A Chinese research team based in Qingdao, Shandong province, is developing a new technology for food packaging that is expected to be ecologically friendly and pose no threat to people’s health.
Xu Jiachao, a professor at the College of Food Science and Engineering at Ocean University of China, led the research team. The team used alginate, an extract from brown algae, rather than plastic, to make food wrappers.
“The food wrapper can achieve 100 percent degradation in 6 to 12 months, without any environmental pollution,” said Xu, adding that it is also safe for people. It can endure temperatures ranging from -80 to 120 C.
Xu and his team started their research in 2012 and conducted tens of thousands of experiments. “Alginate is renewable and nontoxic, and has excellent film-forming properties when crosslinked by calcium ions. But it tends to be fragile,” said Xu, who has focused on research of marine creatures for many years.
Finally, the team added another ion and tried to make the new food wrapper stronger. They called it “double-ions film-forming technology” and have applied for a patent. “The technology still needs improving, and we will conduct more experiments,” Xu said.
Most food wrappers in the market to date are made from plastic.
In the end, Unilever’s recycled material will be used to produce a detergent bottle from 100 percent recycled plastic: an initiative unites five partners in Hamburg and shows how a recycling cycle can function regionally.
Stadtreinigung Hamburg, Veolia, Unilever, Budni and TU Hamburg have implemented a local recycling project. Hamburger Stadtreinigung collects the packaging waste in the recycling bin or „Gelber Sack” and delivers it to Veolia’s Hamburg sorting plant. There the waste is sorted and the plastic packaging required for the project, made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), is pressed into bales.
In another plant, the HDPE is sorted by colour, crushed, cleaned, processed and formed into regranulates. This recycled material is finally used by Unilever to produce a “Sieben Generationen” brand of detergent bottles. This is sold by the trading partner Budni. The plastic is used as product packaging before and after recycling, in a bottle-to-bottle cycle.
Little recycled material from the recycling bin so faf
Hamburg’s “Wertstoff Innovative” was launched by the five project partners in spring 2019. All processes are to be accompanied by extensive tests and inspections, in cooperation with the Technical University of Hamburg. The findings are to be used to optimize the sorting and recycling processes. The partners emphasize that packaging made from recycled material is increasingly coming onto the market. However, up to now mainly recyclates from the deposit-paid PET one-way bottle stream have been used.
On the other hand, there is hardly any packaging whose plastic comes exclusively from packaging waste from a region’s reusable bin and does not contain recycled materials from production or industrial waste. The challenge was, among other things, that the recyclate has some differences to virgin plastic: it smells different, it looks different, it behaves differently during processing. However, the project partners were able to show with scientific support that a new high-quality packaging can be created from high-quality recyclate.
Flint Group Packaging Inks has unveiled TerraCode, a water-based ink and coating range for paper and board packaging applications. TerraCode is available in three variations – Bio, Hybrid and Balance – which are derived from biorenewable resources. The new ink and coating family delivers competitive pH and viscosity stability for low press side ink maintenance.
“TerraCode inks can align well with end user storylines about greener, safer packaging. These inks have very low volatile organic compounds – sometimes none – and are easy to clean on press when compared to, for example, solvent-based inks,” Scott Mosley, Vice President of Technology, Packaging Inks North America, Flint Group, tells PackagingInsights.
“The storyline further improves when you start talking about water-based inks formulated with a high percentage of bio-renewable raw materials,” they continue. The “historical concern” related to water-based inks centers around ink handling, press speeds and drying can, therefore, become “a thing of the past” with the right training and formulating, says Mosley.
To maintain pH and viscosity stability, Flint takes a twofold approach. First, the company takes advantage of using best in class raw materials which inherently help keep critical properties in ink technologies. Besides that, Flint employs world-class field service technicians that provide insight into today’s on-press requirements to ensure seamless press runs.
