the bar become lighter and the nougat fluffier.
- 2008: The weight dropped from 62.5g to 58g.
- 2013: It dropped again to 51g.
People noticed. They hated it. The "shrinkage" was a business necessity to keep the "under a pound" price point that retailers demanded. It's a psychological game. You’d rather pay 80p for a 51g bar than £1.20 for a 60g bar, even if the math says you're getting a worse deal.
The Great Deep-Fried Mars Bar Myth
We can't talk about the Mars Bar without mentioning the Scottish tradition of battering and frying them. This started in the Haven Chip Bar (now the Carron) in Stonehaven, Scotland, around 1992.
What’s fascinating is that Mars, Inc. actually hated this. They didn't want their brand associated with a heart-attack-on-a-plate. In 2012, they famously wrote to the shop asking them to put a disclaimer on the menu stating that deep-frying the bar was "not authorized or endorsed" by Mars.
✨ Don't miss: Stock Market Today Hours: Why Timing Your Trade Is Harder Than You Think
It was a PR nightmare. It made the company look like a "corporate buzzkill."
But from a business perspective, they were terrified of liability. If someone has a stroke after eating a deep-fried Mars bar, the lawyers wanted to make sure the Mars family's multi-billion dollar fortune was protected. It shows the massive divide between a local "sweet story" and the cold, hard reality of global brand management.
Comparing the Mars Bar Across Borders
If you travel, you know that a Mars Bar isn't always a Mars Bar. It’s confusing.
In the United States, what you call a Mars Bar (if you can find one, as they were discontinued and then brought back as a "limited" item) is often a "Milky Way" in the UK. Meanwhile, the American "Milky Way" is more like the UK "3 Musketeers."
Confused yet? You should be.
This naming convention happened because Forrest Mars Sr. had a massive falling out with his father, Frank C. Mars. Forrest moved to England with £5,000 and the recipe for the Milky Way. He tweaked it—making it sweeter and more suited to the British palate—and branded it the Mars Bar. He basically built a rival empire out of spite.
The British Mars Bar actually has more "character" according to most tasters. It uses a different milk processing method (often called "chocolate crumb") which gives it a slightly caramelized, cooked-milk flavor that the American versions lack.
🔗 Read more: Kimberly Clark Stock Dividend: What Most People Get Wrong
Why the Mars Bar Still Wins
Despite the strikes, the shrinking size, and the health critics, the Mars Bar remains a juggernaut. It’s because of the "glucose hit."
In the 1930s, it was marketed as a meal replacement. "A Mars a day helps you work, rest, and play." That slogan lasted for decades because it tapped into the idea that sugar is fuel. In reality, it’s a massive spike of simple carbohydrates followed by a crash, but for a factory worker in 1950, that spike was the highlight of the shift.
Today, the company is trying to pivot. They’re talking about "carbon neutral" cocoa and sustainable farming. They have to. The modern consumer cares more about the ethics of the cocoa bean than the strikers in Slough did in 1978.
The Actionable Truth for Consumers
If you're a fan of sweets, you have to be a smart shopper. The story of the Mars Bar teaches us three things about the future of the candy aisle:
- Watch the Grams, Not the Price: Inflation is often hidden in the packaging. If the price stays the same, check the weight. You're likely paying more for less.
- Regional Differences Matter: If you find the current British Mars Bar too "waxy," try to find a European version or an import. Different factories use different fat compositions depending on local temperature and regulations.
- The "Multipack" Trap: Often, Mars Bars in a 4-pack are significantly smaller (sometimes 40g) than the "single" bars sold at the till. Always check the price per 100g on the shelf label.
The Mars Bar survived the 70s sugar crisis and the 80s labor wars. It’ll survive the current health trends, too. It’s just too deeply embedded in our collective sugar cravings to disappear. Just don't expect it to get any bigger. Those days are long gone.
To get the most value, always look for the "Giant" or "Duo" bars. Usually, the price-per-gram on these is about 15-20% better than the standard single bar, provided you don't eat both halves in one sitting—though we all know that's easier said than done. Check the labels for "Cocoa Horizons" or "Fairtrade" stamps if you want to ensure your sugar fix isn't contributing to the very supply chain issues that caused the original 1970s shortages.