As a journalist covering consumer goods companies for Wall Street Journalthe Saabira chaudhuri began to investigate the way in which the plastics Bottles converted the market bottled waterby a casual luxury in a restaurant, in a daily good. But this change had a heavy price: More disposable plastics in landfill.

In search of the story deeper, he discovered that companies such as Coca-Cola Co., Pepsico Inc. and Nestlé Sa They have been aware of the problem for decades. Chaudhuri began to watch how plastic waste became so widespread and why they insist, despite the public outcry.

Her book, Consumed: How Big Brands Got Us Horated on Plastic (‘Consumed: How the Big Brands got us in the plastic“), Released in the US on October 7th. OR Saabira chaudhuri answers questions about the scourge of plastic waste.

You argue that the root of the problem is the “consumable” mentality that garbage became a business model, not by -product.

After World War II, the industry made a deliberate shift. Lloyd Stouffer, an important figure in the industry, had said openly that plastics had to move from durable consumable products, because companies make more money by selling thousands of times than one.

Thus, the industry “sold” us the idea of ​​hygiene, convenience, modernism, and even feminism, less ironing, easier cooking. Some of these advantages have really improved life, so we should not demonize plastics as a whole. But the companies saw the trash accumulate and largely ignored them.

In the book you refer to battles for plastic food boxes and disposable diapers. Why are these examples important?

The McDonald’s case in the late 1980s seemed like a victory for activists: the company abandoned polyester boxes. But the victory was empty. He just replaced them with disposable paper boxes, which are also not easily recycled when soaked with fats and food. The basic business model of convenience remained intact.

As for diapers, the consumables became so deeply rooted that the fabric choices are now considered impossible. We often forget that there was an old mansion model, the companies were collecting, washed and returned the diapers. This reuse model disappeared. The plastics helped die, and when lost, the consumables became the only choice.

Companies do not want to seem to have their promises. Why can’t they solve the problem?

Because they have built whole businesses on consumable use. To undo it, they would have to start from the beginning, which they will not do unless the legislation obliges everyone to move together.

Executives admit that if they launch a reusable or concentrated product, but their competitors do not, they lose market share and are forced to return to the old model. Public companies are afraid of shareholders’ reaction if they act on their own. That is why the adjustment is necessary as it equates the field.

Do you see alternative materials as a solution?

Partially, but not on their own. We need to return to the model of reuse and reduction of the packaging, not just change material. The paper has an environmental footprint. “Biodegradable” plastics are often a greenwashing, they do not decompose in the burial areas, or if they do, they release methane.

Infrastructure also plays a role. Composting systems for biodegradable plastics do not exist in the US. Therefore, new materials only help if accompanied by systems that can process them.

What about recycling? Is there an easy solution?

An unrecognized step is the standardization of the packaging. Today, colored plastics, such as red shampoo bottles or green detergent containers, cannot be recycled in a closed circle. On the contrary, they are degraded in gray products, such as pipes.

If each detergent bottle was white and every bottle of shampoo transparent, the recycling economy would improve spectacularly.

Everyone in the industry knows it, but companies resist. The brand, add -on chemicals and secrecy around the composition of materials are obstructed. Yes, recycling could work better, but only if companies are making collective changes.

What do you hope for readers to get?

Three basic things:

Focus on consumer goods companies. Petroleum and resin producers are distant, but brands such as Coca-Cola or Procter & Gamble are at the forefront. They decide how the products are packaged and they care deeply about what consumers think. Public pressure can push them.

The arrangement is critical. The responsibility of the producer, the reuse objectives and the obligations of waste reduction are necessary. Europe is preceded, but even in the US, state laws can have a broader effect, as has been the case with earlier environmental reforms.

Health can change the discussion. People may accept higher values ​​or less ease if they see that plastics are associated with infertility, cancer or other risks. Unlike the abstract concept of “waste”, health touches all political aspects.

So don’t you say we can live completely without plastic?

No, plastics are deeply integrated into modern life and often for good reason. But the idea that we cannot live without disposable products is a constructed narrative. We lived differently for decades. Remembering this story may help us imagine a future less dependent on the culture of “Throw it and go down”.