Challenges along the way The R&D process was not as seamless as it appears to be, Mosley acknowledges. “The biggest challenge was creating a versatile product line with a tiered approach that could easily align with CPC’s strategies and objectives around the use of bio-renewable content.”
“We learned quickly that not all customers’ demands are the same – they are not all ‘at the same place’ within their bio-renewable storyline. With TerraCode, Flint Group Packaging Inks offer three tiers of products that match up well with the needs of the packaging industry today. Printers and CPC’s can choose the system which is best for them – where they are today and where they want to be in the future,” Mosley affirms.
There are three TerraCode variations available:
TerraCode Bio offers the highest renewable content of the company’s range. Built from at least 90 percent renewable materials, this option provides excellent print quality and press stability.
TerraCode Hybrid is a combination of renewable and conventional raw materials. A typical formulation contains more than 50 percent renewable content with a balance of high-performance synthetic ingredients for applications that require maximum performance and protection.
TerraCode Balance is built on a biomass balance solution. These products can be made to the same specification as existing technology.
When asked why Flint doesn’t make all of its inks throughout its entire ink portfolio “green”, Mosley replies: “We must add that there are many ways for any company to be ‘eco-friendly’ – more than just the products a company markets and sells. We need to consider how we run our facilities and how we work with vendors, employees and customers.”
13 Aug 2020 — Flint Group Packaging Inks has unveiled TerraCode, a water-based ink and coating range for paper and board packaging applications. TerraCode is available in three variations – Bio, Hybrid and Balance – which are derived from biorenewable resources. The new ink and coating family delivers competitive pH and viscosity stability for low press side ink maintenance.
“TerraCode inks can align well with end user storylines about greener, safer packaging. These inks have very low volatile organic compounds – sometimes none – and are easy to clean on press when compared to, for example, solvent-based inks,” Scott Mosley, Vice President of Technology, Packaging Inks North America, Flint Group, tells PackagingInsights.
TerraCode inks are free of harmful mineral oils and solvents and designed for safe handling.“The storyline further improves when you start talking about water-based inks formulated with a high percentage of bio-renewable raw materials,” they continue. The “historical concern” related to water-based inks centers around ink handling, press speeds and drying can, therefore, become “a thing of the past” with the right training and formulating, says Mosley.
To maintain pH and viscosity stability, Flint takes a twofold approach. First, the company takes advantage of using best in class raw materials which inherently help keep critical properties in ink technologies. Besides that, Flint employs world-class field service technicians that provide insight into today’s on-press requirements to ensure seamless press runs.
Challenges along the way The R&D process was not as seamless as it appears to be, Mosley acknowledges. “The biggest challenge was creating a versatile product line with a tiered approach that could easily align with CPC’s strategies and objectives around the use of bio-renewable content.”
“We learned quickly that not all customers’ demands are the same – they are not all ‘at the same place’ within their bio-renewable storyline. With TerraCode, Flint Group Packaging Inks offer three tiers of products that match up well with the needs of the packaging industry today. Printers and CPC’s can choose the system which is best for them – where they are today and where they want to be in the future,” Mosley affirms.
There are three TerraCode variations available:
TerraCode Bio offers the highest renewable content of the company’s range. Built from at least 90 percent renewable materials, this option provides excellent print quality and press stability.
TerraCode Hybrid is a combination of renewable and conventional raw materials. A typical formulation contains more than 50 percent renewable content with a balance of high-performance synthetic ingredients for applications that require maximum performance and protection.
TerraCode Balance is built on a biomass balance solution. These products can be made to the same specification as existing technology.
When asked why Flint doesn’t make all of its inks throughout its entire ink portfolio “green”, Mosley replies: “We must add that there are many ways for any company to be ‘eco-friendly’ – more than just the products a company markets and sells. We need to consider how we run our facilities and how we work with vendors, employees and customers.”
Furthermore, some pigments, along with a few important additives and resins, are yet to be qualified as “renewable” materials, says Mosley. “The path to this answer lies in partnerships at all levels of the packaging supply chain. There will need to be some compromises and some innovations by all parties to completely overcome that hurdle. Innovations like TerraCode are a big step in the right direction.”
