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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

packages; use of materials and packages conducive to ease

in handling convenience; productivity; and distribution.

Mechanization—that is, semi- and fully automated sys-

tems exhibiting favorable economic efﬁciency—is another

factor. These shifts and trends are principally inﬂuenced

by consistently increasing (a) consumer consciousness,

(b) demand for convenience, (c) attention to health and

hygiene, (d) willingness to pay, (e) brand association,

(f) quality and value addition, and (g) exports in consu-

mer-value-added packages, as well as by shrinking families.

The industry has witnessed an overall growth contrib-

uted by both the basic material manufacturers and pack-

age converters, including the printing and graphic design

community. All across the industry, there is a favorable

growth, some in single digits but others in healthy, double

digits. Higher opportunity sectors and, hence, higher

growth rates are seen in ﬂexibles, paper, boards, and

labels. The CAGs in these sectors are estimated at over

25%, around 18%, and over 20%. Flexible packages have

made enviable in-roads in the markets for all forms of

rigid packaging, principally due to cost factors, innova-

tion, and cost to product sale value ratio. Laminated tubes

have become the virtual choice for toothpaste and now

provide solutions as alternatives in pharmaceutical

packaging. The polyester-based bottle is probably the

single largest packaging media recording spectacular en-

try and growth. It is equally true for jars and other

containers. Metals and glass suffer because of the entry

of blow-molded plastics. Typical uses would be to package

lubricants and talcum powders. Folding cartons have

attained recognition in major industry sectors and not

just in food and pharmaceutical sectors. Availability of

quality board, improved conversion technologies, multi-

color prints (moving from the traditional four-color to

eight-color), and modernization through holography have

been added advantages. Efforts by both the metal and

glass industry cannot be understated. Shaped cans and

package modiﬁcation as composites are signiﬁcant efforts.

The narrow web technology and even sheet-fed label

conversion for pressure-sensitive labels have been ear-

marked with new and modern label presses. Shrink

sleeves have gained considerable popularity and found

ideal for contoured surfaces.

The bag-in-box and lined carton systems are other

sectors that have found greater acceptance, particularly

as reﬁll packs. The growth of stand-up and spouted

pouches is spurred by a global trend. The rate at which

the ﬂexible bottles have made their entry provides new-

generation packs and a concept for different market

segments. Material-process and technology developments

have kept pace with the growing demand, but consider-

ably more is needed to meet the new trends and differ-

entiating marketing systems particularly in the era of

retailing, which is now a fast-moving segment in the

country.

The Indian market, country–consumer–product needs,

need not follow the global situation because quite a few

domestic demands could be peculiar to India and Indian

consumers. Single-dose ﬂexible packaging is a case by

itself, which is known, opened the ﬂoodgate for the

demand for ﬂexible packaging in the country. Yet another

is the introduction of tea in ﬂexibles. The Tetra for edible

oils is a typical example of a package that satisﬁes the

need of the market with the technological back up. For a

long time, one wished to reuse the 5-paise paper bag for

tea (single-dose one-cup tea bag). Thus the evolution of

reﬁllable bags followed, cutting cost across the board. The

market is indeed revolutionary. All these led to one major

facet of the ‘‘cost-centric’’ nature of the consumer, but at

the same time the sense of ‘‘willingness to experiment.’’

The success of many of these products has obviously led to

a chain reaction with more and more products coming into

the realm of packaging, thereby widening the scope for

packaging.

INDUSTRY SEGMENTS

Industry segments are estimated at INR 400 billion with a

share of nearly 60% for consumer packaging with the

following breakdown:

Flexible packaging, 21%

Rigid plastics, 18%

Printed cartons, 17%

Glass, 10%

Metals, 6%

Caps/closure, 5%

Labels, 4%

Others, 19%

The consumer packaging industry annual growth is

placed at:

Processed food, over 20%

Pharmaceuticals, over 10%

Health/personal care, 15%

Home care, 8–10%

Engineering and electronics, over 10%

Software, over 20%

Textiles, 7%

Chemicals, 8%

Consumer durables, 8%

Toys, 7%

Incense sticks, 10%

Table 1 gives data on packaging consumption patterns.

