Trends and O pportunities

in Packaging R&D in the US

Trends and O pportunities
in Packaging R&D in the US
Hauffe Niels
Technology Review 213/2007
Technology Review 213/2007
Further information:
Tekes
Anna Alasmaa
+358 10 60 25748
anna.alasmaa@tekes.fi
The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
Kyllikinportti 2, P.O. Box 69, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
Tel. +358 1060 55000, Fax +358 9 694 9196, E-mail: tekes@tekes.fi
www.tekes.fi
August 2007
ISSN 1239-758X
ISBN 978-952-457-379-5
Trends and Opportunities
in Packaging R&D in the US
Niels Hauffe
NWV Market Discovery, Inc.
Technology Review 213/2007
Helsinki 2007
Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
Tekes is the main public funding organisation for research and development
(R&D) in Finland. Tekes funds industrial projects as well as projects in re-
search organisations, and especially promotes innovative, risk-intensive
projects. Tekes offers partners fromabroad a gateway to the key technology
players in Finland.
Technology programmes Tekes choices for the greatest impact
of R&D funding
Tekes uses technology programmes to allocate its financing, networking
and expert services to areas that are important for business and society.
Programmes are launched in areas of application and technology that are in
line with the focus areas in Tekes strategy. Tekes allocates about half the fi-
nancing granted to companies, universities and research institutes through
technology programmes. Tekes technology programmes have been con-
tributing to changes in the Finnish innovation environment for twenty years.
Copyright Tekes 2007. All rights reserved.
This publication includes materials protected under copyright law, the copy-
right for which is held by Tekes or a third party. The materials appearing in
publications may not be used for commercial purposes. The contents of
publications are the opinion of the writers and do not represent the official
position of Tekes. Tekes bears no responsibility for any possible damages
arising fromtheir use. The original source must be mentioned when quoting
from the materials.
ISSN 1239-758-X
ISBN 978-952-457-379-5
Cover picture: Kylmankka design, Anton Kalland
Page layout: DTPage Oy
Foreword
Tekes has been preparing a technology programme around the theme of packaging during the year
2007 under the name Pakkaus 2015 Packaging 2015. This report of the trends and opportunities
in packaging R&D in the USA has been done as a part of the preparation of this technology
programme.
The use and the role of the packages in a whole value chain are very regionally and culturally ori-
ented. As USAoffers significant market potential and is also very much consumer oriented society,
it is very interesting object for a consumer packaging market study.
This report concerns three packaging sectors: pharmaceutical, retail food and electronics packag-
ing. It also includes the driving forces that are influencing packaging decisions made in the US to-
day. These include e.g. retailers and consumers viewpoint as well as information about consumer
studies and universal design.
Tekes would like to thank Niels Hauffe, NWV Market Discovery Inc. for conducting this survey.
We hope that this report will generate new ideas and thoughts for the Finnish packaging value
chain.
Helsinki, July 2007
Tekes The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
Table of Contents
Foreword
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Selected Industry Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Packaging R&D New Trends/Issues/Hot Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Pharmaceuticals Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Retail Food Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Electronics Packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Driving Forces from Retailers and Consumers Viewpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Retailer and Consumer Packaging Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sustainable Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Universal Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Smart (Intelligent) Packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
E-Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Consumer Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Retail Driven Change: How and Why Retailers Influence Packaging Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Pharmaceutical Packaging Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Market for Sustainable Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Influence of Packaging on Purchasing Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Prominent Trends Affecting Food Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Private-Label Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Research Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Key Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Associations/Councils/Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendices
Appendix A Packaging Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix B Sustainable Packaging Resource Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix C Green Report How to Comply with Wal-Marts Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix D Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry Bar Code Label
Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix E Glossary of Food Packaging Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Tekes Technology Reviews in English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Executive Summary
The packaging industry on a worldwide basis is estimated
at about $460 billion, with the US accounting for about
$127 billion or 28% of the global market.
There are many issues affecting packaging research and
development in the US, including:

Sustainable packaging;

Recycling regulations, legislation, and/or voluntary

agreements;

Consumer dynamics;

Universal design;

Smart packaging; and

E-commerce.
This report takes a preliminary look at these issues with par-
ticular emphasis on three sectors: pharmaceuticals packag-
ing, retail food packaging, and electronics packaging.
Important issues affecting pharmaceutical packaging in-
clude:

Bar coding new US Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) rules for drugs for hospital use

Anticounterfeiting RFID technologies

Encouraging compliance noncompliance with drug

regimens is an important issue throughout the healthcare
system

Cost control the rising cost of oil-based plastics is

leading to the use of new materials and packaging sys-
tems
Senior-friendly packaging rapid growth in the el-
derly population and the aging of the baby-boomgenera-
tion is increasing the importance of bringing se-
nior-friendly solutions to market.
For retail food packaging, the important issues include:

Convenience the emphasis on convenience drives

many food packaging decisions today, and is likely to
have more influence on packaging in the future than any
other factor

Intelligent packaging smart packaging provides

differentiation and added value

Environmental awareness using renewable re-

sources for packaging and reducing its environmental
impact are issues of increasing importance

Aseptic packaging long a staple in Europe, aseptic

packaging is gaining ground in the US
Case-ready packaging case-ready packaging of meat
is growing in the US and there is the opportunity here to
look for sustainable packaging options.
In the case of electronics packaging, one of the most impor-
tant issues is packaging for electrostatic discharge (ESD)
sensitive components.
Driving forces that are influencing packaging decisions in
the US today include:

Age currently, two of the most influential age groups

are tweens boys or girls between 8 and 12 and baby
boomers

Sex women make the majority of purchase decisions,

especially for a household

Ethnicity in 2007, Hispanics are expected to control

more disposable personal income than any other minor-
ity group in the US

Hard-to-open packaging in many cases, consumers

end up with what has come to be known as wrap rage
after enduring the physical and emotional struggle of
trying to separate their purchase from its plastic clam-
shell

Sustainable packaging although sustainable packag-

ing is a fairly new concept in the US, it will likely have a
substantial impact on the packaging industry. Note that
Wal-Mart, a retailer with enormous market pull, has a
sustainability initiative scheduled to begin in 2008

Recycling municipal solid waste recycling is now a

mainstream waste management tool with over 9,000
curbside programs, almost 4,000 composting facilities,
and many thousands of drop-off and buy-back centers

Universal design the integration of universal design

into packaging in the US is still relatively new; however,
the potential market is huge the 2000 Census counted
49.7 million people with some type of long-lasting con-
dition or disability

Smart (intelligent) packaging the competitive retail

climate and the rise of private labels are two reasons
leading consumer packaged goods companies to con-
sider new technologies as a way to differentiate their
products
E-commerce a survey by Strategic Analysis, forecasts
that e-commerce will grow between 16-20% per year in
the US.
There have been numerous consumer and retailer studies
regarding packaging. Of particular interest is a study enti-
tled: Retail Driven Change: How and Why Retailers In-
fluence Packaging Decisions. One of the key findings of
this study was that the most significant drivers that influ-
ence consumers are lifestyle trends of health and wellness,
convenience, and sustainability.
1
Introduction
The International Association of Packaging Research Insti-
tutes (IAPR) provides a good introduction to packaging re-
search today:
Packaging technology has gone through a fast and signifi-
cant development in recent decades; however the smartest
developments are yet to be seen. Todays modern society
depends to a large extend on the availability and use of
modern packaging technology, comprising a vast variety
of modern materials, high tech applications, and smart op-
erations. Modern packaging technology aims to meet a vast
range of requirements from providing food safety, via
low-cost storage and distribution, self-selling marketing,
and convenient consumer use to responsible waste man-
agement practices.
Good packaging facilitates a subtle cooperation between
product, packaging process, and material with the objec-
tive of fulfilling needs of all stakeholders along the supply
chain including the post-consumer waste manager.
Value chain management, product stewardship, and life
cycle management are considered key attributes that will
drive the development of future, sustainable packaging
systems. Such systems will need to go far beyond the cur-
rent waste minimization driven principles of reduce,
re-use, recycle, and recovery the 4-R waste management
hierarchy. Packaging systems that will minimize impact on
the environment, will seamlessly meet social requirements
and expectations, and will be economically effective are
the business winners of the future.
There are many issues affecting packaging research and
development in the US, including:

Sustainable packaging;

Recycling regulations, legislation, and/or voluntary

agreements;

Consumer dynamics;

Universal design;

Smart packaging; and

E-commerce.
This report will take a preliminary look at these issues with
particular emphasis on three sectors: pharmaceuticals
packaging, retail food packaging, and electronics packag-
ing.
(Note: Aglossary of food packaging terms is shown in Ap-
pendix E.)
Selected Industry Statistics

The packaging industry on a worldwide basis is esti-

mated at about $460 billion, with the US accounting for
about $127 billion or 28% of the global market.

The Flexible Packing Association, in its 2006 State of

the Flexible Packaging Industry Report, reports annual
sales in the US at $21.8 billion of which $10.6 billion is
for the retail food segment, $1.6 billion for the medical
and pharmaceutical segment, and $2.1 billion for the
consumer products segment. In terms of packaging ma-
terials, plastics (plastic resins and film and sheet) ac-
count for 69% of materials used, paper about 8%, and
foil about 4%.

A market research report by the Freedonia Group esti-

mates that domestic plastic-film demand will increase
2.6% per year to 15.2 billion pounds in 2010. Low-den-
sity polyethylene (LDPE) will remain the leading film,
accounting for 64% of the US total. Packaging made up
nearly three quarters of plastic filmuse in 2005. The best
growth is expected in secondary packaging applications
such as stretch and shrink wrap, and retail bags. Food
packaging will grow at above average rates, pushed by
continued expansion in fresh produce, confectionery,
and frozen foods.

The Freedonia Group also reports that demand for both

stand-up pouches (SUPs) and flat pouches will increase
at 6.3% per year through 2010 with sales increasing
from $4.8 billion in 2006 to $6.5 billion in 2010. Hot
end-use markets for SUPs include cheese, processed
foods, and consumer products. For flat pouches, growth
will come in such fields as fresh produce, medical and
pharmaceutical items, and consumer products.
2

The corrugated packaging industry reports that about

400 billion square feet of corrugated board a combina-
tion of at least 3 sheets of paper, collectively called
containerboard is produced annually (valued at about
$21 billion) of which the packaged food and beverages
segment accounts for about 28%.

The Paperboard Packaging Council estimates 2006 US

folding carton sales at $9.6 billion. There are approxi-
mately 300 companies whose primary business is fold-
ing cartons, but the top 5 companies account for 54% of
industry sales. The top ranked company for the last 4
years is Graphic Packaging Corporation, headquartered
in Marietta, Georgia.

According to market research by the Freedonia Group,

total US corrugated and paperboard box demand will in-
crease at 2.1% per year reaching nearly $35 billion in
2009. Retail food will remain the largest market end-
user accounting for about 40% of the total. The fastest
growing market for corrugated cases will be retail ship-
ping as the popularity of Internet shopping continues to
expand.

The US Census reports that nearly 34 billion glass con-

tainers were produced in 2005. The breakdown by end
use was: food 17%, beverages 9%, beer 55%, liquor 3%,
wine 5%, and other 11%.
3
Overview of Packaging R&D
New Trends/Issues/Hot Topics
Pharmaceuticals Packaging
There a number of important issues and trends in pharma-
ceutical packaging, including:

Bar Coding: According to the US Food and Drug Ad-

ministration (FDA) rules, Bar Code Label Require-
ments, Questions and Answers, drugs manufactured on
or after April 26, 2006 for hospital use must bear a bar
code. FDA is not recalling any drugs packaged and la-
beled without bar codes before April 26, 2006 that are
distributed and sold after April 26, 2006. All packages,
even small ones, must comply. While linear bar codes
encoded with the National Drug Code (NDC) must be
present on most prescription drug products and certain
OTCdrug products, other technologies to encode lot and
expiry-date codes may be used, too. Rule revisions may
involve newautomatic identification technologies, FDA
says. Bar coding pharmaceutical packages on the pack-
aging lineperhaps the most efficient and practical
means of adding bar codes to the unit doseremains a
challenge for some firms. (Note: FDA Guidance for In-
dustry Bar Code Label Requirements is shown in Ap-
pendix D.)

Anticounterfeiting: Pharmaceutical and Medical Pack-

aging News writes that when it comes to automatic
identification technologies, RFID has been the headline
maker in 2006. FDA has driven interest with its belief
that RFID can be used to fight counterfeiting and diver-
sion through electronic pedigrees. In addition, a spokes-
man for Cardinal Health says that anticounterfeiting
and RFID gained a lot of coverage as pedigree legisla-
tion is making its way through multiple state govern-
ments.

Encouraging Compliance: Noncompliance with drug

regimens is an issue throughout the healthcare system.
One expert says that research conducted shows wide-
spread noncompliance with prescription regimens re-
sulting in billions of dollars in unnecessary healthcare
costs. Retail pharmacies are reportedly investigating
the role unit-dose packaging can play in compliance.

Harmonizing Medical Packaging: After years of de-

bate, ISO 11607 has finally been revised. The revision is
significant for a number of reasons. Because it harmo-
nizes ISO 11607 with EN-868, Part 1, the CEN standard
for sterile medical packaging, global medical device
manufacturers will be able to follow one standard to
meet US and European laws.

Cost Control: The rising cost of oil-based plastic mate-

rials is a large concern. One expert expects to see new
materials and packaging systems that significantly de-
crease manufacturing costs. These innovations will be
driven by cooperative agreements between Medical De-
vice Manufacturers, converters, and raw material pro-
ducers. And another expert predicts that well proba-
bly start to see a shift to other-than-oil-based plastics and
paper materials.

Senior-Friendly Packaging: The need for senior- friendly

packaging that is also child-resistant has been discussed for
many years. Nowthat the over-85 group is the most rapidly
growing segment of the population in many countries, and
members of the baby-boom generation are reaching their
sixties, the issue of bringing senior-friendly solutions to
market is of increasing importance.
Retail Food Packaging
Retail food packaging has evolved considerably in recent
decades both aesthetically and functionally. Innovation in
food packaging is driven by a number of factors, including:

Convenience: The emphasis on convenience drives

many food packaging decisions today, and is likely to
have more influence on packaging in the future than any
other factor. Consumers are attracted by features like
easy-to-open/easy-to-close packaging or packaging suit-
able for direct use in ovens and microwaves. Following
are two examples of new convenience packaging:
Chicken of the Sea International is marketing shelf-
stable, retorted peel-and-eat cups of tuna and salmon.
Consumers believe cups are even more convenient
and on-the-go than retorted pouches, and this opens
up a whole new usage occasion for tuna and salmon
as eat-it-anywhere snacks.
Food packages that self-vent in the microwave are an-
other convenience-driven packaging format that is
gaining in popularity. For example, General Mills is
nowpackaging several varieties of Green Giant brand
frozen vegetables in a Simple Steam pack that has a
self-venting feature. (Note: In February 2007, the
Foodservice & Packaging Institute issued a revised
Standard Test Method to Qualify Disposables for
Use in Microwave Ovens. The full document is
available in PDF format from their website,
www.fpi.org.)
4

Intelligent packaging: Examples include packaging

that is capable of absorbing oxygen and water or indicat-
ing temperature. Innovations such as these provide
packaging with both differentiation and added value.

Environmental awareness: Two examples are packag-

ing that promotes the use of renewable resources or
packaging that reduces environmental impact by de-
creasing the thickness of materials.

Aseptic packaging: The aseptic package, long a staple

in Europe, is still little understood in the United States.
But that is changing. In 1996, the aseptic carton won the
Presidential Award for Sustainable Development, the
only package ever to receive this environmental prize. In
the US, aseptically packaged products now include
milks, juices, tomatoes, soups, broths, tofu, soy bever-
ages, wines, liquid eggs, whipping cream, and teas. In
describing their preference for aseptic packaging, Amer-
ican consumers often point to the safety, nutrition, and
ease of handling of the packages. Others prefer the asep-
tic carton because it is shatter-proof and tamper-evident.

Case-ready packaging: Case-ready packaging of fresh

meat continues to grow in the US. Vacuum packaging is
part of the mix, though it may never be popular with beef
because it deprives beef of oxygen and causes it to turn
very dark red, almost purple. The two packaging formats
that are most popular with beef are called Modified At-
mosphere Packaging (MAP) Barrier Tray and Back-
flushed Barrier Masterbag. Both provide a refrigerated
shelf life of about 10 days. In MAP Barrier Tray, a deep
drawn barrier tray is backflushed with gases that help
prolong shelf life, and the tray is then hermetically
sealed with a heat-sealed barrier lidstock. In Back-
flushed Barrier Masterbag, a large barrier bag contains
multiple units of meat in conventional foam trays and
clear film overwrap; the masterbag is backflushed and
hermetically closed, and once its opened, the individual
units have a three-day shelf life. Some retailers like the
MAP Barrier Tray approach because they dont have to
worry about the three-day shelf life of the individual
packs once the Masterbag is open. Other retailers like
the Masterbag approach because some consumers prefer
the more conventional appearance of the unit packs.
One case-ready format popular in the UK but almost
never seen in the US is a back-flushed deep-drawn alu-
minum tray with a clear barrier film heat-sealed to the
trays smooth flange. Convenience-driven, it lets con-
sumers put fresh chicken, beef, pork, or even fish in the
oven in a cooking container that can be discarded rather
than washed.
Considering how much emphasis has been placed lately
on sustainable packaging, any new technologies for
case-ready meats that can bring about source reduction
and better cube efficiencies throughout the supply chain
could be worth examining.
Electronics Packaging
One of the most important issues with electronics packag-
ing is the issue of electrostatic discharge (ESD). According
to one ESD technical consultant, improper packaging of
ESDsensitive (ESDS) components, assemblies, and equip-
ment resulting in hard and soft failures has cost both manu-
facturers and users millions of dollars, maybe even bil-
lions.
User requirements for ESD packaging include:

That it retain its ESD protective properties over a speci-

fied period of time in order to be reusable.

That it is recyclable after the useful life period ends.

That it allows for reading the assembly, circuit pack, or

plug-in bar code without having to open the container.

That is does not include over-packs for shipping unless

absolutely necessary.

That all packaging has an ESD label and a seal.

That packing containers are stackable.
Examples of available packaging include:

Corrugated containers

Plastic bags
Thermoformed plastic clamshell.
Some pros and cons associated with these types of packag-
ing include:

A corrugated container with a removable window fits

most of the user requirements. It can also have a metal
layer in the corrugation for shielding if required.

A plastic bag or clamshell will always need an over-

pack, and a paper label adhered to the bag will make it
unrecyclable.

Bar codes are often difficult to read through a thermo-

formed plastic clamshell and impossible to read through
a static shielding bag.

Bags are often not reusable because the bag is punctured

by the sharp component leads protruding from the as-
sembly solder side.

The clamshell is reusable assuming that its static

dissipative properties can be maintained. Clamshells can
be designed to be stackable, but bags are not.

A plastic bag can be designed to be a moisture barrier,

but corrugated packaging always contains some mois-
ture.
5
Driving Forces From Retailers and
Consumers Viewpoint
Retailer and Consumer Packaging Issues
Demographics have a large influence on the needs and
preferences of consumers and retailers.

Age: Some markets to consider here are:

Tweens boys or girls between the ages of 8 and 12
affect the spending of billions of dollars each year.
According to one source, tweens spend $51 billion
each year of their own money and influence about
$170 billion spent on them. Packaging is a big
differentiator between products for teens and adults
and those aimed at tweens. For example, lip gloss co-
mes in a mock plastic cell phone and bright eye shad-
ows and shimmer powders come in multi-compart-
ment packages that double as purses. According to
the president of The Consumer Network, to be ap-
pealing to this market, packaging has to be cool.
This of course presents endless packaging possibili-
ties and may require a lot of experimentation with
materials, shapes, colors, and labels. Apparently, one
key factor recently has been portability. Tweens pre-
fer products they can throw in their backpacks or
pockets to show off to friends.
Baby boomers represent about 78 million Americans
one of the largest buying groups in the US and
some $46 billion in sales. This growing senior popu-
lation doesnt think old; they think young. However,
there are realities, such as diminishing eyesight that
need to be addressed by packaging. Certain package
characteristics cater to this group. Ergonomic design
and easy-open closures help those with decreased
hand strength, and larger print on labels is inherently
inviting to this audience.

