Yam, Kit L. (ed.). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

innovative consumer technology company that provides a

unique approach for ﬂavor and aroma additions into

liquid-based products. Ipiﬁni’s technology allows consu-

mers the opportunity to personalize their products at the

point of use, as well as delivering products that are

susceptible to degradation when blended with other pro-

duct materials or stored in bulk containers. Depression of

a button on the side of the pack that contains the additive

allows the ﬂavor to be wholly released into the product.

Previous innovations have suffered from being susceptible

to tampering on the supermarket shelf, but this range of

products has a method for overcoming this problem (14).

This ﬂavoring technology works with carbonated drinks,

but only when the pressure is released by opening the

closure. Alternatively, the buttons can be camouﬂaged as

part of the packaging design. Some advantages of these

products could be the provision of multiple ﬂavor choices

for the consumer and the possibility of creating multiple

ﬂavor combinations in beverage products, not dissimilar to

what has already been achieved by Jelly Belly for jelly

beans.

NUTRIENT-RELEASE PACKAGING

As well as adding ﬂavors directly to beverages, products

have been developed that add a segregated nutrient that

otherwise cannot be preserved in liquid solutions. In effect

they are added just prior to consumption. The Ball packa-

ging group has developed ‘‘FreshCan

,’’ which is geared

toward the health, wellness, and sports drink markets.

Developed jointly by Ball Packaging Europe (BPE) and

Degussa FreshTech Beverages LLC. FreshCan

Wedge

technology is a patented delivery system that enables

dry sensitive ingredients, such as vitamins, to be dis-

pensed into a canned beverage only when the can is

opened (12). With FreshCan

, sensitive substances such

as vitamins, pro-biotic additives, or trace elements can be

stored in a can in a dry state and remain unmixed with the

beverage until the can is opened (15). This technology is a

patented beverage can that was speciﬁcally developed to

contain an air- and water-tight plastic container called a

‘‘wedge.’’ When opened, pressure decreases in the can,

causing the wedge end to spring open. Consequently,

sensitive substances are not dissolved in the beverage

until it is destined to be consumed. Additionally, nutri-

tional additives that the consumer could previously only

take in powder or tablet form can now also be sold as a

drink, making it a more convenient form of ingestion for

speciﬁc consumer categories, like the sport and ﬁtness

sector for example (15).

The ﬁrst commercial application of the wedge became

available with the launch of the new Defense

(

)

vitamin

and mineral supplement beverage line from New York-

based Brain Twist, Inc. Offered in orange and lemon–lime

ﬂavors, Defense combines zinc, pectin, calcium, and vita-

mins C, and A, B2, and E in a beverage formulated to

combat germs that cause common colds and ﬂu (Figure 3).

Defense is packaged in a traditional, two-piece aluminum

can holding 14.5 oz of the beverage. Inside resides the

FreshCan

Wedge, a two-compartment, polypropylene

device containing 10 mL of dry ingredient cylindrical in

shape and having a total volume of 25 mL.

Other commercial applications of the wedge-style ap-

plicator exist. Atlantic Multipower Germany, Europe’s

leading supplier in the sports food sector, is introducing

a ready-to-drink creatine product in Germany, United

Kingdom, and Austria. With wedge support, the creatine

is freshly mixed with the drink when the can is opened.

The Swiss company Emmi is using this packaging device

to overcome stability issues with a nutrient known as

CoQ10. Its ‘‘LactoTab’’ performance drink, based on milk

serum, has CoQ10, vitamins, and minerals contained

within a tablet sealed in the lid of the bottle (16). Further

speciﬁc details relating to these products have been

reviewed by O’Sullivan and Kerry (17).

Alternative technologies to the wedge applicator exist.

A company called Portola has introduced the Fusion cap,

Figure 3. Defense

(

)

citrus ﬂavored vitamin and mineral sup-

plement beverage line from New York-based Brain Twist, Inc.

which is formulated to promote consumer ‘‘wellness.’’

1138 SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS

which again facilitates the product user to add a

ﬂavor or vitamin to a bottled beverage by simply twist-

ing the cap. This two-piece, resealable cap is designed to

keep a ﬂavor or vitamin powder, tablet, or liquid separate

from the beverage until the consumer is ready to drink it

(18). Similarly, the New Zealand-based company Alto has

designed the Technology cap, which was commercialized

by Rio beverages for its IKon energy drink, and has also

developed the Freshmix cap, which contains the feature of

a ﬁzzing tablet dispenser. This feature allows the active

ingredient to remain fresh and inactive within an alumi-

num foil compartment in the closure until the point of

consumption, when the tablet is released into the bever-

age to provide a fresh and ﬁzzy drink on demand.

PRO-BIOTIC RELEASE PACKAGING

Orchard Maid is the ﬁrst drinkable yogurt to be equipped

with the pro-biotic Life Top Strawt (19). This product ﬁrst

appeared in the United Kingdom and was developed by

BioGaia and marketed by Tetra Pak, both located in

Ska

ne, Sweden. Orchard Maid fruit yogurt drinks are

packaged in regular single-serve cartons with straws (20).

The pro-biotic bacteria are only released when the

liquid portion of the product passes through the straw at

the point of consumption, thereby ensuring bacterial

viability and effective dosage. These pro-biotic straws,

containing the lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus Reuteri

(Reuterit), which has been reported to reduce gastroin-

testinal disorders and enhance the immune system, can be

attached to the outside of the primary packaging (19).