Table 1. Packaging Consumption Patterns

Sector Percent

Food 40

Personal care/Cosmetics 15

Pharmaceuticals 8

Engineering and electronics 10

Chemicals 10

Others (toys, textiles/-garments/handicrafts, etc.) 17

100

878 PACKAGING IN INDIA

PACKAGING MATERIALS

Flexible packaging has been the dominant area that has

made considerable inroads into all rigid packaging. This is

the single largest packaging media with the most innova-

tion and most suited to the cost-centric Indian consumers.

Laminated and coextruded tubes have virtually replaced

the aluminum tubes. Aluminum tubes, however, continue

to be the preferred medium for medicinal eye ointments.

The PET bottle is yet a major packaging resource with

over 20% annual growth. Bottles for drinking water, edible

oils, and preserves are speciﬁc growth areas. Blow-molded

polyoleﬁns also have virtually dominated the edible oil,

lube oil and greases, adhesives, pharmaceuticals, and

talcum powders sectors.

The ﬂexible packaging industry is valued at Indian

Rupees 48,400 crores (USD 12,000 million) and has be-

come the most economical form of packaging not only for

consumer quantities, but also for institutional and family

packages up to 5 kg. The manufacturing sector, however,

is highly fragmented and spread throughout the country.

They belong to small, medium, and organized sectors, and

the output caters to various segment needs. Among

the primary packaging conversion industries, ﬂexible

packaging could primarily take the lead with updated

technologies, innovations, and development of various

permutations and combinations. The latest technologies

with complete automation process control are now in-

stalled within the industry. The conversion capabilities

are built with both (a) proven technologies and machinery

from around the world and (b) domestically produced

equipment. The total number of converting units should

be around 700, a few of which also have been established

as excellent supply hubs for export markets.

The entry of coextruded ﬁlm production was with a

2-layer structure demanded by the milk sector, but slowly

and gradually a large number of 3-layer plants of both

overseas and domestic origin were established. The coun-

try today has seven 5-layer plants and two 7-layer plants.

The 2- and 3-layer plants are used as direct packaging

media and as substrates in laminate structures. The

common end-use applications are milk, edible oils, ghee,

vanaspati, and sensitive food products. High-barrier

structures also have extensive application in tubes for

cosmetics and personal care products.

The printed folding-board cartons are closely on the

heels of the ﬂexibles, with an estimated growth of 17–18%.

The industry consumes nearly 1 million tons of materials

valued at INR 50 billion (USD 1250 million). Pharmaceu-

ticals, food, cosmetics, personal care and toiletries, incense

sticks, clothing, and liquor are the major use segments

of folding-board cartons. The folding-board cartons also

include lined cartons, and the major user sectors include

malted foods, milk powder, and baby cereals. In aseptic

packaging, good-quality board, now domestically avail-

able, is primarily used for fruit juices. New market areas

are edible oils, motor oils, and buttermilk.

Among the plastics, HMHDPE has made considerable

inroads into the metal container industry for packaging of

a variety of liquids, semisolids, and solid products, includ-

ing those that fall under the dangerous goods codes. These

are available in capacities of 5–210 L. A very interesting

shift is the 20-liter HDPE containers that now replace the

traditional tinplate containers. Clariﬁed polypropylene

(PP) is a recent entrant that also has excellent applica-

tions. Trials are underway to introduce retail juice and

beverage packs. Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) is

possibly the single most used plastic that has emerged

as a most popular package in sizes of 200-mL to 5-L

bottles/jars.

The 1-L/2-L widemouth jars have found their way into

household kitchens as storage containers for sugar, salt,

cereals, grains, and so on. An interesting application is gas

ﬂush container for ‘‘Basmati Rice.’’ PET bottles have

recorded an annual growth of nearly 25%; and between

1995 and 2005, the consumption has grown from 11,000

tons to 140,000 tons. Bottled water and carbonated soft

drink (CSD) are the major use sectors. Breakthroughs

have been made in the pharmaceutical and liquor sectors.