Sex: Women make the majority of purchase decisions,

especially for a household. According to one source,
women are expected to control 60% of US private
wealth by 2010. The most highly rated packaging char-
acteristics for women are convenience, ease of storage,
and female-friendly elements such as size of the package
and handles for carrying
Ethnicity: The 2006 Minority Buying Power Report
forecasts that Hispanic buying power will exceed $863
billion in 2007. And at the same time, Hispanics are ex-
pected to control more disposable personal income than
any other minority group in the US. The difficulty in
marketing to this group is that they are frommany differ-
ent countries, each with its own interest and preferences.
The president of Creative Packaging Solutions suggests
that successful packaging requires tailoring themto each
sub-population and then distributing them geographi-
cally. For example, on the west coast the predominant
population is Mexican; whereas in south Florida, its
Cuban and Columbian, and in New York, its Puerto Ri-
can and Dominican. Bilingual packages are a necessity,
and its essential to have a correct translation.
Another major issue with consumers is

Hard-to-open packaging: In many cases, consumers

end up with what has come to be known as wrap rage
after enduring the physical and emotional struggle of
trying to separate their purchase from its plastic clam-
shell. The main reasons for this type of packaging are to
prevent shoplifting, protect the product, and keep chil-
dren out. According to Consumer Reports, the worst of-
fenders for hard-to-open packaging in 2006 were
The clamshell,
Toy packaging that features excessive plastic and
wire restraints,
CD packaging with its unfriendly tape seal, and
Blister packs for pills.
Approaches to solve this problem include:
The Nestl company initiative to make its products
easier to open that includes both easy-open features
and on-pack text or pictograms to illustrate their use.
For some products, Costco has switched from clam-
shells to a new theft-resistant, easier-to-open form of
packaging a coated paperboard called Natralock
thats sealed to a plastic bubble.
For pharmaceutical companies, the problem is to
make child-resistant packages that are easy to open
for seniors. Research by Cardinal Health has shown
that kids will use anything available to open pack-
ages, including their teeth, and that children can be as
strong as seniors. However, children typically lack an
adults dexterity and the ability to perform a two-
handed opening action. So the companys senior-
friendly, child-resistant blister packs incorporate
multiple-action opening features. To use the Cardinal
Health Pill Calendar, for example, the consumer
slides a release mechanism with one hand and pushes
the tablet through the foil backing with the other
hand.
6
Sustainable Packaging
Although sustainable packaging is a fairly new concept in
the US, it good well have a substantial impact on the pack-
aging industry. It is especially noteworthy that Wal-Mart, a
retailer with enormous market pull, has a sustainability ini-
tiative scheduled to begin in 2008 (see below).
The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) is an indus-
try working group inspired by cradle-to-cradle principles
and dedicated to creating a more robust environmental vi-
sion for packaging. Through informed design practice,
supply chain collaboration, education, and innovation, the
coalition strives to transform packaging into a system that
encourages an economically prosperous and sustainable
flow of materials, creating lasting value for present and fu-
ture generations.
The Sustainable Packaging Coalition envisions a world
where all packaging is sourced responsibly, designed to be
effective and safe throughout its life cycle, meets market
criteria for performance and cost, is made entirely using re-
newable energy and, once used, is recycled efficiently to
provide a valuable resource for subsequent generations. In
summary: a true cradle-to-cradle systemfor all packaging.
The SPC mission is to advocate and communicate a posi-
tive, robust environmental vision for packaging and to sup-
port innovative, functional packaging materials and sys-
tems that promote economic and environmental health
through supply chain collaboration.
In 2005, the SPCcompleted version 1.0 of the Definition of
Sustainable Packaging. This definition represents an im-
portant first step in articulating a common understanding of
the term sustainable packaging. It provides a common
vision and a framework for understanding activities di-
rected toward improving packaging and continues to in-
form the future vision of the coalition and its individual
member-companies. Sustainable packaging:

Is beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and

communities throughout its life cycle;

Meets market criteria for performance and cost;

Is sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled

using renewable energy;

Maximizes the use of renewable or recycled source

materials;

Is manufactured using clean production technologies

and best practices;

Is made from materials healthy in all probable end of

life scenarios;

Is physically designed to optimize materials and energy;

and
Is effectively recovered and utilized in biological and/or
industrial cradle-to-cradle cycles.
Cradle-to-Cradle Packaging: Cradle-to-cradle design
means literally designing waste right out of the lifecycle of
the package. Mimicking nature, a package is designed to be
either a technical nutrient that can be reused, or truly recy-
cled in a tight, closed-loop process with zero loss in mate-
rial performance, or a biological nutrient that can safely
break down into the soil.
By contrast, traditional cradle-to-grave design practically
guarantees a product or package will end up as unwanted
waste that must be dealt with at some cost to the end user.
Plus, the manufacturer loses the economic value of reusing
the material.
The originators of this cradle-to-cradle concept, architect
William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart, re-
cently published a book on the subject called Cradle to
Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. Packaging is
an area thats well suited to the cradle-to-cradle design con-
cept, the authors say. They contend that cradle-to-cradle
design has the potential to expand, not reduce, the choices
of materials available to package designers. They say pack-
aging can be designed to be an asset after use, rather than a
liability, for customers. Finally, they argue that cradle-to-
cradle packaging can cost the same or less than the packag-
ing it replaces.
Instead of focusing on the moral argument, which tradi-
tionally pits environmentalism against business interests,
the authors have made a compelling business argument for
ecologically intelligent products and packaging that are
also good for the bottom line. For most packaging users,
suppliers, and consumers, cost outweighs the environment
as a purchasing factor. But the authors insist eco-effective
packaging can be the same or cheaper compared to tradi-
tional packaging. That is one of the most important argu-
ments, yet its the hardest one to prove, because the idea is
still so new. And it runs contrary to the industrys experi-
ence with most new forms of, say, biodegradable packag-
ing, which typically cost more, not less, than traditional
materials.
Wal-Marts Sustainability Initiative (the following is
taken from Wal-Marts website):
September 22, 2006 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. today an-
nounced plans to measure its 60,000 worldwide suppliers
on their ability to develop packaging and conserve natural
resources. This initiative, scheduled to begin in 2008, is
projected to reduce overall packaging by five percent. The
announcement came at the conclusion of the Clinton
Global Initiative in New York City.
In addition to preventing millions of pounds of trash from
reaching landfills, the initiative is projected to save
667,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide fromentering the at-
mosphere. This is equal to taking 213,000 trucks off the
road annually, and saving 323,800 tons of coal and 66.7
million gallons of diesel fuel from being burned. This ini-
tiative will also create $10.98 billion in savings, just froma
7
5 percent reduction in 10 percent of the global packaging
industry. Wal-Mart alone is poised to save $3.4 billion.
Packaging is where consumers and suppliers come to-
gether and can have a real impact both on business effi-
ciency and environmental stewardship, said Wal-Mart
CEO H. Lee Scott. Even small changes to packaging have
a significant ripple effect. Improved packaging means less
waste, fewer materials used, and savings on transportation,
manufacturing, shipping and storage.
On November 1, 2006, Wal-Mart will introduce a packag-
ing scorecard to more than 2,000 private label suppliers.
This is a tool that will allow Wal-Mart buyers to have all
the information about packaging alternatives or more sus-
tainable packaging materials in one place, allowing them
to make better purchasing decisions.
On February 1, 2007, tools and processes will be made
available to all of the companys global suppliers. For 12
months, these suppliers will learn and share results within
this process. And beginning in 2008, Wal-Mart will mea-
sure and recognize the entire worldwide supply base for us-
ing less packaging, utilizing more effective materials in
packaging, and sourcing these materials more efficiently
through a packaging scorecard.
Wal-Mart Sustainable Packaging Value Network, a group
of 200 leaders in the global packaging industry, is leading
the project. This group includes representatives from gov-
ernment, NGOs, academia and industry.
(Note: See Appendix C: Green ReportHow to Comply
with Wal-Marts Scorecard.)
HP focuses on materials innovation and design for
recyclability (the following is excerpted from an article in
Packaging World Magazine, May 2007):
Early in February, Hewlett-Packard Companys Imaging
and Printing Supplies business made an announcement that
would be the envy of any organization committed to both
sustainable practices and a healthy bottom line.
The company said its redesigned ink and toner supplies
packaging will:

Eliminate the use of nearly 15 million pounds of materi-

als, including 3 million pounds of corrugated board in
2007

Eliminate the use of more than 6.8 million pounds of

PVC through material reduction and substitution of re-
cycled content, both paperboard and plastic

Reduce overall package weight for inkjet cartridge

multi-packs by 80 percent and quadruple the number of
packages that can be carried per truckload

In club stores, tri-packs will be stacked three high versus

two high for the current generation, and the number of
packages per foot of retail shelf space will increase as
well

Reduce LaserJet toner packaging 45 percent by weight

and improve by 30 percent the number of toner packages
per pallet
Corresponding savings in shelf space will be 30 percent
The redesigned packaging is not only about being green,
but at the same time, and justifiably so, about benefits to
the bottom line. Just think of all that material HP doesnt
have to buy, process, and transport, not to mention increas-
ing the number of products per foot of retail and club store
shelf space. Scott Canonico, manager, Environmental Pol-
icy and Strategy for HPs printing and supplies business,
put these developments into context. There are three areas
of priority focus across HP in terms of sustainable prac-
ticesenergy efficiency, materials innovation, and design
for recyclability.
In terms of materials innovation and recyclability, Ca-
nonico said the company is moving away froma number of
packaging materials, including PVC, and discovering
greater uses for recycled content. He says, We are looking
to find ways to do more, or the same, with less. When we
reduce the size and weight of packaging, we take positive
steps forward.
Jill Wollam, who holds a packaging degree from Michigan
State University and a packaging professional certification
from the IOPP, is a packaging engineer and new product
planner for HPs LaserJet supplies business. She advises
packaging organizations to begin the sustainable process
by benchmarking where the organization is today in terms
of materials, package size, and recyclability. Wollam sug-
gests packaging teams first of all work to improve bench-
mark scores on new packages:

Increasing the content of recycled materials

Designing smaller and lighter packaging that adequately

protects the product, while decreasing transportation im-
pacts and improving customer usability
Creating greater end-of-life recyclability.
Wollam adds that while size reduction is a straightforward
concept, its implementation can be complex. You have to
achieve balance in size reduction, ensuring that smaller
packaging meets product protection, transportation, retail
handling, marketing, customer usability, and customer dis-
posal or return standards, she says. You cant solve one
problemsizeand then create other problems. Wollam
said that one of the keys to size reduction is working with
suppliers to identify new alternatives in cushioning.
(Note: See Appendix B: Sustainable Packaging Resource
Guide.)
8
Recycling
According to a 2004 report by the Waste Policy Center,
America has made great strides in dealing with municipal
solid waste (MSW, trash, garbage) in the last 10-15 years.
Major accomplishments include:

Attainment of EPAs national recycling goal of 25%

Development of stringent regulations for landfills and

municipal solid waste combustors
Significant reduction in the weight of packaging and
products (e.g., 2-liter PET bottles have reduced in
weight from 65g in 1980 to 47g in 2002 and glass soda
bottles have reduced from 255g to 165g over the same
period).
MSW recycling is now a mainstream waste management
tool with over 9,000 curbside programs, almost 4,000 com-
posting facilities, and many thousands of drop-off and
buy-back centers, material recovery facilities, and scrap
dealers. The percentage of certain packaging materials that
are recycled (for 2002) is as follows:

Corrugated boxes: 70%

Steel cans: 59%

Aluminum cans: 47%.

Many residential recycling programs can only accept PET
and HDPE beverage containers frozen food trays, marga-
rine tubs and other food containers come in too many col-
ors to be cost effectively collected in most communities.
The recycling symbol incorporated into the plastic resin
identification codes is only meant to help consumers and
recyclers sort plastic containers. It does not mean all local
recycling programs collect each type of container. There
may not be markets close enough to be cost-efficient.
Resin codes are shown below:
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate two-liter bev-
erage bottles, mouthwash bottles, boil-in- bag
pouches.
HDPE High Density Polyethylene milk jugs,
trash bags, detergent bottles.
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride cooking oil bottles,
packaging around meat.
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene grocery
bags, produce bags, food wrap, bread bags.
PP Polypropylene yogurt containers, shampoo
bottles, straws, margarine tubs, diapers.
PS Polystyrene hot beverage cups, take-home
boxes, egg cartons, meat trays, cd cases.
OTHER all other types of plastics or packaging
made from more than one type of plastic.
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Study: Although recycling can generate environmental and
economic benefits, the national recycling rate has in-
creased only slightly since 2000, according to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). While local govern-
ments have the primary role in operating recycling pro-
grams, EPA and the Department of Commerce (Com-
merce) have some legal responsibilities for encouraging re-
cycling. GAO was asked to (1) identify key practices cities
are using to increase recycling, (2) describe what EPA and
Commerce are doing to encourage recycling, and (3) iden-
tify federal policy options that could help increase recy-
cling. GAO interviewed recycling coordinators in 11 large
cities about key practices and 13 additional recycling
stakeholders about policy options.
Key findings from the report release in December 2006 in-
cluded:

Recycling coordinators with whom GAO spoke in se-

lected cities across the country identified several key
practices they are using to increase recycling in their cit-
ies. The three practices they cited most frequently were
(1) making recycling convenient and easy for their resi-
dents, (2) offering financial incentives for recycling,
such as allowing residents who produce less waste
through recycling to use smaller garbage cans and pay
lower fees, and (3) conducting public education and out-
reach. In addition, both recycling coordinators and the
recycling literature identified other ways to increase re-
cycling, such as targeting a wide range of materials for
recycling and extending recycling programs to the com-
mercial sector.
The recycling stakeholders GAO interviewed identified
various federal policy options that they believe could
help municipalities increase their recycling rates. The
three federal policy options cited most frequently were
to (1) establish a nationwide campaign to educate the
public about recycling, (2) enact a national bottle bill
in which beverage containers may be returned for
money, and (3) require manufacturers to establish sys-
tems that consumers can use to recycle their products.
Other identified policy options included facilitating the
sharing of recycling best practices among municipali-
ties, expanding EPA research on the economic and envi-
ronmental benefits of recycling, and providing addi-
tional grant money for recycling projects.
Bottle Bills: The term bottle bill is actually another way
of saying container deposit law. A container deposit law
requires a minimum refundable deposit on beer, soft drink,
and other beverage containers in order to ensure a high rate
of recycling or reuse.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Today, 11 states have a deposit law requiring refundable
deposits on certain beverage containers California, Con-
necticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. No state de-
posit lawhas ever been repealed. In fact, several states have
expanded their laws to cover beverages such as juice and
sports drinks, teas, and bottled water beverages that did
not exist when most bottle bills were passed.
Seven states report a reduction of beverage container litter
ranging from70-83%, and a reduction in total litter ranging
from30-47%after implementation of a bottle bill. High re-
cycling rates were also achieved.
As examples, the at-a-glance versions of the bottle bills
in California and Massachusetts are shown below:
Packaging environmental efficiency study: A 56-page
study that takes a careful, measured look at environmental
efficiency for various formats was released earlier this
year.
The study comprises a look at 52 of the highest-volume
product categories from four types of retailers: supermar-
kets, mass/general merchandise, drug/health & beauty aid,
and club stores. The formula used in the study to determine
packaging efficiency is:
Amount of packaging per equivalent unit of product - (mi-
nus) Amount diverted by recycling or use of post-con-
sumer recycled materials (whichever is greater) = Amount
landfilled (or Net discards).
Major findings

The best way to reduce net discards is through the use of

flexible packaging.

While not as significant a factor as source reduction, re-

cycling can play a prominent role in reducing discards.

Larger sizes are significantly more efficient than their

smaller counterparts, regardless of material type.

Products to which water is added at the point of use, or

removed at the point of manufacture, are significantly
more efficient than similar products that are purchased
in liquid or moist form.
10
California
Law: California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act (AB 2020)
Purpose: To encourage recycling and reduce litter
Enacted: Legislative process, September 29, 1986.
Implemented: September 1, 1987; Expanded in 2000 to
include all non-carbonated, non-alcoholic beverages,
except milk. Updated in 2006 to increase deposit value
Beverage container material types in the program:
Aluminum, glass, plastic, and bi-metal.
Beverages covered: Beer and other malt beverages, soft
drinks, wine and distilled spirit coolers, carbonated mineral
water, soda water, noncarbonated water, fruit drinks, some
vegetable juices, coffee and tea beverages, and sport drinks.
Amount of deposit: 5 under 24 oz., 10 over 24 oz.
Unredeemed Deposits: returned to a state-managed fund
Unique features:
Containers are returned to redemption centers instead of
retailers.
Unclaimed redemption payments go towards program ad-
ministration, grants to nonprofits and other organizations,
recycling and education programs, and reimbursement to
municipal governments curbside programs for the contain-
ers they collect.
Refillable containers are exempt.
State government, not private industry, oversees the
Program and controls the operating funds.
Beverage manufacturers pay Processing Fees to offset
recyclers costs when the cost of recycling exceeds the
value of material.
Glass container manufacturers must use a minimumamount
of recycled glass to produce new containers.
Administering agency: Department of Conservation
Massachusetts
Law: Beverage Container Recovery Law
Purpose: To provide an economic incentive for consumers
to return used beverage containers and encourage conserva-
tion of materials and energy through recycling and reuse
Enacted: Became law by legislative override of the gover-
nors veto in 1981. Survived repeal by referendum effort in
1982 by a 60% to 40% vote.
Implemented: January 1983
Containers covered: Beer, soft drink, and carbonated water
Amount of deposit: 5 cents
Handling fee: 2.25 cents per container (originally 1 cent)
Unique features:
Wholesalers are required to file monthly reports with the
Department of Revenue regarding deposits received and re-
funds given.
The escheat amendment passed in 1989 (implemented in
1990) made all unredeemed deposits the property of the
state of 1990. Originally, escheats were earmarked for
MSW-related education only. Escheats were changed to the
general fund in 2003.
Administering agency: Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)

While there may be value in the use of materials made

fromrenewable resources, it is not apparent when exam-
ining packaging from an efficiency standpoint.
The rise of single-serve items, especially for snack
foods, has the potential to increase waste.
Some major conclusions

Reducing packaging weight continues to offer signifi-

cant opportunities to minimize net discards, regardless
of the materials.

Product-to-package weight ratio is an excellent indicator

to using when making topline decisions about packaging
efficiencies.

Consumer goods marketers should be encouraged to de-

velop and aggressively promote flexible packaging, con-
centrates and refills, dry mixes, and larger sizes for ap-
propriate applications.
Universal Design
The term universal design was first coined in 1985 by
Ron Mace, an American architect and designer. Mace de-
fined the concept as the design of all products and envi-
ronments to be usable by people to the greatest extent pos-
sible without the need for adaptation or specialized de-
sign. Products that are designed universally reach the
largest possible audience by going beyond the needs and
abilities of average, healthy adults to include seniors,
children, and those with motor and sensory disabilities.
The integration of universal design into packaging in the
US is still relatively new; however, the potential market is
huge. It is estimated that in the US 8.6 million people over
the age of 6 have difficulty with one or more of the activi-
ties of daily life and 4.1 million people need some kind of
personal assistance. The 2000 Census counted 49.7 million
people with some type of long-lasting condition or disabil-
ity representing almost 20%of the people who are aged 5
or over in the civilian, non-institutionalized population.
Some current examples of universal design include:

Duracell recently commissioned a packaging and prod-

uct design and development agency to redesign its hear-
ing aid battery package. The existing package presented
such difficulty for some users that they were reportedly
saving their hearing aids for special occasions to pro-
long the charge and avoid struggling with the packaging
to change the battery. The solution was the Duracell
EasyTab, a design with an easy-to-open, resealable
package and individual tabs with a grippable surface that
transforms them into a tool to place the battery easily
into the hearing aid. The designer said the package em-
powered users to change their batteries by themselves
rather than asking for help. The end result for users was
having usable hearing aids; the result for Duracell was
increased battery sales. The design was specifically
aimed at the elderly, but sacrificed no convenience for
other users, making the new package handier for con-
sumers of all ages and abilities.
Proctor & Gamble has its Folgers AromaSeal coffee
canister in the market, featuring an easy-grip molded
handle (and a seal that acknowledges approval of the
American Arthritis Foundation), and a full line of Pam-
pers Kandoo childrens bath products designed to
make themaccessible to childrens small hands. Kandoo
Foaming Body Wash and Instant Foam Shampoo have a
broad base, and Airsprays wide and easy-to-use pump
top that dispenses instant foam, helping to empower kids
and make bath time easy and fun.
The Principles of Universal Design: The Center for Uni-
versal Design at North Carolina State University identi-
fies seven principles of Universal Design:

Equitable useappeals to all users

Flexibility in useaccommodates a range of individual

preferences

Simple and intuitive designeliminates complexity for

users of varying abilities

Perceptible informationconveys messages regardless

of user abilities

Tolerance for errorminimizes hazards from unin-

tended actions

Low physical effortprevents user fatigue

Size and space for approach and useaccommodates
size/mobility issues
The Center for Universal Design is a national research, in-
formation, and technical assistance center that evaluates,
develops, and promotes accessible and universal design in
housing, buildings, outdoor and urban environments and
related products. The Centers work manifests the belief
that all new environments and products, to the greatest ex-
tent possible, should be usable by everyone regardless of
their age, ability, or circumstance. Part of the College of
Design at North Carolina State University (NCSU), Ra-
leigh, NC, the Center promotes the concept of universal de-
sign in all design, construction, and manufacturing disci-
plines through research, design assistance, and training.
Activities
The Center conducts original research to learn what design
solutions are appropriate for the widest diversity of users
and what tools are most useful to practitioners wishing to
successfully practice universal design. The Center collabo-
rates with builders and manufacturers on the development
of new design solutions. It also develops publications and
instructional materials, and provides information, referrals
and technical assistance to individuals with disabilities,
families, and professionals nationwide and internationally.
11
Research
Activities include applied research studies on human fac-
tors and user needs, usability of accessible and universally
designed products and environments, and the impact of
universal design.
The Center:

Advances knowledge of universal design principles

Identifies user needs

Conducts design and market research

Evaluates universal design solutions

Contact
Nilda Cosco
Director
nilda_cosco@ncsu.edu
Design
The center finds solutions to specific accessibility needs at
various levels of design e.g., whole houses, buildings,
spaces or products and provides design development ser-
vices for universally usable products, building components
and spaces.
The Center:

Provides concept development for new products

Conducts architectural and product evaluations

Plan Consultation

Provides design and marketing assistance to business

and industry
Contact
Leslie Young
Director of Design
leslie_young@ncsu.edu
Staff
Nilda Cosco, PhD, Director
e-mail: nilda_cosco@ncsu.edu
Nilda Cosco holds a degree in Educational Psychology,
Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, and a Ph.D. in
Landscape Architecture, Heriot Watt University, Scotland.
She has an interest on the impact of outdoor environments
on health outcomes such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, at-
tention functioning, and well-being. Her current research is
supported by the National Institute of Environmental
Health (NIEHS), the National Science Foundation (NSF),
and the Buffalo Hospital Foundation.
Mailing Address
The Center for Universal Design
College of Design
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 8613
Raleigh, NC 27695-8613
Telephone Numbers
CUD office hours are 9am - 5pm EST, Monday-Friday.
The office is closed Saturday and Sunday.
Telephone: (919) 515-3082
Fax: (919) 515-8951
Info Line: (800) 647-6777
Smart (Intelligent) Packaging
There doesnt appear to be a consensus on what actually
constitutes smart packaging. However, by one defini-
tion, it is the chemical, biological, mechanical, electrical,
and electronic technologies that make a package interact in
some way.
The competitive retail climate and the rise of private labels are
two reasons leading consumer packaged goods companies
(CPGs) to consider newtechnologies as a way to differentiate
their products. Examples of smart packaging include:

RFID: The use of RFID in packaging is still in its in-

fancy, although some major companies such as Wal-
Mart are mandating manufacturers and other suppliers to
use it to track inventory. However, there is concern that,
for now, there is no business case for manufacturers to
implement the technology: tags run from seven cents to
20 cents depending on quantities used and their reliabil-
ity is still somewhat in question.
The exception to this is the pharmaceutical industry.
There are 2 main reasons for this:
It is much easier to determine the value of RFID to
consumers in the healthcare industry, and
Compliance is a key objective for smart packaging in
healthcare.
For example:
In 2006, Pfizer was among the first to implement
RFID on a broad basis, using passive tags on cases
and retail packages of Viagra, which is widely coun-
terfeited, to enable wholesalers and pharmacies to au-
thenticate the drug.
Pharmacies serving the Department of Veteran Af-
fairs are also using RFID, but as part of a ScripTalk
system that makes prescription labels talk when vi-
sually impaired patients scan them with a reader. The
system reduces the chances of mix-ups by letting pa-
tients know which drug they are holding, how much
to take, and how often.