Aseptically processed and packaged, the drinkable

yogurts have an ambient shelf-life of 12 months. Addition-

ally, the product provides further convenience for manu-

facturers in that it facilitates the continued usage of

existing packaging materials and formats. Using this

approach, pro-biotics can be added to virtually any bev-

erage, without compromising on ingredient usage or taste.

The straw eliminates production concerns relating speci-

ﬁcally to accurate product blending, controlled dosage,

and heat damage (19).

ENZYME-RELEASE PACKAGING

Several categories of antimicrobials have been tested for

antimicrobial packaging applications: organic acids, fun-

gicides, bacteriocins, proteins, inorganic gases, species,

silver substitute zeolite, and enzymes (21–23). One form

of active packaging utilizes the incorporation of enzymes

to facilitate in-package processing (24). Active packaging

technologies that employ bioactive compounds such as

enzymes and peptides typically immobilize the moiety

via entrapment or physical adsorption. However, there

are advantages to covalently attaching the compound to

the packaging ﬁlm. From a regulatory standpoint, if it can

be established that a compound is highly unlikely to

migrate from the polymer to the food, it may not need

to be considered a food additive (25). Researchers at

Cornell University have successfully impregnated

packaging ﬁlms with enzymes posessing speciﬁc func-

tions. Soares and Hotchkiss (26) displayed that the bitter-

ness associated with certain citrus juices could be

signiﬁcantly reduced using CA (cellulose acetate) ﬁlms

containing immobilized naringinase. These ﬁlms reduced

bitterness by hydrolysis of naringin and sorption of limo-

nin, thereby increasing perceived product sweetness using

sensory evaluation panels. In order to be practical, an

improvement in enzyme activity per unit area may be

required so that a lower ﬁlm area to product volume ratio

can be used. This work also demonstrates that an active

packaging system based on immobilization of enzymes to

product contact layers of packaging may be feasible. Un-

like the current situation where most foods deteriorate in

quality during storage, products exposed to package-

bound enzymes might improve during storage (27). Ap-

pendini and Hotchkiss (28) investigated the efﬁciency of

lysozyme immobilized on different polymers and deter-

mined that the combination of cellulose triacetate (CTA)

containing lysozyme produced the greatest antimicrobial

activities. Goddard et al. (29) also demonstrated that this

concept similarly operates in removing lactose from milk.

Instead of adding lactase to milk or using an immobilized

enzyme reactor that can foul or clog, lactase can be

incorporated into the packing container’s wall (Figure 4).

A British patent assigned to Tetra Pak International AB

describes incorporation of lactase into pasteurized or

sterilized milk prior to packaging to split the lactose after

packaging (24). With sufﬁcient activity, you could reduce

the lactose concentration of the milk during shipment (29,

30). Lactose intolerance, or mal-digestion, is the reduced

ability to hydrolyze lactose and affects individuals with

insufﬁcient lactase activity in the small intestine. It is a

dietary problem affecting a minor, but nevertheless sub-

stantial, proportion of the population (24). Intolerance

results in varying degrees of abdominal cramps, gas

production, and nausea (31). Goddard et al. (29) used a

yeast-derived b-galactosidase which was covalently at-

tached to a surface-modiﬁed polyethylene ﬁlm to produce

sustained enzyme activity over a range of temperature

and pH values (29). These data suggest that enzymes that

may have applications in foods can be covalently attached

to inert polymer surfaces, retain signiﬁcant activity, and

thus have potential as nonmigratory active packaging

materials.

Similarly, enzymes that metabolize cholesterol could be

used

in a manner

similar to lactase in order to reduce the

cholesterol in a product like milk (30). Brody and Budny

(24) suggested a system whereby active packaging com-

bined with PharmaCal Ltd. technology would allow the

incorporation of the enzyme, cholesterol reductase, within

the primary packaging structure containing the product

in question. For example, untreated milk could be pack-

aged; and in the time taken to transport the package to the

consumer, it could conceivably become free of cholesterol.

ODOR REMOVAL PACKAGING

Flavor scalping, or permeation of aroma components, may

result in loss of ﬂavor and taste intensities and/or change

SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS 1139

in the organoleptical proﬁle of a beverage product (32).

The development of unpleasant ﬂavors as a consequence

of processing can be the result of either (a) thermal

degradation of components, such as proteins, or (b) the

manufacture of chemical components via Maillard reac-

tions (33). Equally, the oxidation of fats and oils is also

accelerated during processing and especially when ele-

vated processing temperatures are required. Apart from

these more common and relatively fast chemical reactions,

there can also occur the slow generation of chemicals

which can result in the creation of unpleasant ﬂavors—

for example, when fruit components are disturbed

from their structural components in the fruit. The bitter

principal, limonin, builds up in orange or grapefruit

juice after pasteurization, and it renders juice from

some cultivars undrinkable. Chandler and Johnson (34)

showed that substantial quantities of limonin could be

removed or scavenged through the use of acetyl-

ated paper (35). The concept of odor removal using

chemical afﬁnity was further developed by Brodie and

Visioli (36), who used the reaction of aldehydes with amino

polymers.