Glass and metal (tinplate, tin-free steel, and alumi-

num), continued to show growth in single digits and

constrained their growth by the competitive packaging

media both for ease in availability and economic consid-

erations. The recently formed Tinplate Promotion Council

(TPC) working on the lines of appeal in Europe has been

striving through various activities to promote and in-

crease the use and consumption of tinplate in the country.

At the annual international conference, TPC gives awards

for excellence in design, development, innovation, and

informative literature.

Composite containers continue to be packaging for

traditional areas and earlier efforts to introduce leakproof

composites have not been successful. Cellulosic ﬁlms have

virtually disappeared, but are still used for very restricted

applications. Cost and yield are the major inﬂuencing

factors.

The growth and consumption in primary packaging

have a direct impact on the consumption and demand for

various ancillary packaging materials. Development is

immense and includes inks, adhesives, caps/closures/

dispensing systems, and labels. Adhesives and inks are

two speciﬁc areas that have witnessed leading global

companies establishing production facilities either alone

or with Indian partners. This has helped in bridging the

gaps as well as improving export potential. High-tack and

high-bond adhesives, as well as security inks, are already

in vogue. Environmentally friendly water-based and alco-

hol-based inks are knocking at the doors. A phenomenal

growth is witnessed in the label sector at a minimum CAG

of 20%. The turnover during 2007–2008 is estimated to be

worth USD 1 billion and will be 1.4 billion USD by 2010

corresponding to 3 million square meters. This trend will

double its 3.2% world market size to 6.3% by 2009–2010

in terms of square meters. The major user sectors are

apparel

and textiles,

food and beverage, tobacco and other

fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs), automotive compo-

nents, and electrical and electronics products. Others

would be pharmaceuticals, personal care, industrial lubri-

cants and paints, jewelry, watches and gift articles, com-

puter/software, and so on. Although currently wet-glue

labels are prominent, pressure-sensitive (self-adhesive)

and shrink-sleeve labels are the growth areas with 25%

PACKAGING IN INDIA 879

CAG. Some of the beer and liquor industries are already

evaluating the use of pressure-sensitive (PS) labels. Bar-

code technology is being used increasingly, so bar-code

labels will ﬁnd considerable demand. The new segment

will be RFID labels, transparent and ﬁlm labels and ‘‘no

look’’ labels, and smart and intelligent and functional

labels. They are clever labeling solutions.

Until recently the industry had been conﬁned to some of

the closure systems like RSNP (roll-seal non-pilfer-proof)

(screw cap), ROPP (roll-on pilfer-proof), 4/6-lug cap (twist

on, twist off), press lids, and lever lids. Both metals

(tinplate and aluminum) and plastics are general materials

in use. With demands shifting to convenience features,

dispensing needs are growing faster. The caps/closure/

dispensing mechanisms have entered the packaging sector

and are penetrating the market at a faster rate. Spouted

pouches/ﬂexibles bottles are typical end uses.

Similarly, revolutionary changes also are seen in mark-

ing and coding systems. Online coding, with rubber

stereos and inkjet printing technology, has helped the

packaging line systems.

The Paper, Film, and Foil Converters Association

(PFFCA) represents the interest of this industry group

and undertakes various promotional programs besides

sponsoring the national awards competition for excellence

in packaging.

MACHINERY

The machinery required is generally and broadly deli-

neated under the following categories:

. Packaging conversion machines, including printing

machinery

. Machinery for packaging line operations

. Machinery for packaging systems

. Ancillary machinery (e.g., coding, marking, labeling,

etc.)

. Testing and quality control equipment.

The engineering industry in India considered the viability

of designing, development and production of machinery

and equipment only in the early 1970s. Until then, most of

the domestic needs were met through imports. However,

with the encouraging growth of the packaging sector the

opportunities also widened and catalyzed the interest of

the domestic sector. In the three and half decades,

achievements are indeed commendable. Most of the cur-

rent requirements are met through domestic capabilities.