Other uses for smart packaging include:

Smart packaging, specifically smart labels, can help
brands arm consumers with valuable information.
Food and beverage manufacturers, for instance, can
benefit by providing customers details about fresh-
ness, nutrition, and shelf life.
Another application in the food industry is packaging
materials that alert consumers to the presence of
pathogens. This technology could have avoided the
recent (2006) outbreak of E. coli in bagged spinach.
12
E-Commerce
A survey by Strategic Analysis, forecasts that e-commerce
Internet and mail-order sales will grow between
16-20% per year. This will principally benefit 2 types of
flex-pack materials:

Shrink sleeves, and

Packaging mail bags/padded envelopes/bubble wrap,
etc.
As one example of this growth, in 2005, sales of prescrip-
tion drugs rose 6% overall, but mail-order prescriptions
rose 18%.
EPA Initiative: As part of an initiative to investigate inno-
vative solutions and strategies to eliminate or reduce waste,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in part-
nership with McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry
(MBDC), issued a design challenge. One of the intentions
of the design challenge is to encourage a more integrated
and comprehensive approach to the design of packaging
for e-commerce. The goal is to develop more sustainable
packaging services through the design of environmentally
preferable packaging and the complementary systems
needed for value recovery using cradle-to-cradle princi-
ples.
As background, EPA notes that Internet-based companies
ship millions of books, CDs, DVDs, and videos each year.
A large percentage of the shipping packaging associated
with these purchases, primarily corrugated paperboard and
plastic, ends up in landfills. E-commerce presents an ideal
opportunity for system-wide implementation of innovative
packaging solutions due to its dependence on highly inte-
grated technology for product distribution and returns.
One of the winning designs was:

The Bevelope: The key feature in the design of the

Bevelope is the bevels that help the package expand to
accommodate products with different thicknesses. The
adaptability of the Bevelope starts with just a few clev-
erly placed scores, creating bevels that make it possible
to adjust the Bevelopes thickness to accommodate the
slimmest paperback book, a molded DVDcase, or a very
thick manual. The bevels also help hold the products
within the center of the packages, providing a protective
cushion around the edges of the items during transit.
Its easy to use, re-use, and recycle and very cost ef-
fective.
It protects and accommodates a variety of individual
and multiple types of products.
It has unique, adaptable design features to meet vari-
ous client, shipper, and customer needs.
Content loading operations can be automated or man-
ual.
It can be printed with environmental markings, client
and manufacturing information, as well as other cus-
tomer related messaging.
The materials used contain post-consumer recycled
content and are easily recycled at end of useful life.
It uses minimal materials, is lightweight, and reduces
transportation energy and related handling costs.
Space-saving, the Bevelope arrives preconstructed
and flat and requires no additional filler materials
when packing, thereby reducing assembly time.
Once loaded, it has a unique appearance that in-
creases customer interest in the package and ensures
satisfaction through safe delivery.
13
Consumer Studies
Retail Driven Change:
How and Why Retailers Influence
Packaging Decisions
This is a 2006 market research report commissioned by the
Flexible Packaging Association. (Note: the cost of the re-
port to non-members is $3,500.) The Executive Summary
highlights some of the reports findings, which include:

Packaging is no longer just about cost. Retailers are

looking for value-added packaging solutions that attract
customers.

The retailer has become the ultimate product marketer at

the expense of the national brand owner. Now, 80% of
consumer purchase decisions are made in the store.
Packaging is more important than ever, as more retailers
understand the importance of shelf impact in selling
products.

The most significant drivers that influence consumers

are lifestyle trends of health and wellness, convenience,
and sustainability.

Due to their size and purchasing power, mass merchan-

disers and club stores have more influence than tradi-
tional grocery and drug stores when it comes to packag-
ing development.

Nearly one out of every four products purchased from a

US retail channel mass merchandiser, drug chain, or
supermarket is a Private Label Product controlled by a
retailer.

Retailers exert a growing influence on packaging that is

increasing the complexity of consumer packaged goods
companies (CPGs) supply chain and packaging opera-
tions.

Packaging manufacturers provide the R&D and invest-

ment for packaging innovation as well as influence
end-user consumption and retailers operational effi-
ciency through packaging designs.
Pharmaceutical Packaging Objectives
The Pharmaceutical and Medical Packaging News 2006
Healthcare Packaging Trends Survey rated the importance
of objectives to pharmaceutical packaging on a scale of 1 to
5 (1 = not-at-all important and 5 = very important). The fol-
lowing list is in order of importance with the rating shown
in parenthesis.

Product Integrity (4.7)

Protection against Tampering (4.3)

Cost-Effectiveness (4.3)

Ease of Manufacturing or Packaging (4.3)

Product Authentication (4.2)

Patient Compliance (4.1)

Ease of Use for Patient (4.0)

Protection against Counterfeiting (4.0)

Labeling Space for Bar Coding (3.9)

Protection against Diversion (3.9)

Labeling Space for Patient Instructions (3.9)

Child Resistance (3.7)

Brand Promotion (3.7)

Ease of Use for Pharmacist (3.4)

RFID Implementation (3.2)

The Market for Sustainable
Packaging Materials
Based on an annual tracking study of 2,000+ US house-
holds by the Natural Marketing Institute, approximately
16% (48 million) of the 300 million US consumers may be
LOHAS those with Lifestyles of Health and Sustain-
ability. These individuals are dedicated to personal and
planetary health they buy green products and support
advocacy programs. According to the study:

More than 50%of these LOHAS consumers list recycla-

ble packaging, eco-friendly packaging, and biodegrad-
able packaging as very important traits for their food
and beverage products.

Approximately 65% of this segment is willing to spend

20% more for products made in an eco-friendly and sus-
tainable way, while only 9%say they make purchase de-
cisions based solely on price.
The Influence of Packaging
on Purchasing Decisions
A survey of consumers by Food & Drug Packaging maga-
zine was designed to rate the influence of packaging rela-
tive to the influence of price, brand, freshness, and specific
item preferences on their buying decisions. The survey
covered 25 product categories ranging from candy, soft
drinks, cereals, and whole fruits and vegetables, to first aid
and pills and tablets.
Consumers were asked to rate each influencer using a
5-point scale ranging from1 as No influence on purchase
decision to 5 as Great influence. The results were calcu-
lated as percentages to reflect the average rating given to
each influence. Each specific influence (packaging, price,
brand, freshness and specific item preferences) was
14
counted as one fifth of the overall purchasing decision,
with the influences adding up to roughly 100%.
The findings showed that:

Consumers are acknowledging the influence of packag-

ing on their purchases.

Packagings influence exceeded brands influence

in three categories, including pills/tablets.

Packaging was rated as more influential than specific

product preference in seven categories.
Across all categories, the median rating for the influence
of packaging was 17.7%.
Interestingly, packaging was rated more influential by
younger respondents than by older respondents even
though older respondents, especially those 75+, are more
likely to have trouble with the physical aspects of packag-
ing (e.g., opening, reclosing, and pouring).
Considering the ratio of money spent on advertising to the
money spent on packaging, the findings of this survey,
showing that overall the ratings for packaging influence
and brand influence were very close median ratings of
17.7% and 18.8% respectively suggest that spending on
packaging may have a higher, long-term return.
Prominent Trends Affecting
Food Packaging
Recent surveys and studies have shown howseveral promi-
nent trends are affecting the food packaging industry, in-
cluding:

Organics/Naturals: Sales of organic food products

reached $14 billion in 2005, representing 2.5% of all re-
tail food sales, according to the Organic Trade Associa-
tion. And the category has been growing at 15%per year
for the last 10 years. The trend in packaging for these
products is towards bio-based plastics. As an example,
Wal-Mart is using clear thermoformed containers made
of biodegradable plastic for fresh fruit, herbs, strawber-
ries, and Brussels sprouts.

Obesity: Obesity rates in the US have soared from 27%

in 1991 to 61% in 2001; but according to a Food Mar-
keting Institute survey, consumers are trying to do some-
thing about it 59% of shoppers said they were trying to
eat a healthier diet in 2005, and the desire to loose weight
influences the buying decisions of 42% of those shop-
pers. The role of packaging in this obesity-related trend
is in portion control. Several companies have come out
with repackaged versions of mainstream items that con-
tain only 100 calories. Launches of 100-calorie products
increased from 9 in 2003 to 33 in 2005, according to
Datamonitor, a product research company. Packaged
goods companies are apparently finding that consumers
would rather buy regular products in smaller portions
than products that have been altered to achieve a lower
calorie count.

Convenience: Convenience continues to be a driving

force in food product packaging. This trend has recently
taken several forms, for example:
Sliced luncheon meat (and other refrigerated items) in
completely reusable plastic tubs that is, tubs with
paper labeling that can be removed to leave a blank,
generic tub.
Single-serve packaging for many items including
fruits.
Packages that save time and effort. For example,
General Mills shake n pour version of pancake
batter. The mix is in a large plastic bottle with a
molded handle simply add water, shake, and pour
out the batter. And a dessert bar mix, a no-bake prod-
uct that comes with its own paperboard pan.
Private-Label Packaging
A 2006 survey commissioned by the Private Label Manu-
facturers Association found that the steady growth of re-
tailer-brand (private label) products in food and beverage is
spilling over into non-grocery categories. Private-label
products are gaining market share in areas such as health
and beauty, home office supplies, and household goods.
Results of the survey include:

57% of respondents said packaging for private-label

grocery brands is as good as the packaging for national
brands.

On average, 32% of their product selections were pri-

vate-label brands.

41% of shoppers identified themselves as frequent buy-

ers of retailer brands compared to 36% when the survey
was last conducted in 2001.

Middle- and higher-income consumers are significantly

more likely to increase their purchases of private-label
brands in 2007 than low-income shoppers.
15
Research and Development
Research Schools
Indiana Packaging Research and Development Center
Myers Technology Building
Terre Haute, IN 47809
Tel: 812-237-8740
Fax: 812-237-3902
E-mail: mdschafer@indstate.edu
Website: http://www.indstate.edu/imt/packaginglab.html
The Indiana Packaging Research and Development Center
was formed to provide a variety of services to meet the
packaging design, testing, and troubleshooting needs of
business and industry. Services provided by the Center
comply with all recognized standards using state-of-the-art
and certified equipment. Center personnel are experienced
professionals who are also active researchers in the field.
The primary services provided by the Center are listed be-
low. Customized services/training are also available.

Package Testing (ISTA, TAPPI, and ASTM)

Packaging Material Testing (ASTM & TAPPI)

Package Design

Package Prototype Fabrication

Packaging Troubleshooting

Packaging System Development

Packaging Machinery Layout

Material Handling System Design

Packaging Line Simulation.

Michigan State University Center for Food &
Pharmaceutical Packaging Research
Pharmaceutical: Dr. Hugh Lockhart
School of Packaging
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1223
Tel: 517 355-3604
Fax: 517 353-8999
Internet: lckhrt@msu.edu
Food: Dr. Bruce Harte
School of Packaging
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1223
Tel: 517 355-4555
Fax: 517 353-8999
Internet: harte@msu.edu
The Center for Food and Pharmaceutical Packaging Re-
search explores new opportunities in packaging of food
and pharmaceutical products. In the Center, the objective is
to build a scientific base for making packaging decisions.
Therefore, the research is medium to long term.
Research Activities Include:

Product/package compatibility

Product quality and safety

Analytical methods development

Application of materials science to food and pharma-

ceutical packaging

Estimation of product shelf life by mathematical

modeling

Human factors in consumer use of packages

Solid waste management

Packaging line performance.

Michigan State University Consortium for
Distribution Packaging Research (CDPR)
Dr. S. Paul Singh
School of Packaging
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1223
Tel: (517) 355-7614
Fax: (517) 353-8999
e-mail: singh@msu.edu
The Consortium for Distribution Packaging is an opera-
tional unit within the School of Packaging at Michigan
State University. It was established in 1990 to encourage
basic and applied research, testing and service in the area of
distribution packaging. Currently, it is the only program
that examines the field as a whole with the aim of evaluat-
ing newdevelopments and collecting and disseminating in-
formation. The Consortium is funded and supported by in-
dustry and academia. This enables research that is beyond
the capability and available funding of individual organiza-
tions. Techniques and advances thus developed can in-
crease the effectiveness of all member companies. With the
participation and support of more than 10 companies, more
than 40 studies have been completed.
Areas of interest:

Measurement and description of various transportation

and storage environments.

Effects of shock, vibration and compression on

packages and products.

Warehousing and storage and the effect of climate.

Design and evaluation of packaging containers and sys-

tems for product protection against mechanical force.
16

Evaluation of packaging materials used for distribution

packaging based on performance and environmental
concerns.

Development of software to assist in package design.

Clemson University
Linda Phelps
Clemson University Packaging Science
Clemson, SC
29634
Tel: 864-656-3390
E-Mail: lphelps@clemson.edu
Packaging is a vital part of our present day economy. Its a
$100+ billion a year industry that is growing as the demand
for new packaging technologies continues to evolve rap-
idly. Todays packaging scientist is part of a team that de-
velops the product and is largely responsible for ensuring
the product is delivered to the consumer in the desired con-
dition. Therefore, the packaging scientist plays a critical
role in providing customer satisfaction - the key ingredient
to a successful enterprise.
Sonoco Institute, officially known as the Sonoco Institute
of Packaging Design and Graphics, is one of the most ex-
citing projects underway on campus. Thanks to generous
donations by Sonoco and an anonymous donor, the Univer-
sity is constructing a new building on campus that will
house packaging and graphics design and prototyping labs.
The Institute is a cooperative effort between the Depart-
ments of Packaging Science and Graphic Communica-
tions. The Institute will foster interdisciplinary cooperation
involving faculty from many other departments on campus
to provide leadership and innovation in design and graph-
ics to the global packaging industry.
Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)
One Lomb Memorial Drive,
Rochester NY, 14623
Tel: 585-475-2411
The interdisciplinary packaging science program, leading
to the bachelor of science degree. Graduates are prepared
for initial employment in such areas as package engineer-
ing, development, sales, purchasing, structural design, pro-
duction, research and marketing.
The program was developed as a result of a close and
long-established relationship between the packaging in-
dustry and RIT. The multibillion-dollar industry exhibits
dynamic growth and provides employment for many thou-
sands of men and women with wide-ranging skills and ex-
pertise.
University of Massachusetts Lowell Plastics
Engineering
One University Ave., Lowell, MA
Tel: 978-934-4000
Plastics are said to be the most versatile materials on
earth. UMass Lowell has the only accredited Undergradu-
ate Plastics Engineering Program in the United States as
well as a research-oriented graduate program.
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751-0790
Robert Berkemer, Packaging Program Director,
Tel: 715-232-1107
The bachelor of science degree in Packaging leads to ca-
reers in package printing; foods and packaging; package
graphic design; manufacturing and quality management;
and package design, research and development.
The packaging career field involves the use of materials,
methods, design concepts and machinery to develop and
produce the packages that protect and preserve a product,
help market the product and instruct the consumer in its
proper use. Virtually every product, whether grown or
manufactured, must be packaged so that it reaches the con-
sumer in an acceptable condition.
17
Key Players
Associations/Councils/Institutes
Foodservice & Packaging Institute, Inc.
150 South Washington Street
Suite 204
Falls Church, VA 22046
Tel: (703) 538-2800
Fax: (703) 538-2187
Email: fpi@fpi.org
www.fpi.org
Founded in 1933, the Foodservice & Packaging Institute is
the material-neutral trade association for manufacturers,
raw material suppliers, machinery suppliers and distribu-
tors of foodservice packaging products. The industrys
products consist of single-use cups, plates, bowls, bags,
wraps, cutlery, trays, egg packaging, nested dairy and salad
containers and other foodservice packaging items.
FPI includes the Foodservice Packaging Standards Coun-
cil whose purpose is to devise and adopt technical stan-
dards for finished single-use foodservice packaging prod-
ucts, and good manufacturing practices for such products,
that will be used by manufacturers to assure compliance
with applicable product performance, regulatory compli-
ance and safety requirements necessary to provide con-
sumers assurance that such products and manufacturing
practices meet or exceed expectations for performance,
product quality, and sanitation.
Flexible Packaging Association
971 Corporate Boulevard
Suite 403
Linthicum, MD 21090
Tel: 410. 694. 0800
Fax: 410. 694. 0900
Email: fpa@flexpack.org
www.flexpack.org
The members of the Flexible Packaging Association pro-
duce flexible packaging for retail and institutional food and
non-food, and medical and pharmaceutical markets, and
industrial applications. FPA data does not include con-
sumer products such as can liners and storage bags, stretch
films or retail poly bags.
Institute of Food Technologists
525 W. Van Buren, Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60607
Tel: 312.782.8424
Fax: 312.782.8348
Email: info@ift.org
www.ift.org
The Food Packaging Division of the Institute of Food
Technologists (IFT) was founded in 1973 and attained full
Division status in 1977 to provide leadership and technical
expertise in food packaging technologies. The Division has
provided insight and guidance to many industries and orga-
nizations since its inception and has worked closely with
industry, academia, and government in providing informa-
tion regarding food packaging. Currently, the division has
approximately 360 members.
North American Packaging Association
113 S. West Street, Third Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: 703-684-2212
Fax: 703-683-6920
E-mail: info@paperbox.org
www.paperbox.org
The Association represents two main suppliers of paper-
board packaging: Folding Carton Converters and Rigid
(Set-Up) Box Manufacturers.
The Paperboard Packaging Council
201 N. Union Street, Suite 220
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: 703-836-3300
Fax: 703-836-3290
Email: paperboardpackaging@ppcnet.org
www.ppcnet.org
PPCs Technical and Production programs are designed to
educate folding carton converters on the latest advances in
technology. Held twice a year, Technical and Production
Forums provide participants with an opportunity for
wide-ranging discussions with suppliers to the industry.
18
Glass Packaging Institute
700 North Fairfax Street
Suite 510
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: (703) 684-6359
Fax: (703) 299-7543
Email: info@gpi.org
www.gpi.org
The Glass Packaging Institute (GPI) serves as the voice for
the glass container industry in Washington, D.C., and
across the country. GPI serves its member companies
through legislative, public relations, promotional and tech-
nical activities. GPI member companies bring a diverse ar-
ray of products to consumers. Companies produce glass
containers for food, beer, soft drinks, wine, liquor, cosme-
tics, toiletries, medicine and more. In addition to serving
domestic companies that manufacture glass containers,
GPI also represents Canadian and Mexican glass container
companies and numerous suppliers.
Association of Independent Corrugated Converters
(AICC)
113 S. West Street, 3rd floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
USA
Toll-Free Telephone 877-836-AICC (2422)
Tel: 703-836-AICC (2422)
Fax: 703-836-2795
Email: info@aiccbox.org
www.aiccbox.org
AICC represents a majority of the independent corrugated
packaging manufacturers and their suppliers. They are
dedicated to strengthening the independents position in
the marketplace through programs and publications that
empower their members to compete successfully in a rap-
idly changing industry and an increasingly competitive and
global business environment.
Sustainable Packaging Coalition
c/o GreenBlue
600 E. Water St., Suite C
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Tel: 434/817-1424x309
Fax: 434/817-1425
Mission: to advocate and communicate a positive, robust
environmental vision for packaging and to support innova-
tive, functional packaging materials and systems that pro-
mote economic and environmental health through supply
chain collaboration.
Approach:

Provide a forum for supply chain collaboration

Share best practices and design guidelines

Support innovation and effective, new technologies

Provide education, resources and tools.