Odors that result from aldehydes such as hexanal and

heptanal, which are formed from the breakdown of per-

oxides created during the initial stages of auto-oxidation

of fats and oils, can be removed from package headspaces

by active packaging (37). Synthetic aluminosilicate zeo-

lites, which have a highly porous structure, have been

incorporated into packaging materials to adsorb odorless

aldehydes (38). Such compounds formed in dairy-based

and beer-based beverage products could be removed,

resulting in improved sensory quality.

In the case of beer, a number of commercial oxygen

scavenging technologies have been developed to be incor-

porated into PET bottles. The Oxbar system (Constar

International, USA) consists of an aromatic polyamide

(MXD-6) with reducing properties that can be blended in

any proportion. By inclusion of a layer of MXD-6 within

two layers of PET and using a cobalt salt as a catalyst,

structures suitable for the manufacturing of bottles for

beer, wine, or sauces can be designed (39).

Sulﬁtes have also been proposed as active substances

for use in plastic gasket liners for bottle closures, as liquid

trapped between sheets of ﬂexible packaging material, or

as compounds that are directly incorporated into plastic

ﬁlm structures to pack products such as wine or ketchup.

Other, more recent developments of integrated systems

include oxygen-scavenging labels such as Freshmax

(Multisorb Technologies, Inc., USA) and incorporation

of O

scavengers in closure seal liners for beer and soft

drink bottles such as Smartcap (a development of

Advanced Oxygen Technologies Inc., USA) or Oxbart

(Carnaud Metal Box, UK), which is speciﬁcally designed

to be incorporated into PET bottles. A typical oxygen-

scavenging structure used in beer bottles is presented

(Figure 5).

Figure 4. Enzymatically active pack of milk: Lactase

enzymes are attached in the inner part of the pack

transforming lactose. (Reproduced with permission of

Alberto Bertolı

n Terra

dez.)

1140 SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS

CONVENIENCE OR USER-FRIENDLY CONSUMER

PACKAGING

Consumer smart packaging has the potential to meet

future aspirations in improved packaging by placing the

packaging user interface and consumer experience at the

heart of both product purchase and product utility. This in

turn will provide new levels of consumer convenience

in areas such as efﬁcient and effective product usage, in

storage and disposal, and in bringing new forms of useful

functionality to help support consumers in their day-

to-day lifestyles (40). While often overlooked in technical

reviews and in basic packaging design, the area of con-

sumer smart packaging is pivotal in its capability to

directly satisfy consumer needs and requirements asso-

ciated with a vast array of commodity products, with food

and beverages being paramount among them. Several

really good examples of consumer smart packaging used

for beverage products are in existence today and are

found distributed from retail outlets through to vending

machines.

Self-heating and self-cooling packaging are two very

good examples of consumer convenience smart packaging

which have been applied to beverage products. For self-

heating packaging to function as required, an exothermic

chemical reaction must be employed in order to generate

enough heat to warm/heat the product to the consumer’s

expectation and satisfaction. While there are numerous

chemical reactions that can produce heat, relatively few

can be used due to safety issues, toxicity issues, and cost

impediments relating to practical usage. The exothermic

chemical reaction of choice for consumer packaging is lime

reacting with water because it generates substantial

heat output and is inexpensive and the byproducts of

the reaction are environmentally acceptable (40). The

exothermic reaction is initiated by the consumer at the

desired time of product consumption through some physi-

cal action that results in the mixing of the water with the

lime at some strategic point in the product container

(usually the base). This initiates the exothermic reaction,

which is usually maximized through product agitation or

shaking, by the end-user, for a certain period of time.

One of the most successful self-heating beverage con-

tainers was launched in the United Kingdom, in 2001, in

test markets as a joint venture between Crown Cork and

Seal, Thermotics Development, and Nestle

. The product

‘‘Hot When You Want’’ Nescafe

canned coffee heated about

200 mL of hot coffee, with an occasional shake, to around

401C above ambient in about three minutes. More re-

cently, there has been a major launch of self-heating

gourmet lattes in the United States, with a range of 10-

oz Wolfgang Puck gourmet lattes being available through

Kroger grocery stores in 32 states (40). Other examples of

coffee products sold using self-heating packaging are

Caldo Caldo,, Cafe

Caliente, and Rocket Fuel (Figure 6).

Additionally, self-heating packaging has been developed

for drinking chocolate, and tea and is currently being

explored for use with soup.

Self-cooling packaging technology is not as developed

as is its self-heating counterpart primarily because of

issues to do with cost, safety, environmental concerns,

reaction times, and current limitations in technological

Figure 5. Typical oxygen-scavenging multilayer

structure used in PET bottles for beer. (Reproduced

with permission of Alberto Bertolı

n Terra

dez).

SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS 1141

approaches. The technology choices at present boil down

to two endothermic chemical reactions and heat pump

technology using water vapor as the heat transfer ﬂuid.

Forms of gaseous high-pressure expansion can provide

effective and rapid cooling but can quickly be ruled out on

environmental and safety grounds (40). Nevertheless,

commercial application of self-cooling packaging has

been undertaken commercially.

The Italian self-cooling coffee product ‘‘Freddo Freddo’’

employs an endothermic reaction between sodium thio-

sulfate pentahydrate and water. Another example of an

endothermic reaction that has found commercial uptake

has been the self-chilling reﬁllable beer keg. This technol-

ogy, which is based on zeolite heat pump technology, has

been developed by the German CS-Metallbau Company,

licensed to Cool-System Bev. GmbH and used by Tucher

Bra

u brewery for 20-L reﬁllable stainless steel kegs to

cater for the ‘‘take home’’ market.