“As mentioned, it is truly a team effort – involving all parties in the supply and value chain. As partnerships and innovations allow this transition, more products and technologies will follow,” he concludes.
With the assistance of chemicals company SABIC, Unilever will introduce its Magnum ice cream pints range in new tubs and lids made with fully recyclable and recycled polypropylene plastic (rPP). This follows an initial pilot phase in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain last year. This year, more than 7 million rPP Magnum tubs and lids will be introduced across other European countries. From 2021 onward, the new packs will be rolled out globally.
As of last May, Unilever set a broader company goal to halve its virgin plastic use by 2025. Reducing its total use of plastic by more than 100,000 tons demands a “fundamental rethink” in Unilever’s approach to packaging and products, a company spokesperson previously shared with PackagingInsights.
“Through this new approach, we hope to lead the food and refreshment industry toward a more [environmentally] sustainable future, paving the way to a circular economy. These days, consumers – rightly – expect all packaging to be sustainable. By keeping our plastic material in the loop, we are contributing to a healthier planet and preventing plastic pollution,” says Julien Barraux, Global Vice President for Magnum.
“With more in-home consumption due to COVID-19, the introduction of these tubs and their reduced impact on the environment becomes even more relevant as the world prepares for a new future,” he continues.
New technology for new needs Unilever indicates that the rPP used in Magnum is not obtained by traditional mechanical recycling, as this is “not suitable” for food contact packaging. “We use a recycling process that transforms the plastic waste into resin with the same characteristics as virgin food-grade resin,” the company underscores.
“This new technology allows us to recycle low quality, mixed plastic waste that would otherwise most likely be destined for incineration or landfill. It is not currently possible to produce food-grade rPP with any other form of recycling system,” Unilever adds.
Unilever has already tinkered with circular solutions in the ice cream sector. In March, Stora Enso packaged Unilever Finland’s Ingman ice cream in its Performa Cream 1 L paperboard cartons. Replacing standard PE coating, Stora Enso’s plant-based PE Green barrier coating will help Unilever reduce its use of fossil-based materials and reduce waste.
Last August, Unilever relaunched its branded Carte d’Or ice cream in compostable paperboard packaging by Stora Enso. The container is made from certified renewable fiber, sporting a biodegradable barrier coating. After use, it can be either recycled or composted in industrial composting.
“Plastic is a valuable material. It is crucial for the safe and efficient distribution of products, and it has a lower carbon footprint than many alternative materials. [Therefore], it has its place. That place is inside the circular economy – where it is reused, recycled or composted and kept in a loop to stop it from ever finding its way into the environment,” Unilever concludes.
Packaging Gateway looks into what oxo-biodegradable plastics are, whether they’re bad for the environment, and the current debates surrounding the material.
Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association (OPA) chairman Michael Stephen has said that he was disinvited to the upcoming ‘Plastic Free World Conference & Expo’ in Berlin due to his views on oxo-biodegradable plastics.
Stephen told news source PlasticsToday: “There is a campaign against oxo-biodegradable plastics promoted by the bio-based plastics industry, on which they must by now have spent millions of dollars. They are obviously not doing this to protect the environment but to damage their competitors.”
“One of their tactics is to mislead people into thinking that oxo-biodegradable plastic is the same as oxo-degradable plastic when they know it is not. They know that oxo-degradable plastic creates persistent microplastics and that oxo-biodegradable plastic does not.”
Critics of the material say that the plastic does not biodegrade but breaks into microplastics which are then released into the environment and cause significant harm, especially to ocean life.
Defenders of oxo-biodegradable plastics, however, claim that it degrades significantly faster than that of other plastics. UK-based plastics manufacturer Symphony Environmental said: “There are some scientists who are not expert in oxo-biodegradable technology and there are mischievous individuals or companies who are spreading misinformation because they wish to give their own product an advantage in the marketplace that it does not deserve on merit.”