Aseptic Packaging Council
www.aseptic.org
The Aseptic Packaging Council is a trade association rep-
resenting the major U.S. manufacturers of aseptic pack-
agesTetra Pak Inc. of Vernon Hills, Illinois and SIG
Combibloc Inc. of Columbus, Ohio. Founded in 1989, the
APCs mission is to inform the American public about the
product benefits and environmental attributes of aseptic
packaging.
Tetra Pak Inc.
101 Corporate Woods Parkway
Vernon Hills, IL 60061
Tel: 847-955-6000
Fax: 847-955-6500
SIG Beverages USA (for plastic packaging)
SIG Beverages North America Inc., 1 Harvard Way,
Suite 2
Hillsborough NJ 08844
United States
Tel: 908 253 9600
SIG Combibloc, Inc. (for carton packaging)
2501 Seaport Drive, River Front Suite 100
Chester, PA 19013
United States
Tel: 610 546 4200
Fax: 610 546 4201
International Association of Packaging Research
Institutes (IAPRI)
www.iapriweb.org
IAPRI was established in 1971 as an international member-
ship association to promote packaging as a global science
to important target groups within international organiza-
tions and research foundations. It is a unique global net-
work that allows organizations to communicate and de-
velop ideas, exchange experiences and in many cases re-
duce duplication of effort.
19
The aims of IAPRI

To establish and advance professional and personal rela-

tionships between researchers of packaging organiza-
tions around the world

To exchange information and obtain criticism in respect

of research results at an early stage in their execution

To exchange research themes planned by particular or-

ganizations

To exchange experience in respect of measuring tech-

niques especially in relation to standards

To give advice on equipment and apparatus which may

be employed by particular organizations for specific
purposes

By means of exchange of information between institutes

avoid duplication of work
To arrange conferences, symposia, lectures and similar
activities
(Note: A complete list of Packaging Associations is shown
in Appendix A.)
20
APPENDIX A
Packaging Associations
A
Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc.
7979 Old Georgetown Road
Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20814
TEL: (301) 986-9700
FAX: (301) 986-9795
WEBSITE: http://www.ascouncil.org
Adhesives Manufacturers Association
24th Floor
401 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611 4267
TEL: (312) 644-6610
FAX: (312) 321-6869
E-MAIL: ama@sba.com
WEBSITE: http://www.adhesives.org/ama/
Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers
1298 Cronson Blvd., Ste. 201
Crofton, MD 21114
TEL: (410) 451-8340
FAX: (410) 451-8343
E-MAIL: emsteiner@epscentral.org
WEBSITE: http://www.epspackaging.org
Aluminum Association
Suite 300
900 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
TEL: (202) 862-5100
WEBSITE: http://www.aluminum.org/
Aluminum Foil Container Manufacturers Assn
14 Bluff Oak Retreat
Savannah, GA 31411
TEL: (912) 598-8463
FAX: (912) 598-8465
WEBSITE: http://afcma.org/
American Association of Cereal Chemists
3340 Pilot Knob Road
St. Paul, MN 55121
TEL: (612) 454-7250
FAX: (612) 454-0766
E-MAIL: aacc@scisoc.org
WEBSITE: http://www.scisoc.org/aacc/
American Chemical Society
1155 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
TEL: (202) 872-4600
WEBSITE: http://www.acs.org/
American Forest & Paper Association
Suite 800
1111 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
TEL: (202) 463-2700
FAX: (202) 463-2785
E-MAIL: info@afandpa.org
WEBSITE: http://www.afandpa.org
American Frozen Food Institute
Suite 1000
2000 Corporate Bridge
McLean, VA 22102
TEL: (703) 821-0770
FAX: (703) 821-1350
E-MAIL: affi@pop.dn.net
WEBSITE: http://www.affi.com/
American Institute of Architects
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
TEL: (202) 626-7310
FAX: (202) 626-7426
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
345 E. 47th Street
New York, NY 10017
TEL: (212) 705-7338
FAX: (212) 752-3297
E-MAIL: xpress@aiche.org
WEBSITE: http://www.aiche.org/
American Institute of Food Distributors
28-12 Broadway
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
TEL: (201) 791-5570
FAX: (201) 791-5222
American Institute of Graphic Arts
164 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10010 5900
TEL: (212) 807-1990
FAX: (212) 807-1799
E-MAIL: memberservice@aiga.org
WEBSITE: http://www.aiga.org/
American Iron & Steel Institute
Suite 300
1101 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 4700
TEL: (202) 452-7135
FAX: (202) 463-6573
WEBSITE: http://www.steel.org/
21
American Marketing Association
Suite 200
250 S. Wacker Street
Chicago, IL 60606
TEL: (312) 648-0536
FAX: (312) 993-7542
E-MAIL: info@ama.org
WEBSITE: http://www.ama.org/
American Meat Institute
Suite 1600
1700 N. Moore Street
Arlington, VA 22209 1904
TEL: (703) 841-2400
FAX: (703) 527-0938
WEBSITE: http://meatami.org/
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
1819 L St. N.W., 6th Fl.
Washington, D.C. 20036
TEL: (212) 642-4900
FAX: (212) 398-0023
WEBSITE: http://www.ansi.org/default.html
American Plastics Council
1300 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 800
Washington, DC 22209
TEL: (202) 974-5400
FAX: (202) 296-7119
WEBSITE: http://www.plasticsresource.com/
American Production & Inventory Control Society
500 W. Annandale Road
Falls Church, VA 22046
TEL: (800) 444-2742
FAX: (703) 237-4316
E-MAIL: orders@apics-hq.org
WEBSITE: http://www.apics.org/
American Productivity & Quality Center
123 N. Post Oak Lane
Houston, TX 77024
TEL: (713) 681-4020
FAX: (713) 681-1182
E-MAIL: apqcinfo@apqc.org
WEBSITE: http://www.apqc.org/
American Society for Quality (ASQ)
P.O. Box 3005
Milwaukee, WI 53201 3005
TEL: (414) 272-8575
E-MAIL: cs@asqc.org
WEBSITE: http://www.asqc.org/
American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM)
100 Barr Harbor Drive
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
TEL: (610) 832-9500
FAX: (610) 832-9555
E-MAIL: service@astm.org
WEBSITE: http://www.astm.org
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
345 E. 47th Street
New York, NY 10017-2392
TEL: (212) 705-7470
FAX: (212) 705-6771
WEBSITE: http://www.asme.org/
Aseptic Packaging Council
Suite 700
2111 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201
TEL: (800) 277-8088
WEBSITE: http://www.aseptic.org/
Association of Container Reconditioners
Suite 140
8401 Corporate Drive
Landover, MD 20785
TEL: (301) 577-3786
FAX: (301) 577-6476
Association of Independent Corrugated Converters
(AICC)
113 S. West Street, P.O. Box 25708
Alexandria, VA 22313-1174
TEL: (703) 836-2422
FAX: (703) 836-2795
Association of Industrial Metallizers, Coaters and
Laminators (AIMCAL)
201 Springs Street
Ft. Mill, SC 29715
TEL: (803) 802-7820
FAX: (803) 802-7821
E-MAIL: aimcal@aimcal.org
WEBSITE: http://www.aimcal.org
Association of Post-Consumer Plastic Recyclers
Suite 501
1275 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
TEL: (202) 371-5336
FAX: (202) 371-0616
E-MAIL: apr@recycle.net
Association of Professional Material Handling
Consultants
Suite 224
8720 Red Oak Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28217
TEL: (704) 529-1725
FAX: (704) 522-7826
Automatic Identification Manufacturers International
Suite 100
11860 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
TEL: (703) 391-7621
FAX: (703) 391-7624
E-MAIL: adc@aimi.org
WEBSITE: http://www.aimi.org/
22
B
Boxboard Research & Development Association
Suite 207
350 S. Kalamazoo Mall
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
C
Can Manufacturers Institute
1625 Massachusettes Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
TEL: (202) 232-4677
WEBSITE: http://www.cancentral.com/
Center for Plastic Recycling Research
Building 4109
Rutgers University- Livingston
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5062
Chemical Manufacturers Association
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
TEL: (703) 741-5000
FAX: (703) 741-6000
WEBSITE: http://www.cmahq.com/
Chilled Foods Association
5775D Peachtree-Dunwood Road
Atlanta, GA 30342
Closure Manufacturers Association
Suite 800
1627 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
WEBSITE: http://www.gpi.org/cma.htm
Composite Can & Tube Institute
1630 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
TEL: (703) 549-2233
FAX: (703) 549-4912
E-MAIL: cctiwdc@cctiwdc.org
WEBSITE: http://www.cctiwdc.org/
Consumer Products Manufacturers Association
8 Noirth Main Street
Pittsofrd NY 14534
TEL: (716) 586-1730
FAX: (716) 586-2099
WEBSITE: http://www.cpma-global.org
Contract Packaging Association
1601 N. Bond St.
Naperville, IL 60563
TEL: (630) 544-5053
FAX: (630) 544-5055
E-MAIL: info@contractpackaging.org
WEBSITE: www.contractpackaging.org
Converting Equipment Manufacturers Association
66 Morris Ave., Ste. 2A
Springfield, NJ 07081
TEL: (973) 379-1100
FAX: (973) 379-6507
WEBSITE: http://www.cema-converting.org
Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association
(CEMA)
6724 Lone Oak Blvd.
Naples, FL 34109
TEL: (941) 514-3441
FAX: (941) 514-3470
EMAIL: mailto:cema@cemanet.org
WEBSITE: http://www.cemanet.org
Corrugated Packaging Council
2850 Golf Rd.
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
TEL: (847) 364-9600
FAX: (847) 364-9639
E-MAIL: jnolan@fibrebox.org
WEBSITE: http://www.corrugated.org
Cosmetics, Toiletries & Fragrances Association
Suite 300
1101 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-4702
TEL: (202) 331-1770
FAX: (202) 331-1969
WEBSITE: http://www.ctfa.org/
D
Dairy & Food Industries Supply Association
1451 Dolly Madison Boulevard
McLean, VA 22101
TEL: (703) 761-2600
FAX: (703) 761-4334
Design Management Institute
29 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02111-1350
TEL: (617) 338-6380
FAX: (617) 338-6570
E-MAIL: dmistaff@designmgt.org
WEBSITE: http://www.designmgt.org/
E
Eastern Equipment Committee
WEBSITE: http://www.EasternEquipment.org
Environmental Industry Association
Suite 300
4301 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20008
TEL: (202) 244-4700
FAX: (202) 966-4818
23
F
Fibre Box Association
25 Northwest Point Blvd, #510
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
TEL: (847) 364-9600
FAX: (847) 364-9639
WEBSITE: http://www.fibrebox.org
Film and Bag Federation (FBF)
A Business Unit of The Society of the Plastics
Industry, Inc.
1801 K. St., NW, #600K
Washington, DC 20006-1301
TEL: 202/974-5215
FAX: 202/296-7675
EMAIL: fbf@socplas.org
WEBSITE: http://www.plasticbag.com
Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association
(FIBCA)
P.O. Box 26068
Macon, GA 31221-6068
478/757-1006
FAX: 478/757-9444
EMAIL: fibca@mindspring.com
WEBSITE: http://www.fibca.com
Flexible Packaging Association
971 Corporate Blvd., Suite 403
Linthicum, MD 21090
TEL:410/694-0800
FAX:410/694-0900
EMAIL: fpa@flexpack.org
WEBSITE: http://www.flexpack.org/
Flexographic Technical Association
900 Marconi Avenue
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
TEL: (516) 737-6020
FAX: (516) 737-6813
WEBSITE: http://www.fta-ffta.org/
Food & Drug Law Institute
Suite 200
1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-4903
TEL: (202) 371-1420
FAX: (202) 371-0649
E-MAIL: comments@fdli.org
WEBSITE: http://www.fdli.org/
Food Marketing Institute
800 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
TEL: (202) 452-8444
FAX: (202) 429-4519
E-MAIL: fmi@fmi.org
WEBSITE: http://www.fmi.org/
Food Processing Machinery & Supplies Association
200 Daingerfield Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-2800
TEL: (703) 684-1080
FAX: (703) 548-6563
E-MAIL: info@fpmsa.org
WEBSITE: http://www.fpmsa.org/
Food Processors Institute
1350 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
TEL: (202) 393-0890
FAX: (202) 639-5932
E-MAIL: fpi@nfpa-food.org
WEBSITE: http://www.fpi-food.org
Foodservice & Packaging Institute
150 S. Washington Street
Suite 204
Falls Church, VA 22046
TEL: (703) 538-2800
FAX: (703) 538-2187
E-MAIL: foodserv@crosslink.net
WEBSITE: http://www.fpi.org/
Forest Products Society
2801 Marshall Court
Madison, WI 53705-2295
TEL: (608) 231-1361
FAX: (608) 231-2152
E-MAIL: info@forestprod.org
WEBSITE: http://www.forestprod.org/
G
Glass Packaging Institute
Suite 800
1627 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
TEL: (202) 887-4850
FAX: (202) 785-5377
E-MAIL: gpidc@pop.erols.com
WEBSITE: http://www.gpi.org/
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
200 Deer Run Road
Sewickley, PA 15143-2600
TEL: (412) 741-6860
FAX: (412) 741-2311
E-MAIL: info@gatf.org
WEBSITE: http://www.gatf.org/
Gravure Association of America
1200-A Scottsville Road
Rochester, NY 14624
TEL: (716) 436-2150
FAX: (716) 436-7689
E-MAIL: gaa@gaa.org
WEBSITE: http://www.gaa.org/
24
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Suite 900
1010 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, DC 20007
TEL: (202) 337-9400
FAX: (202) 337-4508
WEBSITE: http://www.gmabrands.com/
H
Healthcare Compliance Packaging Council (HCPC)
252 N. Washington St., Suite A
Falls Church, VA. 22046
TEL: (703) 538-4030
E-MAIL: kshemming@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.unitdose.org/
I
Industrial Designers Society of America
1142-E Walker Road
Great Falls, VA 22066
TEL: (703) 759-0100
FAX: (703) 759-7679
E-MAIL: idsa@erols.com
WEBSITE: http://www.idsa.org/
Institute of Food Technologist
Suite 300
211 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601-1291
TEL: (312) 782-8424
FAX: (312) 782-8346
E-MAIL: info@ift.org
WEBSITE: http://www.ift.org/
Institute of Industrial Engineers
25 Technology Park Atlanta
Norcross, GA 30092
TEL: (770) 449-0461
FAX: (770) 263-8532
E-MAIL: cs@iienet.org
WEBSITE: http://www.iienet.org/
Institute of Packaging Professionals (IoPP)
1601 N. Bond St., Ste. 101
Naperville, IL 60563
TEL: (630) 544-5050
FAX: (630) 544-5055
E-MAIL: info@iopp.org
WEBSITE: http://www.iopp.org/
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries
Suite 1000
1325 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
TEL: (202) 737-1770
FAX: (202) 626-0900
WEBSITE: http://www.isri.org/
INTERCON - The International Converting Institute
5200 Badger Road
Crooked River Ranch, OR 97760
TEL: (503) 548-1447
FAX: (503) 548-1618
International Association of Design &Package Printing
P.O. Box 1011
Kings Park, NY 11754
TEL: (516) 979-1571
International Association of Food Industry Suppliers
1451 Dolley Madison Boulevard
McLean, VA 22101-3850
TEL: (703) 761-2600
FAX: (703) 761-4334
E-MAIL: info@iafis.org
WEBSITE: http://www.iafis.org/
International Beverage Packaging Association
631 North Stephanie Street, Suite 564
Henderson, NV 89014
TEL: (702) 566-7103
FAX: (702) 566-7166
WEBSITE: www.ibpa.org
International Foodservice Distribution Association
201 Park Washington Court
Falls Church, VA 22046
International Foodservice Mfg Association
180 N. Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6710
TEL: (312) 644-8989
International Hologram Manufacturers Association
(IHMA)
Secretariat to the IHMA Americas
5650 Greenwood Plaza Blvd #225K
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
TEL: (303) 779-1096
FAX: (303) 779-3647
E-MAIL: info@ihma.org
WEBITE: http://www.IHMA.org
The International Molded Pulp Environmental
Packaging Association (IMPEPA)
1425 W. Mequon Road, Suite C
Mequon , WI 53092 USA
TEL: 262-241-0522
FAX: 262-241-3766
E-MAIL: info@impepa.org
WEBSITE: www.impepa.org
International Safe Transit Association
Suite 160
1400 Abbott Road
East Lansing, MI 48823-1900
TEL: (517) 333-3437
FAX: (517) 333-3813
E-MAIL: ista@ista.org
WEBSITE: http://www.ista.org
25
International Warehouse Logistics Association
Suite 111
1300 W. Higgins Road
Park Ridge, IL 60068-5764
TEL: (847) 292-1891
FAX: (847) 292-1896
E-MAIL: logistx@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.iwla.com/
K
Keep America Beautiful
1010 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901
TEL: (203) 323-8987
FAX: (203) 325-9199
E-MAIL: keepamerbe@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.kab.org/
L
Label Packaging Suppliers Council
4509 Willet Drive
Annandale, VA 22003
TEL: (703) 323-1790
FAX: (703) 425-7462
WEBSITE: http://www.cyberdesic.com/label/
Label Printing Industries of America (LPIA)
100 Daingerfield Rd.
Alexandria, VA 22314-2888
TEL: (703) 519-8122
FAX: (703) 548-3227
E-MAIL: lreynolds@printing.org
WEBSITE: http://www.gain.org
M
Materials Handling Industry of America
Suite 201
8720 Red Oak Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28217
TEL: (704) 676-1190
FAX: (704) 676-1199
WEBSITE: http://www.mhia.org
N
National Agricultural Chemical Association
1155 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
National Association for PET Container Resources
(NAPCOR)
PO Box 1327
Sonoma, CA 95476
(707) 996-4207
FAX: (707) 935-1998
E-MAIL: info@napcor.com
WEBSITE: www.napcor.com
National Association of Beverage Importers
Suite 1205
1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
National Association of Container Distributors
(NACD)
1601 N. Bond St.
Naperville, IL 60563
TEL: (630) 544-5052
FAX: (630) 544-5055
E-MAIL: info@nacd.net
WEBSITE: www.nacd.net
National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS)
413 N. Lee Street, P.O. Box 1417-D49
Alexandria, VA 22313-1417
TEL: (703) 549-3001
FAX: (703) 836-4869
WEBSITE: http://www.nacds.org/
National Food Processors Association
Suite 400
1401 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20005
TEL: (202) 639-5900
FAX: (202) 639-5932
National Frozen Food Association
Suite 300
4735 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
TEL: (717) 657-8601
FAX: (717) 657-9862
WEBSITE: http://www.nffa.org/
National Institute of Packaging, Handling, and
Logistic Engineers (NIPHLE)
6902 Lyle St.
Lanham, MD 20706-3454
TEL: (301) 459-9105
FAX: (301) 459-4925
E-MAIL: niphle@erols.com
WEBSITE: http://www.erols.com/niphle
National Paperbox Association
Suite 211
801 N. Fairfax Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
TEL: (703) 684-2212
FAX: (703) 683-6920
E-MAIL: boxmaker@paperbox.org
WEBSITE: http://www.paperbox.org/
National Recycling Coalition
Suite 105
1727 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2720
TEL: (703) 683-9025
FAX: (703) 683-9026
WEBSITE: http://www.earthsystems.org/aboutnrc.html
26
National Resource Recovery Association
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
TEL: (202) 293-7330
National Soft Drink Association
1101 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
TEL: (202) 463-6732
FAX: (202) 463-8277
WEBSITE: http://www.nsda.org/
New Jersey Packaging Executives Club (NJPEC)
PO 1383
Clifton, NJ 07015-1383
E-MAIL: rmisdom@vawusa.com
WEBSITE: www.njpec.com
Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association
11500 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
TEL: (202) 4299260
FAX: (202) 223-6835
WEBSITE: http://www.ndma.org/
Northeast Resource Recovery Association
P.O. Box 721
Concord, NH 03302-0721
TEL: (603) 244-6996
FAX: (603) 266-4466
NPES - Association for Suppliers of
Printing/Publishing Technology
1899 Preston White Drive
Reston, VA 20191-4367
TEL: (703) 264-7200
FAX: (703) 620-0994
E-MAIL: npes@npes.org
WEBSITE: http://www.npes.org/
National Wooden Pallet & Container Association
(NWPCA)
329 South Patrick St.
Alexandria, VA 22314-3501
TEL: (703) 519-6104
FAX: (703) 519-4720
E-MAIL: palletcomm@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.nwpca.com
P
Packaging and Label Gravure Association (PLGA)
2952 Hollandsburg-Arcanum Rd.
New Madison, OH 45346
TEL: (937) 996-9328
FAX: (937) 996-0329
E-MAIL: bklein@bright.net
WEBSITE: www.plga.com
Packaging Education Forum
4350 N. Fairfax Drive
Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22203
TEL: (703) 243-5717
FAX: (703) 524-8691
E-MAIL: bmiyares@packmgmt.com
WEBSITE: http://www.packagingeducation.org
Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute (PMMI)
Suite 600
4350 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
TEL: 703-243-8555
FAX: 703-243-8556
E-MAIL: pmmi@pmmi.org
WEBSITE: http://www.packnet.com/
Packaging Research Foundation
135 E. State Street
P.O. Box 189
Kennett Square, PA 19348
TEL: (610) 444-0659
FAX: (610) 444-0923
Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association
Suite 206
505 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591
TEL: (914) 631-0909
FAX: (914) 631-0333
Paperboard Packaging Council
Suite 220
201 N. Union Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
TEL: (703) 836-3300
FAX: (703) 836-3290
E-MAIL: ppcmail@erols.com
WEBSITE: http://www.ppcnet.org/
PETRA
355 Lexington Avenue
Suite 1500
New York, NY 10017-6603
TEL: (212)297-2125
FAX: (703) 836-3290
E-MAIL: rvasami@kellencompany.com
WEBSITE: http://www.petresin.org/
Petroleum Packaging Council c/o Irene Overman
Kreer Assoc
Suite 1780
35 E. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-2201
TEL: (312) 346-7784
FAX: (312) 372-7860
27
Plastic Bag Association
1817 E. Carson Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15203
TEL: (800) 438-5856
FAX: (412) 381-8890
E-MAIL: pbinfo@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.plasticbag.com/
Plastic Drum Institute
155 N. Main Street
New City, NY 10956
Plastic Shipping Container Institute
1666 County Road 74
Newport, MN 55055-1765
TEL: (612) 459-0671
FAX: (612) 459-1430
Plastics Institute of America
Suite 307
277 Fairfield Road
Fairfield, NJ 07004-1932
TEL: (201) 808-5950
FAX: (201) 808-5953
Plastics Recycling Foundation
135 E. State Street
P.O. Box 189
Kennett Square, PA 19348
TEL: (610) 444-0659
FAX: (610) 444-0923
Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC)
1300 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 800
Arlington, VA 22209
TEL: (202) 371-2486
FAX: (202) 371-1284
WEBSITE: http://www.polystyrene.org/
Pressure Sensitive Tape Council
2514 Stonebridge Ln., P.O. Box 609
Northbrook, IL 60065-0609
TEL: (877) 523-7782
FAX: (877) 607-7782
E-MAIL: pstctape@ameritech.net
WEBSITE: http://www.pstc.org
Printing Industries of America
100 Daingerfield Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-2888
TEL: (703) 519-8100
FAX: (703) 548-3227
WEBSITE: http://www.printing.org/
Private Label Manufacturers Association
369 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
TEL: (212) 972-3131
FAX: (212) 983-1382
Produce Marketing Association
1500 Casho Hill Road
P.O. Box 6036
Newark, DE 19714-6036
TEL: (302) 738-7100
FAX: (302) 731-2409
WEBSITE: http://www.pma.com/
R
Retail Packaging Manufacturers Association
P.O. Box 17656
Covington, KY 41017-0656
TEL: (606) 341-9623
FAX: (606) 341-9624
E-MAIL: info@rpma.org
WEBSITE: http://www.rpma.org/
Robotic Industries Association (RIA)
900 Victors Way, P.O. Box 3724
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
TEL: (734) 994-6088
FAX: (734) 994-3338
E-MAIL: ria@robotics.org
WEBSITE: http://www.robotics.org
S
Screenprinting & Graphic Imaging Association Intl
10015 Main Street
Fairfax, VA 22031-3489
TEL: (703) 385-1335
FAX: (703) 273-0456
E-MAIL: sgia@sgia.org
WEBSITE: http://www.sgia.org/
Snack Food Association
Suite One
1711 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
TEL: (703) 836-4500
FAX: (703) 836-8262
E-MAIL: sfa@sfa.org
WEBSITE: http://www.sfa.org/
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)
One SME Drive
P.O. Box 930
Dearborn, MI 48121-0930
TEL: (313) 271-1500
FAX: (313) 271-2861
WEBSITE: http://www.sme.org/
Society of Plastics Engineers
P.O. Box 403
Brookfield, CT 06804-0403
TEL: (203) 775-0471
FAX: (203) 775-8490
WEBSITE: http://www.4spe.org/
28
Society of the Plastics Industries
Suite 600K
1801 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1301
TEL: (202) 974-5200
FAX: (202) 296-7005
E-MAIL: feedback@socplas.org
WEBSITE: http://www.socplas.org/
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
P.O. Box 7219
Silver Spring, MD 20907-7219
TEL: (301) 585-2898
FAX: (301) 589-7068
E-MAIL: technical_services@swana.org
WEBSITE: http://www.swana.org/
Source Tagging Institute
225 N. Washington St., Ste. 3A
Alexandria, VA 22314
TEL: (703) 836-4090
TEL: (888) 346-7640
FAX: (703) 836-4993
E-MAIL: sorstagin@aol.com
Steel Recycling Institute
Foster Plaza 10
680 Andersen Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2700
TEL: (412) 922-2772
FAX: (412) 922-3213
E-MAIL: sri@recycle-steel.org
WEBSITE: http://www.recycle-steel.org/
Steel Shipping Container Institutev
Suite 1020
1101 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-5601
TEL: (202) 408-1900
FAX: (202) 408-1972
E-MAIL: ssci@steelcontainers.com
WEBSITE: http://www.steelcontainers.com/
T
Tag & Label Manufacturers Institute Inc.
40 Shuman Blvd., Ste. 295
Naperville, IL 60563
TEL: (630) 357-9222
FAX: (630) 357-0192
WEBSITE: http://www.tlmi.com/
TAPPI-Technical Association of the Pulp &
Paper Industry
Technology Park/Atlanta
P.O. Box 105113
Atlanta, GA 30348-5113
TEL: (770) 446-1400
FAX: (770) 446-6947
E-MAIL: servicelin@tappi.org
WEBSITE: http://www.tappi.org/
Textile Bag Manufacturers Association
P.O. Box 2145
Northbrook, IL 60065-2145
TEL: (708) 272-3930
FAX: (708) 272-4863
The Tube Council
1601 North Bond Street, Suite 101
Naperville, Illinois 60563
TEL: (630) 544-5051
FAX: (630) 544-5055
E-MAIL: info@tube.org
WEBSITE: http://www.tube.org
U
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20062-0002
TEL: (800) 649-9719
FAX: (202) 887-3445
E-MAIL: member@uschamber.org
WEBSITE: http://www.uschamber.org/
U.S. Poultry & Egg Association
1530 Cooledge Road
Tucker, GA 30084-7303
TEL: (770) 493-9401
FAX: (770) 493-9257
WEBSITE: http://www.poultryegg.org/
Uniform Code Council Inc.
1009 Lenox Dr., Ste. 202
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
TEL: (609) 620-4563
FAX: (609) 620-1200
E-MAIL: healthcare@uc-counil.org
WEBSITE: http://www.uc-council.org
United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association
727 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22134
United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission
4330 E. West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
TEL: (800) 638-2772
FAX: (301) 504-0124 or (301) 504-0025
E-MAIL: info@cpsc.gov
WEBSITE: http://www.cpsc.gov
US Food & Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition
200 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20204
TEL: (703) 836-3410
FAX: (703) 836-2049
WEBSITE: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/
29
30
V
Vinyl Environmental Resource Center
19th Floor
One Cascade Plaza
Akron, OH 44308
TEL: (800) 969-8469
FAX: (330) 376-9379
Vinyl Institute
65 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
TEL: (973) 898-6699
FAX: (973) 898-6633
WEBSITE: http://www.vinylinfo.org/
W
Warehousing Education & Research Coucil (WERC)
Suite 170
1100 Jorie Boulevard
Oak Brook, IL 60523-2243
TEL: (630) 990-0001
FAX: (630) 990-0256
E-MAIL: wercoffice@werc.org
WEBSITE: http://www.werc.org/
Wirebound Box Manufacturers Association
3263 Sprucewood Lane
Wilmette, IL 60091
TEL: (708) 2515575
FAX: (708) 251-5898
Women in Packaging
Suite 106-107
4290 Bells Ferry Road
Kennesaw, GA 30144-1300
TEL: (770) 924-3563
FAX: (770) 928-2338
E-MAIL: packwm@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.womeninpackaging.org/
World Packaging Organisation
Box 9 SE-164 93 KISTA SWEDEN
TEL:+46 8 752 5778
FAX: +46 8 751 3889
WEBSITE: http://www.worldpackaging.org/
APPENDIX B
Sustainable Packaging Resource Guide
Introduction
Resource Guide
Info Streams
Sustainability Education
Sustainability Consultants
Materials
Adhesives
Glass
Metals
Paper: General Resources
Paper and Paperboard
Plastics: Biodegradable, Biobased, Recycled
Reusable Containers
Transport Packaging
Packaging Legislation and Information
Printers and Information on Printing
Non-Governmental Organizations
Sustainable Business
Sustainable Purchasing
Waste Issues
Introduction
Definition of Sustainable Packaging
Reprinted with permission from The Sustainable Pack-
aging Coalition http://sustainablepackaging.org (down-
load full PDF document from website)
Sustainable packaging:
1. Is beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and com-
munities throughout its life cycle;
2. Meets market criteria for performance and cost;
3. Is sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled
using renewable energy;
4. Maximizes the use of renewable or recycled source
materials;
5. Is manufactured using clean production technologies
and best practices;
6. Is made from materials healthy in all probable end of
life scenarios;
7. Is physically designed to optimize materials and en-
ergy;
8. Is effectively recovered and utilized in biological
and/or industrial cradle to cradle cycles.
Editors note: The Sustainable Packaging Coalition has
been clear to remind everyone, the criteria are an end-goal
not an all or nothing sort of thing. As we begin new
products, or look to improve our systems, the criteria pro-
vide a benchmark against which to measure our ef-
forts. Sometimes well hit all the marks, sometimes just a
few. But in every case the movement is always forward.
Resource Guide
Reprinted with permission fromPaper or Plastic: Solutions
for and overpackaged world by Daniel Imhoff /
ISBN-1-57805-117-1 http://www.watershedmedia.org
Info Streams