Other examples of consumer-friendly smart packaging

used by the beverage industry to deliver or enhance

consumer satisfaction during product usage can be seen

in the development of closure systems. The diversity in

closure systems described here also nicely demonstrates

the simplicity and complexity that can be associated with

smart packaging systems.

A very simple closure that can be described as con-

sumer-friendly smart packaging is the simple embossed

aluminum foil cap found on the top of all 500-mL alumi-

num cans of all Kiss ciders and parries. The foil caps have

been speciﬁcally provided for hygienic protection of the

product; once opened, however, they also form a physical

barrier to product tampering.

A more sophisticated form of closure device is that

associated with Sheridan’s liqueur by Diageo. Sheridan’s

liqueur is a two-component drink where a white vanilla

cre

me liqueur is ﬂoated on the surface of a dark coffee-

chocolate liqueur, resulting in a drink similar in appear-

ance to an Irish coffee (40). Strategic to meeting consumer

satisfaction is the requirement that the correct ratios of

white to black liqueurs are dispensed into a glass to

provide the desired Irish coffee appearance of white on

black. This has been achieved through the development of

the Perfect Pour closure system by the consulting group,

PA (Figure 7). The closure had to be designed by PA to

account for product dispensing, product viscosity, return

air ﬂow, and the ﬁtting of the closure unit on two joined

bottles, resulting in the perfect pour. The Perfect Pour

closure enabled IDV/Diageo to build a brand around the

smart packaging closure concept (40).

THERMOCHROMIC LABELING

The technology to make thermochromic inks (change color

when exposed to heat) and photochromic inks (change

color when exposed to light) has been in existence since

the mid- 1970s (41). Thermochromic inks can be printed

on labels or containers that are to be heated or cooled prior

to consumption to indicate the ideal drinking temperature

of the product (37). The use of such technology for bev-

erages ﬁrst became popular with wine labeling (37). Label

color changes, whole or in part, that respond to tempera-

ture has been made possible through the development of

temperature-sensitive inks formulated by B&H Colour

Change Ltd. and Chromatic Technologies, Inc.

Today, this form of labeling is also found on many beer

products. For example, commercially available Coors Fine

Light Beer has a temperature-sensitive mountain logo

(Figure 8) that turns from white to blue when the bottled

product is cold enough to imbibe (17).

Similar examples of beer products sold from retail

outlets which possess labels incorporating thermochro-

mic-based designs include Wolf beer from the United

States and Hite beer from Korea. Depending on their

composition, thermochromic inks will change color at

speciﬁc temperatures; and if appropriate colors are

Figure 6. Examples of self-heating coffee

products.

1142 SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS

chosen, then hidden messages such as ‘‘drink now’’ or ‘‘too

hot’’ become visible (37). A Colour Changing Disposable

Lid from Smart Lid Systemst provides consumers with a

visual indicator of product temperature for beverages in

paper or polystyrene coffee cups. Infused with a color-

changing additive, the Smart Lidt coffee-cup lid goes from

‘‘coffee-bean brown’’ to glowing red after being placed on a

cup containing a hot beverage (12). A further visual

indicator ensures that the lid has been placed securely

on the cup and serves as a safety feature. When the lid

changes color, a dark ring forms around its edge, but only

if the lid is attached to the cup properly. The lid is made

from virgin high-impact PS, which is mixed in the cold-

pellet state with a color-changing additive from Matsui

International and which has been approved for food con-

tact by the U.S. FDA. Another aspect being promoted by

Smart Lid Systemst is the lid’s potential as a marketing

tool, whereby an advertising message can be printed on

the lid and would only appear once the lid changes color.

For example, text printed in brown ink on the lid or on a

Figure 7. Example of a smart closure on Sheri-

dan’s coffee layered liqueur.

SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS 1143

clear sticker applied to the lid would only be visible when

the lid was in a hot, or red, state (12). Huhtamaki, a

Finnish packaging company, uses what it calls ‘‘Heat and

Reveal’’ temperature-responsive labels. This approach

uses thermochromic technology to reveal a hidden mes-

sage or strap line incorporated into the cups design. The

temperature of the beverage determines when the ink is

made visible. Such messages could provide instant win

opportunities for vending operators and branders. This

technology allows the competition and winning message to

be kept secret until the moment a beverage is dispensed.

Similarly, the device can also reveal a surprise slogan or

message that will only become visible once a drink is

poured (42).

SMART BRANDING

The competition for the consumers’ attention on-shelf has

never been more intense, and innovative beverage packa-

ging companies are interested in packaging that captures

the attention of the consumer (12). Manufacturers are

spending more to design packages that blink, beep, yell,

and waft scents at shoppers (4). U.K.-based Cognifex Ltd.,

has developed a miniature electronic unit with an LED

and silicon chip and posessing a self-contained button-cell

power source that illuminates plastic and glass beverage

bottles for marketing and promotional purposes (12). The

Cognifex unit is designed to ﬁt on the bottom of a

standard-sized beverage bottle and can be triggered in a

number of ways. These activation methods could include

manual depression of a switch, pulling of a tab, removal of

the cap or lid with a special opener, an infrared (IR) signal,

magnetic switching, or an external radio-frequency (RF)

signal. Once triggered, the LED will illuminate the bottle

and its contents for a predetermined period of time.