Packaging Gateway looks into what oxo-biodegradable plastics are and the debates surrounding the material.
Oxo-biodegradable vs. biodegradable
Biodegradable means that the material can decompose. It is an end-of-life option that uses microorganisms or bacteria in disposal environments, such as in compost, to decompose plastic and avoid pollution.
According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), non-biodegradable plastic used for plastic bags will take 20 years to decompose, plastic straws 200 years, plastic rings 400 years, and water bottles 450 years.
Symphony Environmental says that oxo-biodegradable material converts plastic products into biodegradable material through oxidation.
On its website, Symphony Environmental said: “Oxo-biodegradable plastic degrades and biodegrades in the open environment in the same way as nature’s wastes, only quicker. What’s more, it does so without leaving any toxic residues or fragments of plastic behind.”
However, according to Reaven Services founder and packaging expert Abhishek Moon, oxo-biodegradable plastics use metal salts to start the degradation process, resulting in small plastic fragments.
Symphony’s Michael Stephen, however, told Packaging Gateway that this is not true: “The metal salts accelerate the natural process of oxidation but this does not create plastic fragments – it creates low molecular weight oligomers which can be digested by microbes and are not fragments of plastic.”
Moon said: “Further degradation [of oxo-biodegradable plastic] depends on living organisms and bacteria. Products using this plastic typically don’t break down fully in normal landfills. This may be due [to] a lack of oxygen. Also, as another negative, some oxo-biodegradable plastics use cobalt and carry the risk of further environmental pollution.”
In response to this, Stephen told Packaging Gateway: “But oxo-biodegradable technology is not intended to promote biodegradation in landfill, because if plastic is in landfill it has already been responsibly disposed of. Furthermore, biodegradation in anaerobic conditions in landfill would generate methane – a powerful greenhouse gas.”
Moon also said: “[Oxo-biodegradable plastics] are made by incorporation of specific additives into traditional plastics such as Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) and sometimes also Polyvinylchloride (PVC) at the moment of conversion into final products. The additives are based on chemical catalysts, containing transition metals such as cobalt, manganese, iron, etc., which cause fragmentation as a result of chemical oxidation of the plastics’ polymer chains triggered by UV irradiation or heat exposure.”
Oxo-biodegradable vs. oxo-degradable
Oxo plastics, or oxo-degradable plastics, use additives to accelerate the material’s fragmentation into small pieces. Over time, these fragments become microplastics. There is, however, some confusion over the differences between oxo-degradable and oxo-biodegradable.
Symphony Environmental says that oxo-biodegradable plastic technology facilitates biodegradation of plastics in the air or seawater by bacteria and without causing any toxicity.
In November 2017, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation released a report calling for the ban of oxo-degradable plastic packaging, with signatories including M&S, PepsiCo, Unilever, and WWF. This report was criticised by the OPA for being inaccurate, arguing that many of the signatories were promoting bioplastic technology.
In March 2019, the European Parliament approved a law that would ban single-use plastics by 2021, including oxo-degradable plastics. The Oxo-Biodegradable Plastics Federation (OBPF) criticised that the Directive did not make a clear distinction between oxo-degradable and oxo-biodegradable.
OBPF chairman Gary Ogden told PlasticsToday: “What we really have a problem with is that the Single-Use Plastics Directive says ‘oxo-degradable’ and by default, it means ‘oxo-biodegradable’ but they won’t say it.”
BBIA calls for oxo-degradable ban in the UK
Last month, the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association (BBIA) alongside other associations wrote an open letter to the UK Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
In the letter, the association called for a “total ban on the use, sale and distribution in the UK of conventional non-biodegradable plastics containing additives, which are meant to accelerate the fragmentation of plastics into microplastics. Such plastics are variously known as ‘oxo-degradable’, ‘oxo-biodegradable’, ‘oxo-fragmentable’, ‘bio-assimilable’, but the definitions are not exhaustive.”
