So this is never going to fly then. Why would a food company use this coating at all? It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company.
Consumer convenience is a competitive advantage. Once people get used to slippery-coated bottles, they'll avoid products without it.
Unless, of course, the bottles are so slippery that people inadvertently pour a lot more ketchup than they used to. That would be a million tons of food wasted = more money for Heinz.
It's sick.
But I keep wondering - why no one in this industry seems to be trying to be good and use it as a marketing advantage? "We do not try to make profits on stealing from you by wasting materials and energy like everyone else out there". I'd definitely try to buy as much as I could from such company.
Modern farming is more harmful to the area being farmed, but takes significantly less land to produce the same food which in theory means you can let more land go fallow (wild). As to profit margins farming in the US is only profitable though subsidy's so that's just a question of government incentives.
PS: Not that I actually shop for organic food, but it's not completely irrational behavior to do so.
Regulatory limits are often based on immediate observable effects. Delayed hard-to-observe problems tend to be ignored. See the toxicity of organophosphates and COPIND, and the history of its regulation (when regulations were enforced; when the upper limit was revised to consider the problems of COPIND). There are research results that suggest some Americans have a sufficiently high dietary intake of pesticides to affect their lives.
Furthermore, for many pesticides, there's no way for the policy makers and public to estimate its toxicity, because research is often suppressed, dissemination of toxicity information is often suppressed, policy change is often suppressed, etc. It's a well-established problem with the political-economy of America.
In many less-developed-countries, MNCs like Monsanto and Bayer have used aggressive and deceptive sales techniques and misrepresentation of product toxicity to persuade farmers to use pesticides far in excess (over 100 times the level of) of regulatory limits in the US. These products do get exported. Search for such news and policy discussions in India and China.
Lastly, pesticides don't "often" break down into chemicals similar, in biological activity, to estrogen. Pesticides can cause quick death, physical deformities in fetuses and young children, autism, epilepsy, mental retardation, cancer, organ failure, rashes, ulcers, can be used in biological warfare, etc. Some pesticides take decades to breakdown; Some pesticides have metabolites that are extremely toxic. Do refer to toxicity and metabolism research and data when evaluating the health risks of pesticide exposure and consumption, and/or consult an expert with little conflict of interest.
PS: Organic farm allows the use of (some classes of) pesticides as well.
No, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume we have a vastly different view on what small quantities entails. You have farmers who are basically drenched in the stuff and then the general public who get's 1/1000th of those doses. Most of the time toxicity is not a linear relationship, feel free to go swim in a vat of phosphoric acid an ingredient in Coca-Cola Soda Syrup if you survive feel free to report back to me on what that was like.
There is usually a laundry list of pressing consumer needs with associated costs, balanced against market share numbers (usually culled from Nielson data) and satisfying power distribution channel partners.
The non-stick coating is, afaik, not high on the list of consumer demands for Heinz ketchup.