Depending on what the brand owner is trying to achieve

with the illumination effect, the device can be designed to

function for anywhere from a few minutes to several

months. Another possible application envisioned is for

sweepstakes or promotional campaigns, where bottles

could be illuminated remotely to indicate a winning

package, or winning bottles could emit a different color

than regular bottles.

As people increasingly ignore commercials and spread

their attention across many types of media, traditional

television, radio, and print advertising is losing effective-

ness, and marketers are looking for new ways to get noticed

(4). Under development are computer chips embedded in

packaging that can communicate with a shopper’s PDA or

cell phone to give additional product information. Miniature

sound systems on boxes and bottles will give people spoken

Figure 8. Example of thermochromic ink usage on

Coors light beer bottle labels.

1144 SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS

tips and ideas. The German electronics giant Siemens AG

has developed a ﬂat electronic display that can be applied to

boxes like a label, allowing for tiny lights, miniature games,

or ﬂashing messages (4).

Finally, in what might be the ﬁrst instance of naming a

wine for its packaging, Don Sebastiani & Sons released

Plungerhead in March 2006. The Dry Creek Valley Zin-

fandel derives its commercial name after the ‘‘zork’’ clo-

sure from Australia (www.zork.com.au) composed of a

polyethylene cap and plunger that ‘‘pops’’ when opened

(42). The closure is favoured not only because it eliminates

corking taint, but because it retains a sense of celebration

in opening a bottle of wine (42).

ANTI-COUNTERFEIT BEVERAGE PACKAGING

A concern among packagers and their customers world-

wide is the growing incidence of counterfeit products

making their way into global markets. Experts estimate

that in Europe alone, as much as 7% of the branded

consumer products market is lost to counterfeit products

(43). The amount of fake food and drinks entering the EU

grew by 200% in 2004, with the higher quality of counter-

feits making detection more difﬁcult (44). Counterfeiters

are shifting their attention into mass market goods cate-

gories. Packaging is to the forefront in ﬁghting counter-

feiting (43). Lipton, Coca Cola, and Nestle

products topped

the list of counterfeit food and beverage items seized at

EU’s borders, the European Commission said when an-

nouncing new measures to crack down on the problem

(44). In many Western nations, such as the United King-

dom or the United States, the quota of counterfeit pro-

ducts is about 10%. China accounted for most of the total

counterfeit goods seized in 2004. The massive increase in

counterfeit food and beverage production occurred follow-

ing the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998. This

single event offered food fraud the opportunity to ﬁll

empty retail shelves with cheap and counterfeit goods

(45). In Russia, products like condensed milk and mineral

water are targeted by counterfeiters. In fact, it is esti-

mated that three-quarters of the mineral water sold in

Russia is thought to be fake, with counterfeit bottled

water accounting for half of the Moscow market (45).

Counterfeiting and tampering can undermine consumers

trust in the quality and safety of a branded food product,

leading to a loss in market share. In response, companies

have turned to new forms of smart packaging and labeling

to ensure that consumers and custom ofﬁcials can check

for product authenticity (44).

Protection against theft and counterfeiting is a highly

developed area for high-value goods such as electronics and

clothes. However, it has not found widespread application

in the beverage industry because of the comparatively low

unit value of packaged foods (37). Many anti-counterfeiting

devices did not work in the past because they were too

costly to duplicate. Now the emphasis is on technology,

including the use of radio-frequency identiﬁcation (RFID)

tags, security-smart printing techniques, and use of special

inks (46). To date, RFID technology has primarily been

used to increase convenience and efﬁciency in supply chain

management and traceability, being normally applied to

secondary and tertiary packaging (37). However, RFID

technology may play an increasingly important role as a

security countermeasure to counterfeiting, theft, and tam-

pering of beverage products.

Hi-resolution printed intertwining lines known as

guilloches, already used successfully on banknotes, can

be printed on primary packaging and/or labels. Microtag

particles can be printed using multiple ink layers that

combine to form a unique code or holograms that can be

integrated into primary or secondary packaging (46, 47).

Microtrace offers a variety of identiﬁcation and authen-

tication labeling in the form of compounded plastic resins,

ﬁlms, adhesives, paper, security labels, and now security

inks (48). A new series of microtaggant security inks will

allow any printer to apply the anti-counterfeit technology

to packaging using ﬂexographic or screen printing pro-

cesses. In basic form, microtaggants are a unique numeric

code sequence in a multiple-colored layer format. In more

complex forms, microtaggants deliver multiple layers of

security through the incorporation of several taggant

technologies (49). The ink gives products and packages a

unique numeric code sequence in a multiple-colored layer

format. The codes will be unique for each manufacturer.

Once a formulation is produced for a customer, it becomes

their exclusive ‘‘ﬁngerprint’’ (48). The acetate ﬁlms con-

taining microtaggants can be used to produce authenti-

cated, ﬁnished holograms.

Thermosensitive inks change color when a packaged

product has been exposed to predetermined temperatures,

often a sign that it has been counterfeited and introduced

into the supply chain. UV inks ﬂuoresce under ultraviolet

light and infrared inks can only be detected using a special

camera, offering security that does not interfere with the

graphic appeal of the package. Metameric inks look iden-

tical, but are revealed to be different under a special ﬁlter.