Signatories of the letter included BBIA, Greenpeace, A Plastic Planet, and five more organisations.
Symphony Environmental responded to this open letter, claiming that the BBIA had ulterior motives. It said: “The BBIA has the word British in its name but it is the UK trade association for the bio-based plastics industry, which comprises predominantly German and Italian companies, and it is important to ask why they have assembled this consortium against oxo-biodegradable plastic.
“This needs to be understood as part of a concerted lobbying and PR campaign over nearly 20 years by the bio-based plastics industry, upon which they must by now have spent millions of Euros. They are obviously not spending this money and making all this effort to protect the environment – they are doing it because they – mistakenly- see oxo-biodegradable plastic as a threat to their market share. Their actions are fundamentally anti-competitive and are designed to stifle a competing technology.
“Worse still – if they succeed they will have deprived policymakers of a technology which could be used to deal with plastic which has escaped into the open environment, from which it cannot be collected for recycling, composting, or anything else.”
EU leaders have introduced a levy on plastic waste starting January 2021 which will contribute towards the EU’s €750bn Covid-19 recovery package and its overall €1tn 2021 to 2027 budget.
The levy will see non-recycled plastic packaging waste calculated at a call rate of €0.80 per kilogram. The document announcing the plastic waste tax does not specify whether the income generated from the levy is categorised as a new tax.
The document from the General Secretariat of the Council to Delegations said: “As a first step, a new resource will be introduced and apply as of 1 January 2021 composed of a share of revenues from a national contribution calculated on the weight of non-recycled plastic packaging waste with a call rate of EUR 0.80 per kilogram with a mechanism to avoid excessively regressive impact on national contributes.”
Response from governmental officials
German state secretary for the environment Jochen Flasbarth said: “The agreement contains clever new instruments that will help us to make Europe more environmentally friendly. The new plastic levy is a strong motivation for member states to massively expand their recycling systems. It will depend on a concrete design that it is as unbureaucratic as possible and leads to less plastic waste.”
German federal environment minister Svenja Schulze said: “With this agreement, the EU is demonstrating its ability to act. For climate protection, the agreement provides a good basis on which we can build on in further legislation. There has never been so much climate protection in an EU budget. Europe will emerge from [Covid-19] stronger and more climate-friendly than when it came in.”
Response from experts in the industry
Online environmental activist Planet Shine founder and sustainable business advisor Rachel McClelland told Packaging Gateway: “This is a positive move if it begins to shift the market but, above all, we urgently need to reduce plastic waste and move towards a global circular economy. I hope that the proposed tax drives behaviour change and encourages industries to analyse their supply chains and rethink their business models throughout Europe and in the UK.”
UK-based recycling expert Vanden Recycling MD David Wilson told Packaging Gateway: “This is an interesting twist on the usual approach of setting a recycling target with punishment for not meeting it. Instead, this is a penalty for the total amount left unrecycled. Questions, of course, remain at this early stage. This tax will be levied on nations and be payable to the EU. What impact that will actually have on recycling behaviours will depend on each nation’s implementation on clawing it back from their individual and business taxpayers.
“These are significant sums too. For example, if the UK was staying in the EU, and assuming it met this year’s recycling target, the cost of the tax on the remaining unrecycled content would be €368M. That’s significantly more than the likely total cost of plastics producer responsibility this year.”
Seafood specialist Blue Harvest has taken steps to ensure its oyster packaging is not adding to the ocean plastic problem, choosing compostable sugarcane pulp-based trays supplied by BioPak.
The number of single-use plastic trays, wrapped in plastic, currently used in Australia to sell oysters runs into the millions, and although Blue Harvest is in the early stages of the product’s launch, this step has the potential to prevent 1.5 tonnes of plastic being used per annum.
Scott Walter, managing director at Blue Harvest, told PKN that the drive to have more sustainable, environment friendly packaging is an imperative for the seafood industry.