Package Design Magazine

http://www.packagedesignmag.com/

E, the Environmental Magazine

www.emagazine.com

GreenBiz
http://www.greenbiz.com

Green Marketing
www.greenmarketing.com

Packaging Diva
http://packagingdiva.com/

PTIS Packaging Design Services Sustainability

Podcasts
http://pti-solutions.com/blog/?cat=4

Raymond Communications
www.raymond.com

Waste News
www.wastenews.com
Sustainability Education
Design:Green
New York, NY
(212) 879-4160
www.designgreen.org
An educational facet of J. Ottman Consulting. De-
sign:Green is an introduction to eco-design for designers,
marketers, product managers and others involved in the
new product development process.
Minneapolis College of Art and Design Sustainable Design
Online Certificate
Minneapolis, MN
(612) 874-3765
http://www.SustainableDesignOnline.org
http://www.online.mcad.edu
Real and actionable knowledge for design and business
professionals as well as educators, government offi-
cials, and students of all backgrounds.
31
Sustainability Associates
Minneapolis, MN
(612) 374-4765
http://www.SustainabilityAssociates.us
Sustainability Thinking, Design, Visioning and Coaching.
Sustainability Consultants
Celery Design Collaborative
Berkeley, CA
(510) 649-7155
http://www.celerydesign.com
Award winning leader in sustainable design specializ-
ing in graphics, packaging, and identity systems.
Institute for Sustainable Communication
The ISC is dedicated to developing leaders that can imple-
ment proven, practical and measurable policies at a corpo-
rations operational level by implementing best practices
for enterprise communication. http://sustaincom.org/
Jedlicka Design Ltd
Roseville MN
(651) 636-0964
http://jedlicka.com
An eco-design firmserving manufacturers, retailers and
discreetly, other creative service firms.
Organic Design Consultants
Minneapolis, MN
http://themightyodo.com
Design for the living world.
J. Ottman Consulting
New York, NY
(212) 879-4160
www.greenmarketing.com/
Green-marketing consultancy and online resource helping
businesses find avenues for eco-innovation.
Techlogic, Inc.
Edina, MN
(952) 829-7285
http://www.techlogicinc.com ISO 14000 consultants
Sustainability Associates
Minneapolis, MN
(612) 374-4765
http://www.SustainabilityAssociates.us
Sustainability Thinking, Design, Visioning and Coaching,
Eco-Auditing and Sustainability Auditing and Assessments.
PTIS - Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC
Kalamazoo, MI
(269) 353-6448
http://pti-solutions.com/
Sustainable packaging strategy development, packaging
workshops, and productivity management.
Materials
Adhesives
EcoSynthetix
Lansing, MI
(866) 326-7849
www.ecosynthetix.com/
Bio-based adhesive manufacturer. Offers a wide variety of
degradable and benin adhesives suited to the challenge of
packaging and print applications.
National Starch and Chemical Company
Bridgewater, NJ
(800) 797-4992
www.nationalstarch.com/
Manufacturer of expanded starch-foam loose-fill peanuts
and natural polymer adhesives.
Glass
Glass Packaging Institute
Alexandria, VA
(703) 684-6359
www.gpi.org/
The Glass Packaging Institute maintains a member list that
helps packaging designers locate vendors closest to their
production area.
Metals
The Aluminum Association
Washington, D.C.
(703) 358-2930
www.aluminum.org/
Industry group and website offering articles, statistics, and
supplier and manufacturer resources.
American Iron and Steel Institute Steel Packaging Council
Washington, D.C.
(202) 452-7100
http://www.steel.org/
Industry group and website providing a good overview of
howthe steel industry works to increase efficiency. Use the
links on this site to find vendors in your area.
National Association of Aluminum Distributors
Philadelphia, PA
(215) 564-3484
Industry group and vendor locator. From cans to foil to
laminates, aluminum provides a wide variety of both pack-
aging solutions and packaging challenges.
Norsk MetallGjenvinning AS
Oslo, Norway
(+47) 23173980
www.glassgjenvinning.no/
Industry Group. Website lists manufacturers and suppliers
of recycled glass and metals packaging and offers other in-
formation about European glass and metals recycling ef-
forts.
32
Paper: General Resources

Calculate the environmental impacts of your paper

choice
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/papercalculator/

Center for Paper Business and Industry Studies (CPBIS)

Pulp Mills, Pulp and Paper Mills, Paper Mills, in USA
http://cpbis.gatech.edu/millsonline/main.php

Co-op America Magazine Paper Project

http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/woodwise/pub-
lishers/magazines/index.cfm

Ecological Guide to Paper (Celery Design)