Scented inks offer both a shelf appeal and security protec-

tion (46).

Biowell Technology, a Taiwan-based biotechnology com-

pany, has perfected the world’s ﬁrst DNA-tagged anti-

counterfeit label. By using bioengineered DNA as an

invisible and highly speciﬁc identiﬁcation tag, forensic-

level authentication of a tagged item is possible. DNA

tagging has the ability to protect brand name products,

documents, artworks, ID cards, and so on, from counter-

feiting trade tools: precision computer scanning and print-

ing equipment. DNA tagging provides an extremely high

counterfeit barrier, because the unique DNA sequence

that identiﬁes a tagged object can never be replicated by

counterfeiter (50). This

DNA anti-counterfeit label has

been applied in luxury brand protection to wine, tobacco,

and pharmaceutical industries (50).

Kodak is using new high-tech, anti-counterfeiting tech-

nology to help several Napa Valley vineyards in the ﬁght

against wine fraud (51). Kodak’s Web site describes the

company’s Traceless system; marketed as an anti-counter-

feit solution to the drug industry, it could also be used to

protect premium or high-value wines. It uses invisible

markers that can be mixed with printing inks or paper

and are detectable only with proprietary portable readers.

These readers can be leased to clients and cannot be opened

SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS 1145

without being damaged (52). Industry experts estimate

that the problem of wine counterfeiting alone could affect

up to 5% of wines sold in secondary markets (51).

TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING

From a consumer safety concern perspective, evidence

that a packaged product has been interfered with or

tampered with is crucial, especially for retail-ready com-

modity products such as foods and beverages, some of

which have gone through elaborate handling and trans-

port systems. The main purposes in lowering tampering

risks are to (a) eliminate tampering and (b) locate the

already tampered products on the shelf by integrated

identiﬁcation (53). Tamper evidence technologies that

cannot easily be replicated—for example based on opti-

cally variable ﬁlms or gas-sensing dyes, involving irrever-

sible color changes—will become more widespread and

cost-effective for disposable packaging of commodity items

(54). Piezoelectric polymeric materials might be incorpo-

rated into package construction so that the package

changes color at a certain stress threshold. In this way, a

‘‘self–bruising’’ closure on a bottle or jar might indicate

that attempts had been made to open it. The new packa-

ging is a natural red to light-pink color (54). When

punctured, the light and air react with the packaging in

a process called photochemical oxidation, which forms a

type of bruising (55). This is a form of smart packaging

that indicates when the integrity of the barrier has been

breached. This breach may result from a malicious in-

dividual, an insect, or an inadvertent rupture of the

package by poor handling. Packaging protection is an

increasingly important part of packaging design. Consu-

mers are now far more aware of product safety, and they

require assurances from the manufacturer that the food or

beverage products that they purchase are ﬁt for usage

and/or consumption. Additionally, aluminum and plastic

closures can help customers identify if the package has

been opened. The tamper-proof band will split when the

package is opened, which provides tamper evidence to the

consumers (53). Risks include what the industry terms

malicious and nonmalicious tampering. The former is an

increasing threat, particularly in the light of increasing

terrorist activities and the potential for sabotage or bio-

terrorism attacks using packaged food and beverage goods

as vehicles of delivery (55).

In conclusion, the use of smart packaging technologies

by the beverage industry is a vibrant and rapidly devel-

oping ﬁeld. Much has been offered by the use of these

technologies in the beverage industry already and also in

related product areas. Some leading global beverage

brands, like Guinness for example, have used such tech-

nology to demonstrate innovation, offer unique product

selling points, enhance the product brand, provide con-

sumer convenience, and, of course, sell more product.

However, many of the smart packaging technologies re-

levant to the beverage industry are ﬂedgling in nature, or

are still under development, and it will take some time for

them to reach their full potential through commercial

uptake.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A. ElAmin, ‘‘Wanted: Nanotech Packaging and Widget,’’

www.foodproductiondaily.com, April 2006.

2. F. Annette, ‘‘Future Food and Drinks Packaging: Emerging

Food Ethical, Safe and Convenient Formats,’’ Technical report

from Business Insights Ltd., UK, 2008.

3. J. Markarian, ‘‘Compounders Smell Success in Packaging,’’

Plastics, Additives and Compounding. March-April, 8(2) 24–

27 (2006).

4. M. Webb Pressler, ‘‘Appealing to the Senses: Aromatic Packa-

ging Is Just the Start of Futuristic Sales Ploys,’’ Washington

Post, Sunday, February 19, 2006, p. F01.

5. Anonymous, ‘‘Widget (beer),’’ www.wikipedia.org.

6. Anonymous, ‘‘Ball Can Win,’’ Foodproductiondaily.com, May

28, 2003.

7. Anonymous, ‘‘Beverage Packaging a Tingle and Kick from the

Can,’’ Jobwerx manufacturing network, news release, Sep-

tember 21, 2006.

8. Koontz 2006.

9. Anonymous, ‘‘Beverage Companies Tests Flavour-Releasing

Packaging,’’ www.piranet.com, July 2, 2003.

10. H. Todd, Top It Off: Value-Added Closures Give Consumers

Safety, Convenience and a Little Fun’’ Beverage World,

August 15, 2003.