Also, the machinery manufacturing sector also has be-

come a global hub to meet international requirements.

Essentially, they have progressed from being an import-

dependent sector to becoming an export sector. The

exports are even sent to developed countries. This manu-

facturing sector has geared itself to adopt newer and

modern technologies such as PC controls, servo controls,

and so on.

The majority of manufacturers are domestically

oriented, and only a very few have overseas technical

know-how or collaboration. It should, however, be ob-

served that the technologies available are mostly to suit

small and medium enterpreneus. The machinery manu-

facturers have established the Institute of Packaging

Machinery Manufacturers of India (IPMMI) to support

and encourage the industry and also to address industrial

and ﬁscal issues.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

With the per capita consumption of packaging pegged at

about USD 10 by value and the global average at about

USD 75, the ﬁgure for the country is indeed low. The

statistics, however, need to be perceived differently for a

country like India inasmuch as consumption pattern in

urban areas will be different from rural areas. This will

also, in turn, inﬂuence the post-consumer waste genera-

tion. All packaging-related associations are aware of this

situation and are involved in activities to source reduction

and promotion of the three golden ‘‘R’s’’ (reduce, reuse,

recycle). Plastics are at the center of attraction and

probably the center of controversy, and they demand

greater attention. It is in this context that the Indian

Centre for Plastics in Environment (ICPE) was set up by

the plastics apex bodies at the behest of the Ministry of

Forest and Environment. This center aims to disseminate

information and help in all waste management issues, as

well as promote and support technologies and methods for

waste collection, recycling, and reuse values. The publica-

tions and project documents published by the ICPE are

indeed excellent resources and provide a wealth of infor-

mation. The efforts of the associations, institutions, and

the concerned departments and agencies need to be

augmented in the context of consistently increasing

demand and consumption of packaging in the country.

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

The growth in the packaging industry also has led to the

recognition and need for trained and qualiﬁed packaging

personnel to meet the requirements of every segment of

the industry: conversion, packaging user, and machinery

sector. The requirements are identiﬁed on the shop ﬂoor

and in the laboratory, as well as in R&D (research and

development), production, technical service, information,

and marketing. Background support education for such

personnel is science, technology, engineering, printing,

graphics, computer, electronics, and related areas. Person-

nel with such background and a professional course of one

or two years in packaging technology and sciences become

ready for the industry. Aware of the need, the universities

have included the subject of packaging as part of their

syllabus. Exclusive institutions such as the SIES School of

ackaging/Packaging T

echnology Centre offer both grad-

uate and postgraduate programs to aspiring professionals.

The Bachelor of Engineering in Printing and Packaging

program is of four years duration and is a step toward

bridging the gap of qualiﬁed printing and packaging

people to serve the industry needs. As the demand is set

880 PACKAGING IN INDIA

to increase, HRD in packaging will be the need of the hour

for a joint effort of institutions, universities, and industries.

GROWTH AREAS

With the branded products on the increase coupled with

organized retailing gaining ground and steadily increas-

ing consumerism, the product marketers look for newer

and dynamic concepts. The trendsetters will be the large

farm sectors, growing middle-class families with better

personal disposable income, higher propensity to spend,

smaller households, and health and hygiene consciousness

resulting in depth in product mix and innovations as

dynamic features. The opportunity and niche growth

areas will be:

Flexible packaging

Stand-up pouches

Zipper pouches

Dispenser and pouring devices

Retortable pouches

Flexible bottles

PET and PET hot ﬁll bottles

Folding board cartons

Lightweight and specialty

glasses

Shaped cans

Co-ex bottles

Speciality lacquers

Environmentally friendly inks

and adhesives

Irradiation

Tamper-evident systems

Cold storage and cool storage

High-barrier materials

Reclosable pouches

Spouted pouches

Laser cut pouches

Aseptic systems

Bag-in-box

Clariﬁed PP bottles

Oven/microwavable tray/

cartons

Two-Piece tinplate can

Easy-open devices

Thermoform disposals

PS and shrink labels

Smart and intelligent

packaging

Bar-code /RFID

technologies

Cap/map systems

Display and promotional

packs

The Indian packaging industry until recently has been

identiﬁed as a low-proﬁle sector. It has now moved to a

high-proﬁle category. Paper and board and plastics are

emerging as preferred packaging media. The often-asked

question is, ‘‘Is the packaging industry ready to meet the

onslaught arising out of the demands?’’ That probably sums

up the positive future of the packaging in the country.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. V. Narayanan, ‘‘India Packaging’’. in A. J. Brody and K. S.

Marsh, eds., The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging, 2nd edition,

John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997, pp. 497–498.

General References

Seminar Papers

‘‘Market Driven Innovations in Packaging of Fresh and Processed

Mango Products,’’ organized by Michigan State University and

SIES School of Packaging, Mumbai, September 29–30, 2006.

Conferences Organized by the SIES School of Packaging

‘‘Developments in Packaging Conversion Technologies Potential

for International Trade,’’ December 6–10, 2005.

‘‘International Orientation Programme on Packaging Technolo-

gies and Machinery for Food Processing Sector,’’ February

6–15, 2007.

‘‘Global Conference on Packaging— A Technology Update,’’

November 23–24, 2006.

PACKAGING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

LUCIANO PIERGIOVANNI

Department of Food Science

and Microbiology, Milan

University, Milan, Italy

INTRODUCTION

Following the last two entries in 2007 (Romania and

Bulgaria), the European Union (EU) now embraces 27

democratic and independent European countries, gather-

ing approximately 490 million citizens (as Table 1 shows)

on a surface of almost 4 million square kilometers. In 2005

two more countries (Turkey and Croatia) asked to join the

EU and it is foreseeable that within a span-time of about

8–10 years they will become Member States, provided that

they pledge to share the values on which the EU is

founded—that is, respect for human dignity, freedom,

democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human

rights. (The European ﬂag is in Figure 1.) They will have

also to demonstrate a functioning market economy and a

civil service capable of applying EU laws. The European

Union is a family of independent countries, with many

different traditions and languages, but also with shared

values and rules. Among these, a number of EU directives,

measures, and regulations apply both directly and indir-

ectly to the packaging area. They refer to sustainable

production, packaging waste, food contact reliability, sup-

ply chain regulations, environment protection, and con-

sumer safety (1).

Packaging is a leading industrial activity in Europe,

where about one-third of packaging worldwide is pro-

duced, for a value of almost 130 billion euros. Because

European packaging industries are highly oriented to-

ward export and are well known and appreciated in

many parts of the world, European packaging materials

and packaging technologies deal with a population that is

much greater than the actual number of European citi-

zens. The percentage of consumption of packaging materi-

als is more or less the same all over the world; that is,

more than 30% accounts for plastics, almost 40% for paper

and board, 17.5% for metals, and 7% for glass.

The European packaging economy is estimated to grow

further in the next few years, and the expected growth for

the 2006–2010 period ranges in the main countries from

1.3% to 2.1%. This is in line with the expected increases in

PACKAGING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 881

the Unites States (1.8%) and in Japan (1.5%) but very far

from the forecasts for Russia (7.0%), China (8.5%), Turkey

(19.0%) and India (13.0%).

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

The EU allocates a very large amount of economical

resources to R&D activities in packaging. Scientiﬁc re-

search was one of the ﬁrst and most important functions

that the European community shared and harmonized.