http://www.celerydesign.com/paper/matrix.html

Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network Paper Links

http://www.nextstep.state.mn.us/res_detail.cfm?id=345

Rainforest Alliance A SmartGuide to Paper & Print

Sources
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/
smartguide.html FSC-Accredited Mills from guide
Cascades Dalum Papir Domtar Finch Pruyn Hima-
layan Bio Trade - Handmade Artisinal Papers Mohawk
Paper Mills, Inc. Neenah Paper Potlatch St. Marys
Paper, Ltd. Suzano Bahia Sul Tembec
Paper and papeboard
100% Recycled Paperboard Alliance
Washington, D.C.
(202) 347-8000
www.rpa100.com/
A great place to find suppliers and converters of 100 per-
cent recycled paperboard packaging.
Alberta Research Council Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada
(780) 450-5111
www.arc.ab.ca/
Leading research organization helping to develop and pro-
mote the use of non-wood fibers.
Brodrene Hartmann
Lyngby, Denmark
(+45) 4587-5030
www.hartmann.dk/
Manufacturer of post-consumer molded-pulp packaging
for numerous applications.
Chlorine Free Products Association
Algonquin, Illinois
(847) 658-6104
www.chlorinefreeproducts.org
Leading organization promoting and independently certi-
fying manufacturers of paper, paperboard, molded pulp,
and other products.
CTI Paper Group
www.thepapermillstore.com
The Paper Mill Store, a leading online paper and envelope
resource, providing graphics professionals with thousands
of leading mill-branded items.
Domtar Inc.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
(514) 848-5400
Atlanta, GA
(404) 532-1140
www.domtar.com
North American of paper certified by the Forest Steward-
ship Council.
Eco-Pack Marketing UK Ltd.
London, United Kingdom
+44 20 7823 8808
www.eco-pack.co.uk
Eco-Pack is the first environmentally friendly and biode-
gradable product in the world to be made of more than 90%
natural agricultural cellulose fibres, pulp free, emissions
free and chemical free.
EnviroPak
St. Louis, MO
(314) 739-1202
www.enviropak.com/
Manufacturer of molded-pulp packaging. 100% recycled
content and recyclable.
The Environmental Paper Network
Asheville, NC
(828) 251-8558
www.environmentalpaper.org
Environmental Paper Network websitea resource for
purchasers, environmental organizations, industry, and in-
dividuals. The Environmental Paper Network is a diverse
group of environmental organizations joined together to
support socially and environmentally sustainable transfor-
mations within the pulp and paper industry.
Forest Certification Resource Center
Portland, OR
(503) 224-2205
www.certifiedwood.org/
Industry group that promotes the Forest Stewardship
Council, an independent, not-for-profit, voluntary initia-
tive committed to promoting responsible forest products.
Website has a directory for certified sustainable wood and
wood pulp suppliers.
Forest Stewardship Council
Washington, D.C.
(202) 342-0413
www.fscus.org/
Leading third-party certifier of ecological forest practices
with over 100 million acres certified worldwide.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Atlanta, GA
(404) 652-4000
www.gp.com/
33
Manufacturer of containerboard, converting papers, kraft
papers, packaging, pulp, and recycled corrugated pallets.
Containerboard and packaging converter.
Green Field Paper Company
San Diego, CA
858-565-2585.
www.greenfieldpaper.com
All about the paper, tree free paper. We offer both hand-
made plantable paper and machine made hemp paper.
International Molded Pulp Environmental Packaging
Association
Mequon, WI
(262) 241-0522
www.impepa.org/
Industry group. Its website, though geared toward the
molded-pulp professional, offers articles on technology de-
velopments, environmental legislation, current molded
pulp products, and more. It does not provide a member list.
Write directly to the group to find a vendor in your area.
Liberty Carton Company
Golden Valley, MN
(800) 328-1784
www.libertycarton.com/
Innovative, manufacturer, printer, and supplier of con-
tainerboard, packaging, Point of Purchase, and retail
(ready-made) packaging fromits own recycled paper mill.
New Leaf Paper
San Francisco, CA
(800) 989-5323
www.newleafpaper.com/
Suppliers of high-PCR-content and FSC-certified papers.
Rock-Tenn Company
Norcross, GA (770)
448-2193
www.rocktenn.com/
100 percent recycled paperboard packaging manufacturer.
High-volume printer, producing recycled paperboard
packaging since 1908.
USDA Western Regional Center
Albany, CA
(510) 559-5907
www.pw.usda.gov/
Conducts research and develops technologies with compa-
nies to make use of agricultural fibers in paper, plastics,
and other materials.
Plastics: Biodegradable, Biobased, Recycled
Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers
Arlington, VA
(703) 741-5578
www.plasticsrecycling.org/
Plastics recycling industry group and website offering
background information about plastics recycling, a design
guideline for working with recycled plastics, and member
list to find fabricators in your area.
Biodegradable Plastics Society
www.bpsweb.net/02_english/
Industry group and website.
Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)
New York, NY
(888) BPI-LOGO (274-5646)
www.bpiworld.org/
Industry group and website list of certified biodegradable
product manufacturers (mostly bags and films).
BioEnvironmental Polymer Society (BEPS)
www.beps.org/
Industry group and website.
Center for Biodegradable Polymer Research
Lowell, MA
(978) 934-3417
http://bprc.caeds.eng.uml.edu/
Industry group and website.
Biopolymer.net www.biopolymer.net
Newsgroup and website. A comprehensive resource for
manufacturers and buyers of bio-plastics and for those who
want to keep abreast of this fast-changing field.
Adalson Oy
Koria, Finland (+35) 85886 5500
Manufacturer of molded-pulp packaging from flax and
hemp fibers.
Biocorp North America
Los Angeles, CA
(310) 491-3465
www.biocorpna.com/
Bioplastic packaging manufacturer.
Bioplastics Polymers and Composites
Lansing, MI
(303) 265-9072
Natureworks LLC
Minnetonka, MN
(877) 423-7659
www.natureworkllc.com
Manufacturer of bio-plastic films, fibers, and polymers for
packaging, textiles, and fiberfill.
Convex Plastics
Hamilton, New Zealand
(+64) 7 847 5133
www.convex.co.nz/
Recycled polyethylene, flexible, ready-made bags and
films.
34
DuPont Packaging and Industrial Polymers
Wilmington, DE
(302) 774-1161
(800)628-6208
www.dupont.com/packaging
EarthShell Lutherville, MD
(410) 847-9420
www.earthshell.com/
Manufacturer of food-service packaging. 100 percent bio-
degradable and recyclable through composting.
Earthware Biodegradables
Lagunitas, CA
(415) 488-8152
(800) 211-6747
www.earthwarebiodegradables.com/
Manufacturers of biodegradable disposable cutlery made
from non-genetically engineered wheat and corn.
Enak West
Sussex, England
(+44) 0-1403-265544
www.enak.co.uk/
Manufacturer of water-soluble plastic films.
Excellent Packaging & Supply
510-501-3307
www.excellentpackaging.com
FP International
Redwood City, CA
(650) 261-5300
www.fpintl.com
Recycles EPS which is then reprocessed and used to create
loose-fill packaging.
Metabolix
Cambridge, MA
(617) 492-0505
www.metabolix.com/
Metabolix applies the cutting edge tools of biotechnology
to create a new generation of highly versatile, sustainable,
biobased, biodegradable, natural plastics and chemicals.
Novamont
Novara, Italy
(+39) 0321 699611
www.materbi.com
Pak-Sel, Inc.
Portland, OR
(503) 771-9404
www.cellobag.com
Converter and supplier of cellophane bags and films. Great
short-run solution for wet items, fresh fruits and vegeta-
bles, or as a replacement for polybags.
Paper Foam
Barneveld, Netherlands
(+31) 0-342-401-471
www.paperfoam.com/
Manufacturer of molded pulp that combines plant starch
and recycled paper.
Potatopak Ltd.
Blenheim, New Zealand
(+64) 3 579 1079
www.potatoplates.com/
Manufacturers of potato-starch packaging and waterproof
biodegradable trays.
Reusable Containers
CHEP
Orlando, FL
(888) 243-711
www.chep.com/chepapp/chep
International suppliers of reusable pallets and container
pools.
IFCO International Food Container Organization North
America
Houston, TX
(877) 430-IFCO
www.ifco.de/
Distributes, collects, and redistributes Reusable Plastic
Containers in a cost-effective, sanitary manner to locations
worldwide.
Rehrig Pacific
Los Angeles, CA
(800) 421-6244
www.rehrigpacific.com/
International supplier of reusable plastic containers for
foods and beverages.
Transport Packaging
Liberty Diversified Industries
New Hope, MN
(763) 536-6600
(800) 421-1270
www.libertydiversified.com/
Manufacturer of naturally pest-resistant recycled corru-
gated pallets, transport packaging, and reusable packaging.
Nippon Hi-Pack
Kasugai City, Japan
(+81) 56 834-8171
Hong Kong (+852)
2730-1108
Manufacturers of recyclable fiberboard pallets made from
post-consumer pulp.
35
OrCon Industries
LeRoy, NY
(585) 768-7000
www.orconind.com/
Manufactures 100 percent recycled paperboard thermo-
formed pulp packaging. In addition, Orcon fabricates and
distributes packaging used for closed-loop returnable sys-
tems.
Packaging Corporation of America
Lake Forest, IL
(800) 456-4725
www.packagingcorp.com/
Manufacturer of recycled corrugated pallets. Not only are
these pallets recycled but they are also recyclable.
LOCK N POP
20508 56th Ave W. / Suite A
Lynnwood, WA 98036
(800) 225-5539
www.locknpop.com
Pallet Stabilizing Adhesive Systems.
Minnesota PCA
St. Paul, MN
(800) 657-3843
www.moea.state.mn.us/berc/transpac.cfm
Transport Packaging Strategy (a downloadable PDF) is a
tool to help large waste generators make informed deci-
sions about reducing, reusing, and recycling transport
packaging.
Pro-Pac Sydney,
Australia
(+61) 2 9560 7799
www.pro-pac.com.au/
Manufacturers of starch-based loose-fill.
StarchTech, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
(763) 545-5400
(800) 597-7225
www.starchtech.com/
Manufacturer of expanded starch-foam, static-free, loose-
fill peanuts.
Sol Plastics Montreal,
Quebec, Canada
(888) SOL-PLAS (765-7527)
(514) 254-8525
www.solplastics.com
Manufacturer of 100 percent recycled plastic pallets. Its
website boasts We recycle more than 65 millions pounds
(30,000 metric tons) of post-consumer and post industrial
waste a year.
Sonoco
Hatsville, SC
(843) 383-7407
(800) 377-2692
www.sonoco.com/
Producers of high post-consumer-content recycled-paper
packaging materials.
Packaging Legislation and Information
Environmental Packaging International
Providence, RI
(401) 423-2225
www.enviro-pac.com/
Consultancy group that helps companies large and small
navigate the ever-changing environmental packaging regu-
lations.
Keller and Heckman
Washington, D.C.
(202) 434-4100
www.packaginglaw.com/
Packaging lawyers. This website delivers clear and naviga-
ble information on often confusing packaging regulations.
In addition, it provides free monthly articles dealing with
the ever-changing nuances of packaging law.
Raymond Communications
College Park, MD
(301) 345-4237
www.raymond.com/
The subscription-based Recycling Laws International
tracks up-to-date changes in packaging and recycling laws
around the world. Hosts annual conferences on changing
packaging laws and trends.
Printers and Information on Printing
Printers National Environmental Assistance Center
www.pneac.org/
The PNEAC mission is to deliver current, reliable environ-
mental compliance and pollution prevention information to
printers, publishers, and packagers. A truly fantastic re-
source for anyone putting ink to paper.
Alonzo Printing
Hayward, CA
(800) 359-0522
(510) 293-3940
www.alonzoprinting.com/
Printer (digital and offset), bindery, and mailing services.
The first printer in Alameda County, California, to be certi-
fied as a Green Business.
36
Celery Design Collaborative
Berkeley, CA
(510) 649-7155
www.celerydesign.com/
Its Ecological Guide to Paper references only high PCR,
tree-free fiber, and chlorine-free papers.
Greg Barber Company
Teterboro, NJ
(516) 413-9207
www.gregbarberco.com/
Print, book, and packaging printer. One of the few printers
to feature Tree-Free packaging as well as 100 percent
post-consumer content packaging.
Johnson Printing & Packaging Corporation
Minneapolis, MN
763-571-2000
800-877-4077
http://www.jppcorp.com/
An award-winning, nationally recognized specialist in cus-
tomized design, commercial printing, packaging, and ful-
fillment.
o2-USA
www.o2-usa.org/
U.S. chapter of o2 Global Network. Both national and indi-
vidual subchapter web sites provide a wide variety of refer-
ence links covering the bigger picture of ecodesign as well
as more specific design topics.
Partners in Design
Seattle, WA
(206) 223-0681
www.pidseattle.com/
Good source on toxics and heavy metals in inks. Also
available are EcoStrategies for Printed Communications:
An Information and Strategy Guide, a downloadable PDF
guide detailing eco-printing strategies.
Printers National Environmental Assistance Center
www.pneac.org/
www.pimn.org
List of printers in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wis-
consin that have taken up the Great Printers Eco Challenge.
re-nourish
http://www.re-nourish.com/
Renourish is a resource for the graphic design industry. Spe-
cifically, renourish offers definitions, tips, links, information
and inspiration to aid in the development of a sustainable and
more environmentally conscious graphic design craft.
PIM Great Printer Environmental Initiative
Avoluntary effort by printers to demonstrate their commit-
ment to minimize their companys impact on human health
and the environment while producing quality printed prod-
ucts for their customers. Great Printers go beyond what is
required by government regulatory agencies in environ-
mental, health and safety compliance. http://pimn.org/en-
vironment/greatprinter.htm
Non-Governmental Organizations
Canadian Markets Initiative
Vancouver, British Columbia
(250) 725-8050
www.oldgrowthfree.com
Home of the Canadian ancient-forest-friendly publishing
campaign.
Center for a New American Dream
Takoma Park, MD
(301) 891-ENUF (3683)
www.ibuydifferent.org/
Devoted to helping Americans consume responsibly to
protect the environment, enhance quality of life and pro-
mote social justice.
Conservatree
San Francisco, CA
(415) 721-4230
www.conservatree.com/
Leading clearinghouse providing up-to-date supplier lists
of recycled, certified, tree-free, and chlorine-free paper
products and launching campaigns for environmentally
preferable paper purchasing.
Environmental Defense/Alliance for Environmental
Innovation
Boston, MA
(617) 723-2996
www.environmentaldefense.org/
Helps businesses create innovative, equitable, and cost-ef-
fective solutions to urgent environmental problems with
manufacturing and packaging assessments. Web-based
reference and white papers.
Environmental Paper Network
www.environmentalpaper.org/
Coalition of numerous nonprofit groups with programs to
increase the use of environmentally preferable papers.
GrassRoots Recycling Network
Oakland, CA
(510) 531-5523
www.grrn.org/
Nonprofit that serves as a clearinghouse and promoter of
extended producer responsibility, zero waste, and regional
resourcefulness.
GreenBlue
Charlottesville, VA
(434) 817-1424
www.greenblue.org
Nonprofit organization focused on cradle-to-cradle design
principles.
37
Sustainable PackagingCoalition
Charlottesville, VA
(434) 817-1424
www.sustainablepackaging.org
Collaboration of industry leaders working to create deep
environmental packaging reform.
Rainforest Action Network
San Francisco, CA
(415) 398-4404
www.ran.org
An organization that works internationally to preserve re-
maining intact temperate and tropical forest ecosystems.
Conducts campaigns to bring corporations into compliance
with forest stewardship.
Watershed Media
Healdsburg, CA
(707) 431-2936
www.watershedmedia.org/
Producers of this book. Leading publisher of professional
resource tools on wood reduction, green design, sustain-
able agriculture, and more.
World Resources Institute
Washington, D.C.
(202) 729-7600
www.wri.org/
Tracks leading indicators of forest health, including The
Last Frontier Forests.
Sustainable Business
Businesses for Social Responsibility
San Francisco, CA
(415) 984-3200
www.bsr.org/
Leading membership organization advocating the adoption
of high standards for environmentally, socially, and eco-
nomically sound business practices.
The Center for Environmental Leadership in Business
Washington, DC
(202) 912-1000
www.celb.org
Established by Conservation International and the Ford
Motor Company to promote private sector solutions to crit-
ical global issues.
Ethical Consumer
Manchester, U.K.
(+44) 0-161-226-2929
www.ethicalconsumer.org/
Website and consumer activist group. Understanding the
consumer is the heart of effective packaging, and the key to
market greening.
GreenBiz
Washington, DC
(202) 833-2933
www.greenbiz.com
An online journal of environmentally pro-active business
practices.
Green Seal
Washington, D.C.
(202) 872-6400
www.greenseal.org
Independent green certification board.
Natural Capital Institute
Sausalito, CA
(415) 331-6241
www.naturalcapital.org/
Home of a working group on ecological business solutions
furthering the work of the book Natural Capitalism.
LOHAS Journal
Broomfield, CO
(303) 2228283
www.lohasjournal.com/
Green business magazine focusing on LOHAS (Lifestyles
of Health and Sustainability), and describes a $226.8 bil-
lion U.S. marketplace for goods and services.
Sustainable Purchasing
Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board
http://greenguardian.com/business/
Website for the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Guide.
Waste Issues
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York, NY
(212) 727-2700
www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/default.asp
Helps communities solve pressing needs, like turning recy-
cling programs from budget sinks into profit centers.
EPA/WasteWise
www.epa.gov/wastewise/
A free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organiza-
tions eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the
bottom line and the environment. Scroll to Environ-
mentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
38
APPENDIX C
Green Report How to Comply with Wal-Marts Scorecard
Although still early in the project, sources and
solutions are emerging.
When Wal-Marts Amy Zettlemoyer and Matt Kistler un-
veiled the packaging sustainability scorecard at a sold-out
Pack Expo presentation last fall, the attentive audience had
a lot of questions. Some were answered then and there, but
most people walked away not entirely sure how the score-
card would affect them.
Four months later, we know more about the what of the
scorecard. The next logical question is how.
Zettlemoyer, director of packaging for Sams Club, and
Kistler, Wal-Marts vice president for package and product
innovations, provide many answers here. In addition, sev-
eral major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies
talk about their strategy to complyand what burning
questions they still have.
Q How did Wal-Mart develop the scorecard and why?
A Kistler explains, We realized early on that the opportu-
nity to make real change, both for the business and for the
environment, was through packaging.
In 2005, Wal-Mart developed the Sustainable Packaging
Value Network with about 200 leaders in the global pack-
aging industry. The group is representative of government,
NGOs [non-governmental organizations], economic insti-
tutions and members of the packaging industry. We meet
regularly to discuss the challenges as well as the opportuni-
ties in the areas of sustainable packaging. The ideas for this
large scale packaging reduction came out these conversa-
tions, meaning our key stakeholders were part of the pro-
cess all along.
As part of this initiative, on Nov. 1, 2006, we introduced
our packaging scorecard to our 2,000 private-label suppli-
ers and then on Feb. 1, 2007, we introduced the tool to our
60,000 worldwide suppliers by making it available to all of
them online.
Over the next 12-month period, we will work with our
suppliers and partners to be sure they understand how to
use the tool to improve packaging, so that we can begin
measurement across the supply chain in 2008.
Q Why will it be worth the time and expense for
Wal-Mart vendors to fill out a scorecard?
A As a supplier to our company, says Kistler, you now
have the opportunity to come in with something else to
show us beyond just your priceshow us what the
sustainability score is for your packaging design, along
with the product.
Q Some CPG companies have said that they may
need to increase product prices to be able to afford
to comply with Wal-Marts request for information.
How does this jibe with the retailers philosophy of
low prices?
A If a product costs more but has a better sustainability
score, it will be considered by Wal-Mart buyers. However,
price is an important part of the equation, and always will
be.
Q Does Wal-Mart think shoppers will be willing
and/or able to pay more for a product that has
a more-sustainable package?
A According to a spokesperson, At Wal-Mart, we are
committed to providing our customers with products that
sustain our resources and environment at everyday low
prices, so it is incorrect to assume consumers will see addi-
tional costs.
Q How will Wal-Mart market its sustainability efforts
to consumers?
A This is the most pressing issue for many Wal-Mart ven-
dors, says Karen Proctor, professor and program chair for
packaging science at the Rochester Institute of Technol-
ogy. Proctor is currently on assignment at Colgate-
Palmolive Co. Ive posed that question many times to
them, she says.
Take concentrated detergents, for example. They arent
popular in the United States because Americans believe
larger packages offer a better price per load. But a smaller
bottle is more environmentally friendly.
In this situation, concentrates are the way to go, Proctor
explains. But consumers, if given a choice, are going to go
to a competitive product and buy the biggest bang for the
buck. What are you going to do, Wal-Mart, to minimize a
companys risk? You want us to do this, market research
says dont do this but we forge ahead and do it. What are
you going to do to help us communicate at the point of pur-
chase?
Its a crucial question, especially in light of the recent
Roper ASWstudy which claims that 85%of Americans are
neutral or dont care about environmental issues.
39
Wal-Marts formal reply is: We recognize that many cus-
tomers desire products that are better for the environment
and we are focused on meeting that demand by giving them
the choices they want. We have not yet launched our
in-store marketing campaign and cannot project customer
reaction at this time.
When pressed, Kistler admits they dont have the answer
right now. But he says his number one goal this year is to
work with his agencies to figure out how to communicate
with their consumers and make it relevant to them.
Proctor puts the dilemma in perspective. You cant fault
this [sustainability], she says. Everyone wants to do the
right thing, as long as its in line with business. But you
dont develop products that nobody is going to buy.
Q What decisions will Wal-Mart make based on
a products sustainability score?
A Kistler says, This simply gives our buyers another deci-
sion-making tool and another thing to consider. But in an
area where, for example, there is a dead heat on an item,
this could be a way of making that decision a little bit easier
for our buyer group.
Sustainability, while part of the retailers purchasing crite-
ria, will not be enough by itself, though. Sustainability is
about the environment, but its also about our business,
Kistler says. If what someone is doing is not sustainable
financially for their business or ours, they should not be do-
ing it.
He explains, If making changes to a package makes it less
competitive, or if it makes it cost-prohibitive, or if it
changes the functionality of the package or reduces the
safety for our operations group to handle, we dont want
the change to be made.
That being said
Q Does Wal-Mart expect vendors to change their
existing packaging to be more sustainable?
A Yes, says the Wal-Mart spokesperson.
Q Will any vendor be exempt from filling out
a scorecard?
ANo. (Although short, this one-word answer speaks vol-
umes about howvoluntary this project is for Wal-Mart ven-
dors.)
Q Is this a global project? Will overseas vendors be
required to complete scorecards, too?
AYes, overseas suppliers will be required to complete the
scorecard, says Kistler. Our online software was de-
signed to work in all the countries that we are in today, and
has the potential to be translated into any language.
Wal-Mart International is going to have a more difficult
time to get up and started because every country has differ-
ent rules and regulations, but we are working closely with
that group to understand those opportunities. We are going
to consider, country by country, where specifically the
packaging scorecard and virtual packaging showneed to be
changed, enhanced and optimized to fit those situations.
Q What will happen if Wal-Mart finds the data is not
accurate or complete?
A We expect our suppliers to report accurately and com-
pletely on their products, says the Wal-Mart spokesper-
son.
Q What will happen if a vendor cant comply within
the deadline?
A No score will probably be a bad score. In February
2008, our buyers will start looking at more than just price in
the selection process for goods and items we purchase,
Zettlemoyer says. Were going to start measuring suppli-
ers on their adherence to the scorecard but, more impor-
tantly, to their performance in this area. We hope it is
something they want to do.
Q What tips is Wal-Mart giving vendors and industry
suppliers to speed up the scorecard process?
A The way we view the scorecard is as a collaborative
tool, Zettlemoyer says. Its going to take our product
suppliers time to input the information, but thats why
weve created the two other parts of itthe modeling and
the packaging supplier virtual trade showas areas where
we can help our suppliers. For example, if there is an area
where we see consistent low scores or consistent issues,
thats where the Packaging Sustainable Value Network can
step in and help them improve.
Communication is key. Wal-Marts packaging supplier
virtual tradeshow is an online resource where vendors can
look for better packaging solutions and work directly with
packaging suppliers. Access is now limited (after months
of access to a demo site), but its also inexpensive for
suppliers to participate.
Wal-Mart also hosts an annual Sustainable Packaging Ex-
position, by invitation only, to bring vendors and packag-
ing suppliers together in person. This years event (the sec-
ond such one), held in mid-March, involves 130 packaging
suppliers showing alternatives to traditional packaging to
nearly 3,000 product manufacturers.
Introducing the two parties to each other is the extent of the
retailers involvement. According to Kistler, Wal-Mart
will not rank packaging suppliers. Packagers will have the
flexibility to use whom they want.
40
Q Is it true that vendors are encouraged to use
materials that are Wal-Mart approved (PLA, for
example)? How does a packaging materials supplier
get its products promoted by Wal-Mart?
A None of what were doing is about mandates, Zettle-
moyer replies. Its about how our suppliers can take
sustainability into consideration as they change and make
innovation happen. Theres not been a mandate to change
or replace PVC [polyvinyl chloride] with PLA [polylactic
acid], nor have we made any mandates in the packaging
arena, but there is guidance when using material [see Wal-
Marts Seven Rs on p.26].
Wal-Marts guidance, however, is a powerful marketing
tool for the companies on its list. It can also prove to be a
deterrent for packaging material suppliers not yet on the
list.
Leslie Harty, principal of Maverick Enterprises (www.ma-
verickent.net), has been trying to convince Wal-Mart that
her biodegradable plastics should be on its acceptable
list. The products use an additive that interacts with the mi-
croorganisms present in landfills. These microorganisms
metabolize the molecular structure of the plastic, breaking
it down into humus.
Unlike other biodegradable plastics (which need air, mois-
ture and/or heat to break down), this degradation process is
done both aerobically (with oxygen) and anaerobically
(without oxygen). The products meet ASTM 5511 for
biodegradability in landfills and can be recycled without
special handling or contamination.
Because this is different than how other bio-plastics work,
Harty is having a difficult time getting her message and
documentation through to the correct people at Wal-Mart,
she says.
Q How will Wal-Mart analyze the data for accuracy
and completeness?
A Products will receive a score once all data is entered. For
accuracy, if a CPG company or packaging supplier wants
to make a claim, they must obtain third-party certification