11. Anonymous, ‘‘Closure Adds ‘Flavor’ to Bottled Water,’’ Brand

Packaging November/December (2004).

12. A. M. Mohan, ‘‘Smart Solutions Pour Forth for Beverage

Delivery,’’ Packag. Dig. February (2006).

13. Anonymous, ‘‘Sipahh milk ﬂavoured straws, ’’ www.unistraw.com,

2007.

14. P. LeGood and A. Clarke, ‘‘Smart and Active Packaging to

Reduce Food Waste,’’ Smart Material Transfer Knowledge

Network, NAMTEC, November 7, 2006.

15. Anonymous, ‘‘Cool’ cans star at Interpack,’’ Aluminum Now

July–August, (2005).

16. Halliday 2006.

17. M. O’Sullivan and J. P. Kerry, ‘‘Smart Packaging Technologies

for Beverage Products.’’ in J. P. Kerry and P. Butler, eds., Smart

Packaging Technologies for Fast Moving Consumer Goods,

John Wiley & Sons., Chichester, U.K, 2008, pp. 211–232.

18. Anonymous, ‘‘Packaging, a New Twist,’’ www.themanufac-

ture.com, April 2004.

19. Anonymous, ‘‘Yogurt Drink Uses Culture Straw’’ (package of

the month, farm produce marketing, brief article), Dairy

Foods September (2002).

20. Anonymous, ‘‘Probiotic Drinking Straws,’’ (New Foods, Orch-

ard Maid fruit yogurt drinks packaging)(brief article). Food

Eng. Ingredients September (2002).

21. J. H. Han, ‘‘Antimicrobial Food Packaging,’’ Food Technol.

54(3), 56–65 (2000).

22. P. Suppakul, J. Miltz, K. Sonneveld, and S. W. Bigger, ‘‘Active

Packaging Technologies with an Emphasis on Antimicrobial

Packaging and Its Applications,’’ J. Food Sci. 68, 408–420.

23. C. N. Cutter, Microbial Control by Packaging: A Review,’’ Crit.

Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 42(2), 151–161 (2002).

24. A. L. Brody, and J. A. Budny, ‘‘Enzymes as Active Packaging

Agents in M. L. Rooney, ed., Active Food Packaging, Blackie

Academic and Professional, New York, pp. 174–192.

25. Anonymous, Code of federal regulations, title 21, parts 170–

199, Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington, DC., Available

from http://www.access. gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 05/21cfrv3

05.html, October 10, 2005.

1146 SMART PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BEVERAGE PRODUCTS

26. N. F. F. Soares and J. H. Hotchkiss, ‘‘Bitterness Reduction in

Grapefruit Juice Through Active Packaging,’’ Packag. Tech-

nol. Sci. 11, 9–18 (1998).

27. N. F. F. Soares and J. H. Hotchkiss, ‘‘Naringinase Immobiliza-

tion in Packaging Films for Reducing Naringin Concentration

in Grapefruit Juice,’’ J. Food Sci. 63, 61–65 (1998).

28. P. Appendini and J.H. Hotchkiss, Immobilization of lysozyme

on food contact polymers as potential antimicrobial ﬁlms.

Packaging Technology and Science 10(5), 271–279 (1997).

29. J. M. Goddard, J. N. Talbert, J.H. Hotchkiss, ‘‘Covalent

Attachment of Lactase to Low-Density Polyethylene Films,’’

J. Food Sci. 72(1), 36–40 (2007).

30. D. Berry, ‘‘Packaging’s Role: Brief Article. Dairy Foods’’

August (2000).

31. Anonymous, Lactose Intolerance, NIH publication no. 94-2751,

National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse,

Washington, DC. Available from http://digestive.niddk.nih.

gov/ddiseases/pubs/lactoseintolerance/, October 17, 2005.

32. T. Nielsen, and M. Ja

gerstad, ‘‘Flavour Scalping by Food

Packaging,’’ Trends Food Sci Technol. 5(11), 353–356 (1994).

33. M. L. Rooney, ‘‘Introduction to Active Food Packaging Technol-

ogies.’’ in J. H. Han, ed., Innovations in Food Packaging,

Elsevier Academic Press Amsterdam, Holland, 2005, pp. 63–67.

34. B. V. Chandler and R. L. Johnson, ‘‘New Sorbent Gel Forms of

Cellulose Esters for Debittering Citrus Juices,’’ J. Sci. Food

Agric. 30, 825–832 (1979).

35. B. V. Chandler, J. F. Kefford, and G. Ziemehs, ‘‘Removal of

Limonin from Bitter Orange Juice,’’ J. Sci. Food Agric. 19,

83–86 (1968).

36. V. Brodie and D. Visioli, ‘‘Aldehyde Scavenging Compositions

and Methods Relating Thereto,’’ U.S. Patent 5,284,892, 1994.

37. G. L. Robertson, ‘‘Food Packaging Principles and Practice. 2

edition, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton,

FL, 2006, pp. 286–309.

38. B. P. F. Day, ‘‘Underlying Principles of Active Packaging

Technology,’’ Food Cosmet. Drug Packag. 23, 134–139

(2000).