“We farm oysters, and a key factor in our success is a clean ocean environment. There’s an inherent hypocrisy in choosing plastic packaging that could, should it end up as pollution, perpetuate a problem that endangers our industry’s livelihood,” Walter said.
Walter relates that Blue Harvest was aware of the BioPak containers being used in the food service sector. “At the start of this journey, we bought a few takeaway containers and conducted our own trials to see if this material would hold up in a refrigerated environment.
“We were pleasantly surprised. The way the sugarcane pulp is pressed in the production of this packaging creates a sufficiently watertight membrane. Our oysters are meant to be consumed within a day or two of purchase, so we don’t need packaging that lasts a very long time,” Walter said.
He added that the new packaging has elevated the presentation of the oysters, typically considered a premium product, a message not conveyed by the previous plastic packaging with shrinkfilm overwrap.
The pack design emulates the shape of the oyster, with individual cavities that help maintain product freshness and quality.
According to BioPak, the packaging supplier, the BioCane sugarcane pulp-based pack is certified home and industrially compostable and the matching PET lid is recyclable. The packs are also sturdy and stackable to simplify storage and service.
The new Blue Harvest oyster packaging is currently rolling out in Woolworths NSW stores and independent seafood retailers around the country.
The Global Plastics Alliance (GPA) has announced a huge increase in the number of projects aimed at comabting marine litter in the decade since its inception.
The GPA, a collaboration among plastic industry associations around the world, said there are 395 marine litter prevention projects have been planned, underway, or completed as of early 2020 – a four-fold increase since 2011.
The projects vary widely, from beach clean ups to expanding waste management capacities, and from global research to awareness and education campaigns.
The six focus areas are education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
In addition, GPA said the global plastics industry continues to move toward more circular systems where resources are used, reused, and recycled to the greatest extent possible.
A consortium of nearly 40 leading global companies has formed the Alliance to End Plastic Waste.
Many of their efforts will focus on developing the waste management infrastructure to capture and repurpose plastics in parts of the world where most of the trash is leaking into the ocean.
Virginia Janssens, managing director of PlasticsEurope, said: “We need strong partnerships between an interconnected plastics value chain and all stakeholders, be they local, national or global, to solve this problem and develop innovative, sustainable solutions.”
Keith Christman, managing director of plastics markets, American Chemistry Council, added: “Projects to combat marine litter have grown fourfold and we continue growing the number of stakeholders involved.”
Callum Chen, secretary-general, Asia Plastics Forum (APF), said: “Globally, plastics producers continue to partner with public and private partners to effect meaningful actions to address the problem of ocean plastic pollution. In APF, we are also engaging the brand owners, upstream resin producers and downstream fabricators in our respective member countries to jointly tackle the global marine litter issue.”
The World Health Organisation has reassured the public stating that it has found no evidence that food packaging poses a coronavirus threat.
In the UK the issue of Covid-19 and food/food packaging was recently raised when nearly 300 members of staff had tested positive for the virus at The Greencore factory, in Northampton.
The company supplies sandwiches to M&S but the products are not believed to put the public at risk of contracting the virus.
Packaging and Covid-19 was last week a topic of discussion on Good Morning Britain. Dr Sarah Jarvis told viewers: “Theoretically, even if something is cooked, if the packaging is made up – and we know that for instance in New Zealand they think that the latest outbreak they have had may have come in on packaging rather than through people – yes, there is a risk.”
In China, it was reported that two cities had found traces of the coronavirus in imported frozen chicken wings from Brazil and on outer packaging of frozen Ecuadorian shrimp.
However, the WHO believes the threat is negligible at worst. It’s head of emergencies programme Mike Ryan, told a briefing in Geneva: “People should not fear food, or food packaging or processing or delivery of food,”
“There is no evidence that food or the food chain is participating in transmission of this virus. And people should feel comfortable and safe.”