and provide documentation. Wal-Mart will direct vendors
to certification service providers.
Q What resources do CPG companies plan to use to
fill out the scorecard?
A Options are limited. Companies can use staff members
from a variety of departments, such as packaging develop-
ment, supply chain or purchasing; hire temporary help
in-house (an intern perhaps?); or look for an outside ser-
vice. Several consultants, such as Packaging & Technol-
ogy Integrated Solutions LLC (www.pti-solutions.com),
have already assembled teams devoted to helping clients
understand and complete Wal-Marts scorecard.
While the task sounds easy in theory, reality is another mat-
ter. Most CPG companies havent figured out the logistics
yet.
At Colgate-Palmolive, Proctor says, Were trying to de-
termine what resources to use.
Clifford Henry, public relations representative for corpo-
rate sustainable development at Procter & Gamble, an-
swers, We are currently assessing the resources that are
required to roll it out to our businesses.
Graham Houlder, category packaging director at Unilever
and executive committee member for the Sustainable
Packaging Coalition, says, We are still evaluating the
scorecard and what it means for our business.
Companies that already had a sustainability initiative may
be a bit ahead. Michael Maggio, vice president, global stra-
tegic design operations at Johnson & Johnson, says
sustainability in packaging materials has been one of the
major focuses since he joined the company a little over a
year ago.
We have an internal scorecard that our corporate environ-
mental team tracks, Maggio says. Its like anything
elseits part of what we do.
Q Who is in charge of the project at the CPG
company? Why that person?
AAt J&J, Maggio says, Theres not one particular person.
Theres not a department either. Were handling it between
sales, packagingwe all kind of participate.
Other companies do (or will) have a point person. Christo-
pher Wolpert, principal engineer, innovations at The Dial
Corp., says the packaging department is the most logical
because thats where most of the information resides.
Q How much time will it take to complete
a scorecard for all the products a company sells to
Wal-Mart?
A It will be somewhat time-consuming, Maggio says,
but I dont foresee it being a problem. Its similar to other
environmental scorecards that exist already out there.
Not everyone is so forgiving. The amount of work to do
will be significant, says Proctor. Everyone realizes that
its a huge investment.
One of the challenges is finding the data if it doesnt al-
ready exist somewhere. For example, how much green-
house gas emissions are generated during packaging manu-
facture?
41
Q How much will it cost to complete Wal-Marts
scorecard?
AThere is no cost to input or viewthe data in the scorecard.
The only cost is access to the Internet-based modeling soft-
ware that companies can use to help determine the
sustainability impact of different packaging options. The
fee for using the modeling software is $900 annually for
private companies and organizations (its free to academic
institutions and non-governmental organizations).
Although Wal-Mart insists that there should be cost parity
or cost savings for its vendors and packaging suppliers, the
fact is that no one really knows for sure if the time and per-
sonnel investments will pay off.
People are struggling with how theyre going to do all
this, says Proctor. In an ideal world, this whole thing
would align and you would save all this money and fund all
this innovation. That is really forward looking.
But in the real worldIf doing this is going to save the
company money, thats kind of a no-brainer, Proctor says.
But its not always that way. There are exceptions.
J&Js Maggio says hes not sure how to calculate the cost
because hes not exactly sure howtheyre going to tackle it.
The sooner the deadline, the higher the probable cost.
When spread out over time and multiple resources, the task
and its financial impact is easier to absorb (although not
easier to track).
Q Will CPG companies absorb this expense or pass
it on somehow?
A Like any other expense a company incurs, passing it on
or not will be determined by what the market can bear.
Q If a product doesnt score well, will CPG
companies redesign existing packaging so that it
does?
A Clearly, Wal-Mart expects packagers to incorporate
sustainability into designs for new and existing products.
But, with so much emphasis at CPG companies on new
product development, will they have time to go back to re-
design existing products? Some will make the time; others
wont.
First off, I dont think anything that we put out there
would score poorly, Maggio says. But if it did, we
wouldnt redesign it specifically for Wal-Mart. If we want
it to be more sustainable, well redesign it for that.
Q How much influence will Wal-Marts sustainability
score have on packaging designs for new products?
A In many instances, says P&Gs Henry, their require-
ments reflect what we have been doing in the past, and we
plan to include our new initiatives in the scorecard.
Maggio agrees, asserting that J&Js VP of design and de-
sign strategy, Chris Hacker, is one of the top sustainable
designers in the world. At J&J, weve had sustainability
built into our goals and objectives long before the
Wal-Mart scorecard existed, he says. We havent
changed anything significantly to meet Wal-Marts re-
quests.
Into the future
Since the scorecard went live a month ago, 2,268 ven-
dors have logged on to the site and 117 products have been
entered into the system. Wal-Mart expects these numbers
to dramatically increase as the 2008 deadline approaches.
No one knows how long Wal-Mart will push the scorecard
before moving on to its next project, whatever that may be.
What we do knowis, unlike environmental fads in the past,
sustainability today has staying power. Bryan Lembke, di-
rector of package sustainability at PepsiCo, puts it best:
Sustainability is grounded in economics.
Pan Demetrakakes, executive editor, and Megan
Waitkoff, associate editor, helped with the research of this
article.
Q What tips is Wal-Mart giving vendors and industry
suppliers to speed up the scorecard process?
A The way we view the scorecard is as a collaborative
tool, Zettlemoyer says. Its going to take our product
suppliers time to input the information, but thats why
weve created the two other parts of itthe modeling and
the packaging supplier virtual trade showas areas where
we can help our suppliers. For example, if there is an area
where we see consistent low scores or consistent issues,
thats where the Packaging Sustainable Value Network can
step in and help them improve.
Communication is key. Wal-Marts packaging supplier
virtual tradeshow is an online resource where vendors can
look for better packaging solutions and work directly with
packaging suppliers. Access is now limited (after months
of access to a demo site), but its also inexpensive for
suppliers to participate.
Wal-Mart also hosts an annual Sustainable Packaging Ex-
position, by invitation only, to bring vendors and packag-
ing suppliers together in person. This years event (the sec-
42
ond such one), held in mid-March, involves 130 packaging
suppliers showing alternatives to traditional packaging to
nearly 3,000 product manufacturers.
Introducing the two parties to each other is the extent of the
retailers involvement. According to Kistler, Wal-Mart
will not rank packaging suppliers. Packagers will have the
flexibility to use whom they want.
Q Is it true that vendors are encouraged to use
materials that are Wal-Mart approved (PLA, for
example)? How does a packaging materials supplier
get its products promoted by Wal-Mart?
A None of what were doing is about mandates, Zettle-
moyer replies. Its about how our suppliers can take
sustainability into consideration as they change and make
innovation happen. Theres not been a mandate to change
or replace PVC [polyvinyl chloride] with PLA [polylactic
acid], nor have we made any mandates in the packaging
arena, but there is guidance when using material [see Wal-
Marts Seven Rs on p.26].
Wal-Marts guidance, however, is a powerful marketing
tool for the companies on its list. It can also prove to be a
deterrent for packaging material suppliers not yet on the
list.
Leslie Harty, principal of Maverick Enterprises (www.ma-
verickent.net), has been trying to convince Wal-Mart that
her biodegradable plastics should be on its acceptable
list. The products use an additive that interacts with the mi-
croorganisms present in landfills. These microorganisms
metabolize the molecular structure of the plastic, breaking
it down into humus.
Unlike other biodegradable plastics (which need air, mois-
ture and/or heat to break down), this degradation process is
done both aerobically (with oxygen) and anaerobically
(without oxygen). The products meet ASTM 5511 for
biodegradability in landfills and can be recycled without
special handling or contamination.
Because this is different than how other bio-plastics work,
Harty is having a difficult time getting her message and
documentation through to the correct people at Wal-Mart,
she says.
Q How will Wal-Mart analyze the data for accuracy
and completeness?
A Products will receive a score once all data is entered. For
accuracy, if a CPG company or packaging supplier wants
to make a claim, they must obtain third-party certification
and provide documentation. Wal-Mart will direct vendors
to certification service providers.
Q What resources do CPG companies plan to use to
fill out the scorecard?
A Options are limited. Companies can use staff members
from a variety of departments, such as packaging develop-
ment, supply chain or purchasing; hire temporary help
in-house (an intern perhaps?); or look for an outside ser-
vice. Several consultants, such as Packaging & Technol-
ogy Integrated Solutions LLC (www.pti-solutions.com),
have already assembled teams devoted to helping clients
understand and complete Wal-Marts scorecard.
While the task sounds easy in theory, reality is another mat-
ter. Most CPG companies havent figured out the logistics
yet.
At Colgate-Palmolive, Proctor says, Were trying to de-
termine what resources to use.
Clifford Henry, public relations representative for corpo-
rate sustainable development at Procter & Gamble, an-
swers, We are currently assessing the resources that are
required to roll it out to our businesses.
Graham Houlder, category packaging director at Unilever
and executive committee member for the Sustainable
Packaging Coalition, says, We are still evaluating the
scorecard and what it means for our business.
Companies that already had a sustainability initiative may
be a bit ahead. Michael Maggio, vice president, global stra-
tegic design operations at Johnson & Johnson, says
sustainability in packaging materials has been one of the
major focuses since he joined the company a little over a
year ago.
We have an internal scorecard that our corporate environ-
mental team tracks, Maggio says. Its like anything
elseits part of what we do.
Q Who is in charge of the project at the CPG
company? Why that person?
AAt J&J, Maggio says, Theres not one particular person.
Theres not a department either. Were handling it between
sales, packagingwe all kind of participate.
Other companies do (or will) have a point person. Christo-
pher Wolpert, principal engineer, innovations at The Dial
Corp., says the packaging department is the most logical
because thats where most of the information resides.
43
Q How much time will it take to complete a score-
card for all the products a company sells to
Wal-Mart?
A It will be somewhat time-consuming, Maggio says,
but I dont foresee it being a problem. Its similar to other
environmental scorecards that exist already out there.
Not everyone is so forgiving. The amount of work to do
will be significant, says Proctor. Everyone realizes that
its a huge investment.
One of the challenges is finding the data if it doesnt al-
ready exist somewhere. For example, how much green-
house gas emissions are generated during packaging manu-
facture?
Q How much will it cost to complete Wal-Marts
scorecard?
AThere is no cost to input or viewthe data in the scorecard.
The only cost is access to the Internet-based modeling soft-
ware that companies can use to help determine the
sustainability impact of different packaging options. The
fee for using the modeling software is $900 annually for
private companies and organizations (its free to academic
institutions and non-governmental organizations).
Although Wal-Mart insists that there should be cost parity
or cost savings for its vendors and packaging suppliers, the
fact is that no one really knows for sure if the time and per-
sonnel investments will pay off.
People are struggling with how theyre going to do all
this, says Proctor. In an ideal world, this whole thing
would align and you would save all this money and fund all
this innovation. That is really forward looking.
But in the real worldIf doing this is going to save the
company money, thats kind of a no-brainer, Proctor says.
But its not always that way. There are exceptions.
J&Js Maggio says hes not sure how to calculate the cost
because hes not exactly sure howtheyre going to tackle it.
The sooner the deadline, the higher the probable cost.
When spread out over time and multiple resources, the task
and its financial impact is easier to absorb (although not
easier to track).
Q Will CPG companies absorb this expense or
pass it on somehow?
A Like any other expense a company incurs, passing it on
or not will be determined by what the market can bear.
Q If a product doesnt score well, will CPG companies
redesign existing packaging so that it does?
A Clearly, Wal-Mart expects packagers to incorporate
sustainability into designs for new and existing products.
But, with so much emphasis at CPG companies on new
product development, will they have time to go back to re-
design existing products? Some will make the time; others
wont.
First off, I dont think anything that we put out there
would score poorly, Maggio says. But if it did, we
wouldnt redesign it specifically for Wal-Mart. If we want
it to be more sustainable, well redesign it for that.
Q How much influence will Wal-Marts sustainability
score have on packaging designs for new products?
A In many instances, says P&Gs Henry, their require-
ments reflect what we have been doing in the past, and we
plan to include our new initiatives in the scorecard.
Maggio agrees, asserting that J&Js VP of design and de-
sign strategy, Chris Hacker, is one of the top sustainable
designers in the world. At J&J, weve had sustainability
built into our goals and objectives long before the Wal-
Mart scorecard existed, he says. We havent changed
anything significantly to meet Wal-Marts requests.
Into the future
Since the scorecard went live a month ago, 2,268 ven-
dors have logged on to the site and 117 products have been
entered into the system. Wal-Mart expects these numbers
to dramatically increase as the 2008 deadline approaches.
No one knows how long Wal-Mart will push the scorecard
before moving on to its next project, whatever that may be.
What we do knowis, unlike environmental fads in the past,
sustainability today has staying power.
Pan Demetrakakes and Megan Waitkoff, contributing
editors, helped with the research of this article.
Copyright 2006 Ascend Media, LLC - Flexible Pack-
aging. All Rights Reserved.
44
APPENDIX D
Food and Drub Administration Guidance for Industry
Bar Code Label Requirements
Questions and Answers
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
October 2006
Compliance
Revision 1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Questions and Answers
Who Is Subject To The Bar Code Rule?
Q1: Is a firmsubject to the bar code rule if it sells its drugs to
distributors, and the distributor then sells it to others (in-
cluding hospitals)?
Q2: If a distributor merely distributes a product and does
nothing to the drug itself, is the distributor subject to
the bar code requirements?
Q3: Are all OTCdrug products required to bear a bar code?
Q4: If an OTCproduct is commonly used in a nursing home,
is it commonly used in hospitals for the purposes of
the rule (21 CFR 201.25(b))?
Exemptions
Q5: Are OTCdrugs that are packaged in LDPE (low-density
polyethylene) containers and are commonly used in
hospitals and dispensed pursuant to an order exempt
from the bar code rule?
Q6: Can a firmwhose products have a very lowrate of medi-
cation errors obtain exemptions for those products?
Q7: Can drugs such as suppositories be exempt from the bar
code requirements because of their small container size
or their container material (including foil wrap)?
Q8: Does the bar code rule require hospitals to affix bar
codes on drugs?
Implementation Dates
Q9: How is the 2-year implementation date intended to
work?
Q10: Does the product expiration date have any bearing on
the bar code requirements?
Q11: If a drug was approved before the effective date of the
final rule, but a supplement is still pending as of the ef-
fective date, what date is used to determine when the
product needs to meet the bar code requirements?
Quality, Appearance, and Placement of the Bar Code
Q12: Can a firm use another automatic identification technol-
ogy, such as a radio frequency identification chip or a
two-dimensional symbology, instead of a linear bar
code?
Q13: What should be used in lieu of an asterisk in an NDC
number?
Q14: If a drug product has a bar code on the immediate con-
tainer and the outer container is an overwrap through
which the bar code is human-readable but not machine-
readable, does the overwrap also have to contain the bar
code if the drug product is administered without the
overwrap?
Q15: For a product packaged in blister cells divided by perfo-
rations that enable the cells to be separated, should there
be one bar code for the entire package or does each cell
need a bar code?
Q16: Does FDA intend to issue guidance regarding bar code
quality, such as size, symbol quality, symbol grade,
reflectance?
Machine-Readable Label Requirements for Blood and
Blood Components
Q17: Must blood and blood component labels include spe-
cific machine-readable information by April 26, 2006?
Q18: What machine-readable information is required for
blood and blood components?
Q19: We are a transfusion service and very infrequently pre-
pare split units, pediatric units, and pooled cryopreci-
pitate units; do we need machine-readable labels for these
units?
Q20: Howdo we encode facility identifiers and product codes
for pooled and aliquoted units for Codabar or ISBT128?
Where do we get information about these issues?
Q21: How will FDA evaluate compliance with the rule?
Q22: May I request an exception or alternative under 21 CFR
640.120 for this requirement of the blood and blood
component container label regulations?
Q23: Do the bar code regulations apply to routine intra-
operative or postoperative blood collection from surgi-
cal drains (salvaged blood) followed by reinfusion on
the nursing unit or other location within the hospital?
Miscellaneous
Q24: Does FDA intend to buy bar code scanning equipment
to promote bar code use in hospitals?
45
I. Introduction
FDA regulations require that certain human drug and bio-
logical product labels contain a bar code consisting of, at a
minimum, the National Drug Code (NDC) number (21
CFR 201.25). This guidance provides questions and an-
swers relating to howthe bar code label requirements apply
to specific products or circumstances. The questions are
based on those posed to the Agency since the final rule
published in February 2004. This guidance, which is a revi-
sion of the April 2006 version, contains input from the
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
FDAs guidance documents, including this guidance, do
not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead,
guidances describe the Agencys current thinking on a
topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, un-
less specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited.
The use of the word should in Agency guidances means
that something is suggested or recommended, but not re-
quired.
II. Background
In the Federal Register of February 26, 2004 (69 FR 9120),
we published a final rule requiring certain human drug and
biological products to have on their labels a linear bar code
that contains, at a minimum, the drugs NDC number (21
CFR 201.25). The rule also requires the use of ma-
chine-readable information on blood and blood component
labels (21 CFR 606.121(c)(13)).
2
Bar codes will allow
health care professionals to use bar code scanning equip-
ment to verify that the right drug (in the right dose and right
route of administration) is being given to the right patient at
the right time. This new system is intended to help reduce
the number of medication errors that occur in hospitals and
health care settings.
III. Questions and Answers
Who is Subject to the Bar Code Rule?
46
Guidance for Industry
1
Bar Code Label Requirements
Questions and Answers
This guidance represents the Food and Drug Adminis-
trations (FDAs) current thinking on this topic. It does
not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use
an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of
the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to
discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff
responsible for implementing this guidance. If you can-
not identify the appropriate FDAstaff, call the appropri-
ate number listed on the title page of this guidance.
Q1: Is a firm subject to the bar code rule if it sells its
drugs to distributors, and the distributor then sells
it to others (including hospitals)?
A1: Yes. Under 201.25, manufacturers, repackers, re-
labelers, and private label distributors of human pre-
scription drug products, biological products, and
over-the-counter (OTC) drug products that are dis-
pensed pursuant to an order and are commonly used
in hospitals are subject to the bar code requirement,
regardless of the method they use to distribute their
drug products.
Q2: If a distributor merely distributes a product and
does nothing to the drug itself, is the distributor
subject to the bar code requirements?
A2: No. Under 201.25, manufacturers, repackers, re-
labelers, and private label distributors of drug prod-
ucts covered by the bar code rule who are subject to
the establishment registration and drug listing re-
quirements in section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 360) are re-
sponsible for placing the appropriate bar code on the
product. A distributor who does nothing to the drug
itself is not subject to registration and listing require-
ments and thus is not required to place a bar code on
the product. However, any drug that requires a bar
code and does not have one is misbranded under sec-
tion 502 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 352).
Q3: Are all OTC drug products required to bear a bar
code?
A3: No. As discussed at length in the preamble to the fi-
nal rule, 69 FR 9120 at 9124-9126, as well as the
codified regulation, OTC drug products must bear a
bar code if commonly used in hospitals and dis-
pensed pursuant to an order.
Q4: If an OTC product is commonly used in a nursing
home, is it commonly used in hospitals for the
purposes of the rule (21 CFR 201.25(b))?
A4: Not necessarily. The preamble to the final rule, 69 FR
9120 at 9124-9126, explained that FDAdid not intend
to imply that the rule would cover OTCdrug products
that were commonly used in institutions other than
hospitals, and revised proposed 201.25(b) to replace
institutional use with hospital use. The preamble
also explained that determining whether a facility is a
hospital depends on whether the facility provides
medical, diagnostic, and treatment services that in-
clude physician, nursing and other health services to
inpatients and the specialized accommodation ser-
vices required by inpatients (69 FR 9120 at 9125). If
an OTC drug product is commonly used in a nursing
home that meets the definition of a hospital (and the
product is dispensed pursuant to an order), then the
OTC drug product should bear a bar code.
Exemptions
47
Q5: Are OTC drugs that are packaged in LDPE
(low-density polyethylene) containers and are
commonly used in hospitals and dispensed
pursuant to an order exempt from the bar code
rule?
A5: No. However, effective immediately, in the exer-
cise of our enforcement discretion, we do not intend
to object if OTC drug products in LDPE form fill
and seal containers that are not packaged with an
overwrap do not bear a bar code. We responded to a
comment on LDPE containers in the preamble to
the final rule (response to comment 22, 69 FR 9120
at 9129). Because the comment was presented in the
context of prescription drugs, our response ad-
dressed prescription drugs. The technical issue (po-
tential leaching), however, affects any drug pack-
aged in this manner. We will also consider amend-
ing the regulation to extend the exemption for pre-
scription drugs in 201.25(b)(1)(i)(F) to OTC
drugs.
Q6: Can a firm whose products have a very low rate
of medication errors obtain exemptions for those
products?
A6: No. The low frequency of error is not considered a
justification for an exemption. As we explained in
the preamble to the final rule, if the type of medica-
tion error is serious, such as an error that results in
death, it would be difficult to justify an exemption
on the grounds that few deaths occur. We also have
no basis to establish a threshold or baseline number
of medication errors that would determine whether
a drug should or should not be subject to the bar
code requirement. Even if we could establish such a
threshold or baseline figure, that figure may not be
reliable because health care professionals are not re-
quired to submit adverse event reports to us. In
other words, the adverse event reporting systemcan
signal the possible existence of a problem, but it
cannot reliably predict the frequency with which
such problems may occur (response to comment 17,
69 FR 9120 at 9128).
Q7: Can drugs such as suppositories be exempt
from the bar code requirements because of their
small container size or their container material
(including foil wrap)?
A7: No. The final rule does not provide a blanket ex-
emption for suppositories or small containers. As
discussed in the preamble to the final rule, we de-
clined to exclude suppositories from the bar code
requirement (response to comment 25, 69 FR 9120
at 9130). Furthermore, we declined to exempt small
vials or containers (including suppositories, pre-
filled syringes, and other small products) and stated
that firms may, alternatively, modify the drugs im-
mediate container to accommodate a label bearing a
bar code (response to comment 27, 69 FR 9120 at
9131). A firm may apply for an exemption from the
bar code requirement under 201.25(d) if it can
document that putting a bar code on its particular
suppository product would adversely affect the
products safety, effectiveness, purity, or potency or
is otherwise technologically not feasible and the
problem cannot be solved by a package redesign or
overwrap.
Q8: Does the bar code rule require hospitals to affix
bar codes on drugs?
A8: No. The rule applies to drug manufacturers, re-
packers, relabelers, and private label distributors
who are subject to the establishment registration re-
quirements under the Act. Hospitals, clinics, and
public health agencies that only maintain estab-
lishments in conformance with any applicable laws
regulating the practice of pharmacy or medicine and
that regularly engage in dispensing prescription
drugs . . . upon prescription of practitioners licensed
by law to administer these drugs to patients under
their professional care are exempt from the estab-
lishment registration requirements (21 CFR
207.10(b)) and, by extension, are exempt from the
bar code rule (response to comment 2, 69 FR 9120
at 9123).
Implementation Dates
48
Q9: How is the 2-year implementation date intended
to work?
A9: Drugs approved on or after April 26, 2004, have 60
days from their approval date to comply with the bar
code requirement (21 CFR 201.25 and response to
comment 71, 69 FR at 9147). All other drugs subject
to the bar code requirement, including drugs with ap-
plications approved before April 26, 2004, and drugs
marketed without an application, whether prescrip-
tion or OTC, must implement the requirements
within 2 years of the effective date (i.e., no later than
April 26, 2006) (21 CFR 201.25 and response to
comment 71, 69 FR at 9147). As explained in the
preamble to the final rule, FDA settled on this 2-year
period to give industry sufficient time to make the la-
beling changes necessary to comply with the rule and
to enable firms to exhaust existing stock. The follow-
ing considerations will affect whether a drug com-
plies with the rule by April 26, 2006:

A drug manufactured on or after April 26, 2006,

must bear a bar code (21 CFR 201.25 and re-
sponse to comment 71, 69 FR at 9147).

We will not require a drug manufactured and dis-

tributed by the manufacturer before April 26,
2006, to be recalled or repacked to bear a bar code.
We intend to exercise enforcement discretion, as
described in the next paragraph, for a drug manu-
factured before April 26, 2006, that has not left
the manufacturers control by April 26, 2006.
For products packaged and labeled without bar codes
before April 26, 2006, in the exercise of our enforce-
ment discretion, we do not intend to object if those
drugs are distributed and sold after April 26, 2006,
until the existing supply is exhausted. Although we
would consider subsequent distribution of those drug
products to be a violation of the bar code rule and a
misbranding under section 502 of the Act, we will al-
low distribution and sale of the drug products until
the existing supply is exhausted, rather than requir-
ing the products to be relabeled or destroyed.
Given that firms had 2 years to comply with the bar
code rule, and the rule provides an exemption
mechanism where compliance is not technologi-
cally feasible, we believe that the quantities of drug
products packaged and labeled without bar codes
before April 26, 2006, but not yet in distribution on
that date, will be minimal. We also expect that the
brief period of enforcement discretion will not ap-
ply to many firms because of prior contractual obli-
gations to supply bar coded products or other rea-
sons. Therefore, we anticipate that existing stocks
of drug products packaged without bar codes will be
exhausted and replaced with bar coded products
within a relatively short time period.
Q10: Does the product expiration date have any
bearing on the bar code requirements?
A10. No. The expiration date of a product has no bearing
on the bar code requirements
Q11: If a drug was approved before the effective date
of the final rule, but a supplement is still pending
as of the effective date, what date is used to
determine when the product needs to meet
the bar code requirements?
Should companies use the original new drug
application (NDA) or biological license
application (BLA) approval date (getting 2 years
to comply), or does FDA intend to apply the
supplements approval date (triggering
compliance within 60 days)?
A11: The original application approval date is the appli-
cable date for determining when a product would
need to meet the bar code requirements. As dis-
cussed in the preamble to the final rule, we expect
drugs approved before the effective date of this rule
to comply with the bar code requirements within 2
years of the effective date, i.e., on or before April
26, 2006. Drugs approved on or after April 26,
2004, the effective date of this rule, must comply
within 60 days after the drugs approval date. (See
response to comment 71, 69 FR 9120 at 9147.) For
circumstances in which a drug is approved before
April 26, 2004, and a supplement for a new potency
or other change subject to the approval of a supple-
ment is approved after April 26, 2004, the applica-
tions original approval date controls; therefore, we
would expect the product subject to the supplement
to comply with the bar code requirements on or be-
fore April 26, 2006.
Quality, Appearance, and Placement of
the Bar Code
49
Q12: Can a firm use another automatic identification
technology, such as a radio frequency
identification chip or a two-dimensional
symbology, instead of a linear bar code?
A12: No. The final rule requires the use of a linear bar
code to encode the NDC number on most prescrip-
tion drug products and certain OTC drug products.
However, we do not intend to object if firms volun-
tarily encode lot number and expiration date infor-
mation, and we recognize that some firms might use
other technologies to encode that additional infor-
mation (response to comment 35, 69 FR 9120 at
9134-9135).
In addition, we stated in the preamble to the final
rule that we will consider revising the rule to ac-
commodate newtechnologies and may begin exam-
ining other automatic identification technologies by
April 2006 (69 FR 9120 at 9138).
Q13: What should be used in lieu of an asterisk in
an NDC number?
A13: Nothing should be put in place of the asterisk in an
NDC number in a bar code.
Under 21 CFR 207.35(b)(2), the Agency uses the
National Drug Code (NDC) numbering system in
assigning an NDC number. The number is a 10-
character code that uses only numerals.
The NDC number is divided into three segments.
The first segment, the labeler code, identifies the
manufacturer or distributor and is four or five char-
acters long. The second segment, the product code,
identifies the drug product and is three or four char-
acters long. The third segment, the package code,
identifies the trade package size and type and is one
or two characters long. The 10-character NDCnum-
ber can be in the following three configurations of
labeler code-product code-package code: 4-4-2,
5-4-1, or 5-3-2.
The asterisk is for FDAs internal use only. For en-
tries into our database, the asterisk is a dummy char-
acter used to differentiate between the three differ-
ent configurations. A zero cannot be used in place
of the asterisk because a zero is a real numeric char-
acter in an NDCnumber. An NDCnumber that con-
tains a non-numeric character (an asterisk) reverts
to a 10-numeric character code when used on the la-
beling of a drug product or included in a bar code.
For example, if the NDC number for a firms prod-
uct is in a 5-3-2 configuration, the Agency, poten-
tially, assigns a dummy asterisk as follows:
12345-*542-12. When a bar code is placed on the
product, the asterisk is dropped, and the number in-
cluded in the bar code is 1234554212.
Q14: If a drug product has a bar code on the
immediate container and the outer container
is an overwrap through which the bar code is
human-readable but not machine-readable, does
the overwrap also have to contain the bar code
if the drug product is administered without the
overwrap?
A14: Yes. The Agency intends for bar codes to be on the
drugs outside container or wrapper as well as on
the immediate container, unless the bar code is
readily visible and machine-readable through the
outside container or wrapper (section II.E in the
preamble to the final rule, 69 FR 9120 at 9140).
When the bar code is not easily machine-readable
through the overwrap, the overwrap should contain
the bar code. The fact that the overwrap is removed
before administration does not change the answer;
to prevent medication errors, hospital personnel
may need to scan the bar code during the dispensing
process before the overwrap is removed.
Q15: For a product packaged in blister cells divided
by perforations that enable the cells to be
separated, should there be one bar code for
the entire package or does each cell need
a bar code?
A15: Assuming that each cell has a label, the bar code
should go on each cell because the final rule re-
quires that the bar code be on the drugs label. Fur-
thermore, the bar code must remain intact under
normal conditions of use; thus it should not be
printed across the perforations of a blister pack (re-
sponse to comment 43, 69 FR 9120 at 9140).
Q16: Does FDA intend to issue guidance regarding
bar code quality, such as size, symbol quality,
symbol grade, reflectance?
A16: No. We believe there are sufficient documents and
standards issued by third parties to address such bar
code quality and standard matters (response to com-
ment 56, 69 FR 9120 at 9144).
Machine-Readable Label Requirements for
Blood and Blood Components
50
Q17: Must blood and blood component container
labels include specific machine-readable
information?
A17: Yes. Products subject to the bar code rule, including
blood and blood components intended for transfu-
sion, must be in compliance by April 26, 2006 (21
CFR 606.121(c)(13)).
Q18: What machine-readable information is required
for blood and blood components?
A18: Under 21 CFR 606.121(c)(13)(ii-iii) the container
label must bear encoded information in a format
that is machine-readable and approved for use by
the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research. Currently, two types of machine-read-
able information are recognized by FDA.

In 1985, FDA recognized the use of Codabar (a

specific bar code symbology).

In 2000, FDA recognized the use of ISBT 128.

3
Each label must have, at a minimum, the following
information:
(A) A unique facility identifier;
(B) Lot number relating to the donor;
(C) Product code; and,
(D) ABO and Rh of the donor.
Q19: We are a transfusion service and very
infrequently prepare split units, pediatric units,
and pooled cryoprecipitate units; do we need
machine-readable labels for these units?
A19: Yes. This situation was described in the preamble to
the proposed rule (68 FR 12500 at 12513):
The unit of blood or blood component label would
contain the machine-readable information if the
blood or blood component has any possibility of be-
ing transfused to a patient, whether or not the unit is
actually transfused. Additionally, the phrase, from
which the blood or blood component can be taken
and transfused to a patient would include the cir-
cumstance where blood or a blood component is ex-
tracted or aspirated with a syringe from the con-
tainer of blood or blood component in order to
transfuse to a patient. This technique might be used
when transfusing neonates or under other medically
necessitated circumstances. In this case, the blood
or blood component from which the aspirate is
taken must have affixed to it a label containing the
required machine-readable information. This would
be consistent with the pre-existing requirement at
606.121(c)(8)(iii) that requires specific statements
if a product is intended for transfusion.
Q20: How do we encode facility identifiers and
product codes for pooled and aliquoted units
for Codabar or ISBT 128? Where do we get
information about these issues?
A20: Please contact CBERs Manufacturers Assistance
and Technical Training Branch (MATTB) at
matt@cber.fda.gov for additional information. The
regulation requires a unique facility identifier.
Q21: How will FDA evaluate compliance with the rule?
A21: Our investigators will evaluate compliance with
these regulations during routine inspections of
blood establishments.
Q22: May I request an exception or alternative under
21 CFR 640.120 for this requirement of the blood
and blood component container label
regulations?
A22: Yes. However, the purpose of the bar code rule is to
reduce transfusion errors and increase patient safety.
CBERwill carefully reviewany request for an excep-
tion or alternative. The bar code regulation for drug
products recognizes that exemptions may be war-
ranted when compliance would adversely affect the
drugs safety, effectiveness, purity, or potency, or
when compliance would not be technologically feasi-
ble. In the preamble to the rule, FDAnoted that almost
all drug products are capable of bearing a bar code.
FDAalso noted that we would not consider written re-
quests based on factors such as financial reasons, a
claimed low rate of medication errors, or a claim that
the product is unique and medication errors do not oc-
cur or rarely occur. In assessing requests for exemp-
tions for blood and blood components, FDA would
follow the same approach described in the drug regu-
lations (21 CFR 201.25(d)).
Q23: Do the bar code regulations apply to routine
intraoperative or postoperative blood collection
from surgical drains (salvaged blood) followed
by reinfusion on the nursing unit or other
location within the hospital?
A23: No. In a 1989 memorandum to all registered blood
establishments, CBER delineated its policies on
autologous blood. That memorandumstated that the
quarantine, storage, recordkeeping, and labeling re-
quirements of 21 CFRpart 606 are generally not ap-
plicable to salvaged blood collected for proximate
transfusion to the patient as part of the patients
treatment (http://www.fda.gov/cber/bldmem/
031589.txt).
4
Because bar code requirements fall
under the category of label requirements contained
in 21 CFR part 606, the requirements would not be
applicable to salvaged blood.
However, the intent of FDAs bar code rule is to re-
duce medication errors, including transfusion errors.
To help reduce transfusion errors for salvaged blood,
some hospitals may voluntarily implement the use of
machine-readable information, including bar codes,
blood bank computer systems, and bedside readers.
Miscellaneous
Endnotes
1
This guidance has been prepared by the Office of Reg-
ulatory Policy in the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) at the Food and Drug Administra-
tion, in conjunction with the Agencys Bar-Code
Working Group. The Agency may revise this guidance
as we receive additional questions.
2
Section 606.121 requires the container label of a blood
or blood component to bear encoded information in a
machine-readable format and approved for use by the
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Re-
search (CBER).
3
See CBERs website for the currently acceptable ver-
sion(s) of ISBT 128 (http://www.fda.gov/cber/blood/
bldguid.htm).
4
If salvaged blood is stored in the hospital blood bank,
the requirements under 21 CFR606.121(c)(13) apply.
51
Q24: Does FDA intend to buy bar code scanning
equipment to promote bar code use in
hospitals?
A24: No. We have no intention to buy or distribute bar
code equipment.
APPENDIX E
Glossary of Food Packaging Terms
Absorbent packing
material within a package which absorbs liquids from
product; pad in meat trays is made from paper and has a
plastic liner.
Aseptic packaging
a technique for creating a shelf-stable container by placing
a commercially sterile product into a commercially sterile
container in a commercially sterile environment. The
sealed container is designed to maintain product sterility
until the seal is broken. No U.S. meat products are cur-
rently being aseptically packaged.
Bacon wrapper paper
a glassine, greaseproof, or vegetable parchment paper, or a
laminated product made from these papers and other mate-
rials, used for wrapping bacon.
Blister packaging
the item is secured between a preformed (usually transpar-
ent plastic) dome or bubble and a paperboard surface or
carrier; also referred to as a bubble pack. (example:
bologna package hanging on a peg in a supermarkets re-
frigerated case)
Boil-in-bag
a sealed container made of heat-resistant material designed
to hold a food product and permit the ultimate user to bring
the bag and product to boiling temperature in preparation
for eating before the product is removed from the bag. (ex-
ample: frozen entrees or vegetables)
Breathing package
packaging material made in such a manner that air may en-
ter or leave under varying conditions, including tempera-
ture changes, with or without a drying agent to remove
moisture from entering the package. Most wrap used for
fresh red meat allows enough air to pass through to keep
the proper color in the meat.
Can
a receptacle generally having less than 10 gallon capacity
(consumer or institutional sizes); also means to pack a
product in a can or a wide-mouth glass container for pro-
cessing, shipping or storage.
Cardboard
term erroneously used for paperboard. A stiff, moder-
ately thick paperboard; heavier than paper. (example: used
for frozen entrees)
CAP controlled atmosphere packaging
a packaging method in which selected atmospheric con-
centrations of gases are maintained throughout storage in
order to extend product shelf life. Gas may either be evacu-
ated or introduced to achieve the desired atmosphere.
Normally used for fruits and vegetables, not meat products.
CPET (crystallized polyethylene terephthalate)
a heat-tolerant plastic that can be molded into multi-com-
partment and single frozen food containers; can be heated
in the microwave or conventional oven
Delicatessen paper
used as an inner wrap for meats and for soft foods to retain
the moisture in the food and to prevent the outer wrapper
from becoming water- or grease-soaked; made from
bleached chemical wood pulp and may be given a dry par-
affin wax treatment of about 10 to 20-percent of the weight
of the paper.
Fiberboard can
a rigid container constructed almost completely of light-
weight fiber stock; may be lined, treated or coated; ends of
can may be made of paperboard or metal (composite can).
(examples: packaging used for juice concentrates, potato
sticks and onion rings)
Flexible container
bags, envelopes, pouches or wraps which can be changed
in shape or bent manually; made of materials such as paper,
plastic film, foils, etc., or combinations of them.
Foam trays and other foam shapes
made from expanded polystyrene (EPS); formed when
foaming agents are added to polystyrene and passed
through a die. (examples: trays for fresh meat; egg cartons)
Styrofoam [trade mark] is an insulation used in building
materials; its not used in packaging.
52
Frozen foods paper
a type of high moisture and water vapor resistant paper
used for inner liners in frozen food packaging; usually spe-
cially treated glassine or bleached chemical wood papers,
waxed papers, or plain or coated vegetable parchment pa-
per; pliable and strong to resist cracking at freezing temper-
atures and for high wet strength.
Glassine
smooth, dense, transparent or semi-transparent paper man-
ufactured primarily from chemical wood pulps; is grease
resistant and has a high resistance to the passage of air.
May be waxed, lacquered or laminated to be impervious to
the transmission of moisture vapor. White and colors.
Meat wrapping paper
a specially treated odorless and tasteless paper that resists
meat juices, fat and grease, and is easy to remove from any
kind of meat.
Metal can
a rigid metal container made of steel sheet or plate, 27
gauge or less in thickness, or a similar container made of
aluminum, copper or other metal. (example: food cans)
Migration
transfer of a component of a packaging material into the
product contained, or loss of a component of the product
into the packaging material.
MAP (modified atmosphere packaging)
a packaging method in which a combination of gases such
as oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen is introduced into
the package at the time of closure. Purpose is to extend
shelf life of the product packaged. (example: lunch meat in
a blister package)
Netting (plastic)
continuous extruded net of flexible plastic material, most
commonly polyethylene, which can be made into bags,
sleeves or wraps. (example: net over a frozen turkey pack-
age)
Nylon
nylon is a versatile family of thermoplastic resins that vary
from relatively flexible products to tough, strong and stiff
materials; resistant to oils and greases; widely used for
meat and cheese packaging, for boil-in-bags and pouches.
Ovenable board
a paperboard that can be placed in an oven (microwave or
conventional) to serve as the cooking utensil for food; typi-
cally a solid, bleached sulphate board coated with polyester
terephthalate. (example: frozen entrees)
Packaging
the enclosure of products in a wrap, pouch, bag, box, cup,
tray, can, tube, bottle or other container form to perform
one or more of the following functions: 1. containment for
handling, transportation and use; 2. preservation and pro-
tection of the contents for required shelf and use life; 3.
identification of contents, quantity, quality and manufac-
turer; 4. facilitate dispensing and use.
Plasticizer
material added during the manufacturing process to in-
crease flexibility; for example, the plasticizer ATBC
(acetyl tributyl citrate), used in such DowBrands [trade
mark] as Saran [trade mark] and Handiwrap [trade mark],
is made from citric acid which is commonly present in cit-
rus fruit.
Polyester, thermoset
filled plastic which is heated to harden into a shape and
does not soften when heated during normal cooking tem-
peratures; example: plastic dishes in frozen dinner entrees;
can be heated in the microwave or conventional oven.
PET (polyethylene terephthalate)
a thermoplastic polyester used in beverage bottles and food
trays designed for microwave and conventional ovens.
Polyethylene film
the most-used transparent flexible packaging material;
made from polyethylene, a synthetic clear compound
formed by subjecting ethylene, a gas found in coal, to pres-
sure. It is low cost, transparent, tough, heat sealable, mois-
ture-proof and resistant to low temperatures. Examples:
Glad & Handiwrap.
PVC (polyvinyl chloride)
replaced cellophane as the preferred meat wrapping used in
supermarkets; a member of the vinyl family made from a
compound found in petroleum. Low cost, protects against
moisture loss, but has some oxygen permeability so it al-
lows meat to bloom (stay red and fresh looking).
Polypropylene
a synthetic resin plastic packaging material used for micro-
wave-only heating of foods with low fat and sugar content;
not heat stable for use in conventional ovens.
Polyvinylidene Chloride
(polly-vanilla-deen) a thermoplastic polymer which can
withstand higher temperatures than polyethylene; espe-
cially useful for covering utensils when microwaving
foods; moisture-proof and transparent. (example: Saran
Wrap [trade mark])
53
54
Retort packaging
a flexible container typically formed from aluminum foil
and plastic laminants. Can withstand in-package steriliza-
tion of the product, and, like metal food cans, can provide a
shelf-stable package for foods.
Shrink wrapping
plastic film that shrinks when heated, producing a tight,
neat fit; the most popular form of grocery store meat pack-
aging is PVC wrapping with foam trays.
Vacuum packaging
rigid or flexible containers from which substantially all air
has been removed before sealing. Carbon dioxide or nitro-
gen may be introduced into the container. This process pro-
longs shelf life, preserves the flavors and retards bacterial
growth.
References
Glossary of Packaging Terms, Sixth Edition, Compiled
and Published by The Packaging Institute International,
1988, ISBN 0-86512-951-7.
Packaging Foods with Plastics, by Wilmer A. Jenkins and
James P. Harrington, Technomic Publishing Company,
Inc., 1991, ISBN 87762-790-8.
Last Modified: May 2002
Tekes Technology Reviews in English
213/2007 Trends and Opportunities in Packaging R&D in the US. Niels Hauffe, NWV Market Discovery, Inc.
54 p.
212/2007 Consumer Packaging in Poland, Czech Republic and in Moscow Area.
207/2007 MASI Technology Programme 20052009. Yearbook 2007. Eija Alakangas & Pekka Taskinen.
(eds.)
206/2007 Update of GIGA-VAMOS Technology Roadmap. Mikael von Hertzen, Juhani Timonen,
Pekka Huuhka. 93 p.
205/2007 Seizing the White Space: Innovative Service Concepts in the United States. Peer Insight. 76 p.
202/2007 Five Steps for Finlands Future. Pirjo Sthle (ed.). 42 p.
200/2007 Innovation, Journalism and Future. Erkki Kauhanen and Elina Noppari. 88 p.
196/2006 E-Business Logistics Visions, Innovations and Research. ELO E-Business Logistics
Technology Programme 20022005. Heikki Keklinen (editor). 91 p.
191/2006 MASI Technology Programme 20052009. Yearbook 2006. Eija Alakangas &
Pekka Taskinen (eds)
184/2005 Globalisation of R&D. Part 1: R&D in a Global World, and Part 2: R&D in a Global Economy.
182/2005 Research training and national innovation systems Finland compared to Australia and the USA.
Sandra Haukka. 154 p.
179/2005 Pharma development in Finland today and 2015. (Updated version of review 163/2004) 78 p.
177/2005 Best Practices in Innovation Policies. Heikki Kotilainen. 92 p.
172/2005 Business Cycle Effects on Start-Up Finance in Finland. 47 p.
171/2005 Technology Based Entrepreneurship and Regional Development in Finland. 51 p.
167/2005 Mobilizing Business Applications A survey about the opportunities and challenges of mobile
business applications and services in Finland. Petteri Alahuhta, Jari Ahola, Hannu Hakala. 46 p.
165/2004 Utilisation of Large Finnish Study Cohorts in Genome Research. Kirsti Kpyaho,
Leena Peltonen-Palotie, Markus Perola, Tero Piispanen
163/2004 Pharma development in Finland today and 2015. Malin Brnnback, Markku Jalkanen,
Kauko Kurkela, Esa Soppi
162/2004 ROADMAP for Network Technologies and Services. Petteri Alahuhta, Marko Jurvansuu,
Heikki Pentikinen. 104 p.
158/2004 Microfluidics. Pasi Kallio, Johana Kuncova. 32 p.
157/2004 Proteomics Challenges and possibilities in Finland. Heini Koivistoinen, Harri Siitari. 35 p.
156/2004 Finnish Software Product Business: Results from the National Software Industry Survey 2003.
Juhana Hietala.
150/2003 Towards a Supercluster: Chemical and Biochemical Innovations Connecting Finnish Clusters.
149/2003 Managing Non-Core Technologies: Experiences from Finnish, Swedish and US Corporations
Annaleena Parhankangas, Pivi Holmlund, Turkka Kuusisto. 76 p.
147/2003 Innovative waste management products European market survey. Christoph Genter. 40 p.
Subscriptions: www.tekes.fi/english/publications
Trends and O pportunities
in Packaging R&D in the US
Trends and O pportunities
in Packaging R&D in the US
Hauffe Niels
Technology Review 213/2007
Technology Review 213/2007
Further information:
Tekes
Anna Alasmaa
+358 10 60 25748
anna.alasmaa@tekes.fi
The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
Kyllikinportti 2, P.O. Box 69, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
Tel. +358 1060 55000, Fax +358 9 694 9196, E-mail: tekes@tekes.fi
www.tekes.fi
August 2007
ISSN 1239-758X
ISBN 978-952-457-379-5