39. J. Miltz, N. Passy, and C. H. Mannheim, ‘‘Trends and Applica-

tions of Active Packaging Systems in Food and Packaging

Materials Chemical Interaction’’ in P. Ackerman, M. Jager-

stad, and M. Ohlsson, eds., The Royal Society of Chemistry,

Publication Number 1995, 162, pp. 201–210.

40. P. Butler, ‘‘Consumer Beneﬁts and Convenience Aspects of

Smart Packaging’’ in J. P. Kerry and P. Butler, eds., Smart

Packaging Technologies for Fast Moving Consumer Goods,

John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K, pp. 233–245.

41. M. Agosta, ‘‘Thermochromic and Photohromic Inks Are Ex-

tremely Useful in Both Security Applicants and Interactive

Packaging,’’ Ink World, October 00–00 (2002).

42. Anonymous, ‘‘Heat and Reveal Label Wins Award,’’ press

release.www.huhtamaki.com, November 6, 2006.

43. Anonymous, ‘‘Market driven innovations,’’ www.brandpack-

aging.com, September 2006.

44. A. El, Amin, ‘‘Fake Food, Drinks Seizures in EU Rise by

200%,’’ www.food productiondaily.com, October 2005.

45. Anonymous, ‘‘Russia Crackdown as Food Fraud Runs Rife,’’

www.foodnavigator.com, May 2005.

46. Anonymous, ‘‘Interpack Offers an Inclusive Look at Global

Packaging,’’ Food and Drug Packaging,’’ Stagnito Communi-

cations Inc., February 2005.

47. P. LeGood, Corus and Wavell Coulson, NAMTEC ‘‘Consumer

Packaging Opportunities for SMART Technologies,’’ Smart

Mater. Surf. Struct. Network February (2007).

48. A. El Amin, ‘‘Microtrace Launches New Security Inks for

tags,’’ www.beveragedaily.com, June 2005.

49. Anonymous, ‘‘What Is a Micro Taggant?’’ www.microtrace

solutions.com.

50. Anonymous, ‘‘Biowell Unveils World’s First DNA Anti-coun-

terfeit Label,’’ www.biowell.com, Press Release, May 2002.

51. J. Park, ‘‘Kodak Helps Thwart Wine Fraud with Anti-counter-

feit

Technology,

www.packagingnews.co.uk, June 2007.

52. E. McCoy, ‘‘Red-Hot California Cult Wineries Fight Fakes

with High Tech,’’ www.Bloomberg.com, March 2007.

53. J. H. Han, C. H. L. Ho, and E. T. Rodrigues, ‘‘Intelligent Pack-

aging’’inJ.H.Han,ed.,Innovations in Food P ackaging,Else-

vier Academic Press, Amsterdam, Holland, 2005, pp. 139–153 .

54. P. Butler, ‘‘Smart Packaging: Intelligent Packaging for Food,

Beverages, Pharmaceuticals and Household Products,’’ Mate-

rials World, 9(3), 11–13 (2001).

55. Anonymous, ‘‘Food Science Australia Moves Intelligent Packa-

ging Ahead,’’ www.foodproductiondaily.com, August 2002.

56. Anonymous, ‘‘Lithocraft—Wine Bottle Labels’’ (brief article),

Wines & Vines May (2001).

57. Anonymous, ‘‘Self-Heating Packaging Hits Ready Meals Sec-

tor,’’ www.foodproduction daily.com, Europe, January 5, 2005.

58. Anonymous, ‘‘Emmi Launches LACTO TAB,’’ www.npicen-

ter.com. April 24, 2006.

59. Anonymous, ‘‘A Quick Twist to Add the Coenzyme,’’ VR

Beverage Packaging 2006, 20.

60. Anonymous, ‘‘Premiere in Europe: Freshness Capsule in the

Can,’’ Ball Packaging Europe launches an innovative packa-

ging solution, Ratingen, Hamburg, and Milwaukee, WI,

February 2, 2007.

61. Anonymous. ‘‘Labels and Packaging,’’ B&H Colour Change

Ltd. www.drinkpromo.com.

62. E. Bornholdt, ‘‘Pimp Your Milk, ’ ’ VR Beverage Packaging 2006,

32.

63. M. Jackson, ‘‘It Was a Draught Idea to Put It in a Can,’’

www.beerhunter.com, September 2, 1998.

64. A. Lo

pez-Rubio, E. Almenar, P. Hernandez-Mun˜ oz, J. M.

Lagaro

n, R. Catala

, and R. Gavara, ‘‘Overview of Active

Polymer-Based Packaging Technologies for Food Applica-

tions,’’ Food Rev. Int. 20(4), 357–387 (2004).

65. L. Summers, ‘‘Intelligent Packaging, Centre for Exploitation

of Science and Technology, London, 1992.

66. L. Vermeiren, F. Devlieghere, M. V. Beest, N. D. Kruijf and J.

Debevere, Developments in the Active Packaging of Foods,’’

Trends Food Sci. Technol. 10, 77–86 (1999).

67. Anonymous, ‘‘Driving Innovation in Caps and Closures—PET

Planet Insider,’’ Press release, ColorMatrix Europe Ltd., May

2002.

SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVING FORCES OF

FOOD PACKAGING

KIT L. YAM

Department of Food Science,

Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, New Jersey

The food packaging industry is largely driven by market

pull to satisfy the needs of the society and economy. Hence,

the viability of any new packaging technology depends on

SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVING FORCES OF FOOD PACKAGING 1147