WHO epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove said China had tested hundreds of thousands of packages and “found very, very few, less than 10” proving positive for the virus.
Those who are still concerned might take the advice of Professor Sally Bloomfield from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She told the BBC that people can either leave products for 72 hours before using them or ‘spray and wipe plastic or glass containers with bleach [diluted as directed on the bottle]’.
In this article, Paul Foot, partner and patent attorney at European intellectual property firm Withers & Rogers, looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the priorities of the packaging industry.
The COVID-19 pandemic is causing many consumers to re-assess their priorities when it comes to packaging, particularly due to heightened concern about biosafety. Recently, increased public awareness of the importance of environmental protection has helped industries to reduce their reliance on single-use, non-recyclable packaging. However, with the main trend in packaging shifting towards hygiene, is there a risk that some of the progress in sustainability could be undone?
Where manufacturers in other sectors have pivoted in a matter of weeks in response to emergency demands, it seems that COVID-19 failed to spark an immediate wave of innovation in the packaging industry. On the contrary, the ‘quick fix’ has been for many retailers to move back to established ‘single-use’ type packaging for hygiene reasons – for example, in coffee shops, reusable cups have been banned and some retailers are even banning reusable bags – and so demand for such packaging has remained high.
Demand for packaging such as cardboard boxes and packing materials has actually increased to fulfil online delivery orders, which have soared during the pandemic due to the rise of the stay-at-home economy. While demand levels are expected to remain high at least in the short term, it is also becoming clear that consumer preferences have altered and so packaging companies will need to adapt to avoid being overtaken.
Environmental credibility aside, consumers previously assessed the desirability of packaging largely based on appearance. Does it look stylish? Is the branding attractive? Now, with the greater focus on hygiene factors, consumers will be considering how protected a packaged product is, and whether the packaging is germ or virus-free.
To address these concerns, it’s likely that more emphasis will be placed on designing packaging elements which minimise contact areas, such as dedicated handles and marked zones for use by couriers. Increased importance may also be given to ‘tamper-proof’ packaging to increase consumer confidence that the product contained within is safe or to innovative closures that enable hygienic ‘on-the-go’ consumption.
The online delivery boom has also created new issues for retailers. With demand for online deliveries expected to remain higher than pre-pandemic levels, packaging innovators have a role to play in helping retailers to maximise vehicle space, at the same time as improving safety. For example, manufacturers could lead the way by innovating a wider range of ‘standardised’ packaging solutions, which can be easily transported and stacked. Alternatively, some innovators may be focused on producing novel packaging designs that can be better manipulated by robotic systems, for use in warehouses and distribution centres.
There is a range of other e-commerce related challenges that packaging innovators can also try to address, such as designs with improved protection for delicate products, designs that enable easier filling at the retailer side, designs that enable a product to be easily returned and designs that give a better customer experience when they open the package.
As the recovery gets underway, the packaging industry will need to reflect on market changes and adapt to the new normal. As with many businesses, packaging manufacturers have been focused on weathering the storm, but now is the time to re-energise their innovation activity. If anything, the pandemic has opened up many new opportunities.
It seems unlikely that the sustainability trend will go away, so now the challenge for packaging producers will be to balance sustainability with hygiene. Consumers will still want to see the same progress in packaging as before the pandemic – higher use of recycled materials, less ‘unnecessary packaging’, less plastic, improvements in ease of recycling – but it is important that these improvements are not made at the expense of reduced hygiene, as that trend seems to be here to stay, at least for the next few years.
For packaging businesses that are considering adapting their product offering to address these challenges, it’s important to put in place the right strategy to protect their innovations on the way to market. It’s likely that competitors will be undergoing the same thought-process and any novel ideas or improvements could be copied if left unprotected.
Applying for patent protection sooner rather than later is often the right strategy, even if the concept continues to be developed after this point, to account for further changes in the situation and the lasting effects of the pandemic becoming better known.