In 1984, the European Commission (the executive body

of the EU) launched the ﬁrst pluriannual Framework

Programme (FP1) for research and technological develop-

ment. Since then the FPs have played a leading role in

multidisciplinary research and cooperative activities in

Europe and beyond, and in each FP the themes of packa-

ging, and food packaging in particular, have had much

relevance, leading to important results and real and

effective consequences in real life. For example, during

FP4 (1999–2001) ACTIPACK, a project coordinated by the

Dutch TNO, approached the topic of active and intelligent

packaging and promoted a radical change in the European

food packaging law that now admits the use of active

materials and intelligent packages. MIGROSURE, in FP5,

was coordinated by the Fraunhofer Institute (Germany)

and demonstrated that diffusion in and migration from

food contact materials (FCM) are foreseeable physical and

mathematically describable processes. The project pro-

vided novel and economic tools for the estimation of

consumer exposure to chemicals migrating from food

contact plastic materials by establishing and testing a

physicochemical migration model now recognized by the

food packaging law. SUSTAINPACK, managed by the

Norwegian Matforsk during FP6, coordinated 13 coun-

tries, including former eastern Europe states. The overall

objective of the project was to develop and implement a

sustainable packaging tool platform based on renewable

resources. The year 2007 saw the start of the seventh

programme, which is both larger and more comprehensive

than earlier Framework Programs. It will run to 2013

with a budget of 53.2 billion euros, the largest funding

allocation yet for such programs. Also in this latest

project, the themes of safe and innovative packaging are

well represented, attracting the attention of several re-

search groups in research centers and universities in

Europe, including those of eastern Europe which are

invited to cooperate in the project.

European research and development strategies are

under the responsibility of one of the several Directorates

General into which the European Commission is orga-

nized. In carrying out its own activities, the Directorate

General for Research works closely with the Joint Re-

search Centre (JRC), the science and technology reference

center for the Union (2). The JRC is organized into seven

scientiﬁc institutes which carry out research activities of

direct concern to EU citizens. One of these, the Institute

for Health and Consumer Protection, located in Ispra

(Italy), is a well-known and advanced laboratory that

carries out fundamental research and testing activities

in the ﬁeld of packaging to improve, in particular, the

understanding of potential health risk of food contact

materials (3). The JRC in Ispra is the common reference

EU Laboratory for FCM, and it assists Member States in

carrying out ofﬁcial inspections to enforce compliance with

the shared rules on FCM.

Table 1. EU Members, the Increasing Population, and When They Joined

State Members

Total Population

(2005 Values in Millions) Year

Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands 228.8 1952

Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom 298.2 1973

Greece 309.3 1981

Portugal, Spain 358.0 1986

Austria, Finland, Sweden 380.4 1995

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia 454.4 2004

Bulgaria, Romania 484.1 2007

Turkey (70.4

), Croatia (4.5

) 559.0

2013–15

Population that can add when those Countries will become Member States

Possible EU total population in 2013–2015

Figure 1. The European ﬂag is the symbol of the European

Union. The circle of gold stars on a blue ﬁeld represents solidarity

and harmony between the peoples of Europe. The number of stars

has nothing to do with the number of Member States.

882 PACKAGING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the key-

stone of EU risk assessment regarding food and feed

safety, is also committed to this ﬁeld. In close collaboration

with national authorities and through its Scientiﬁc Panel

on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids, and

Materials in Contact with Food (AFC), the EFSA provides

independent scientiﬁc advice on existing and emerging

risks to the entire packaging community and their stake-

holders (4).

EU PACKAGING STAKEHOLDERS

Besides the industrial organization that represents the

small and large private enterprises, the various technical

magazines, and the electronic newsletters dealing with

the packaging business, almost every country in EU has

its own national packaging institute. Their main activity

is lobbying the fundamental interests of their members: a

number of different bodies which include manufacturers

of raw materials, retailers, end-users, packaging produ-

cers, schools of packaging, experts and technical consul-

tants in the packaging area. In 2002, a Pan-European

cooperation was set up with the constitution of the Eur-

opean Packaging Institutes Consortium (EPIC). EPIC is a

consortium where European Packaging Institutes work

together to identify areas where cooperation might best be

initiated or concentrated for the future sustainable devel-

opment of the entire packaging chain. EPIC was founded

by 12 European Packaging Institutes, covering around

2200 associated companies and approximately 22,000

professional individuals in packaging throughout Europe.

Educational programs, qualiﬁcations for packaging pro-

fessionals, instruments for the promotion and facilitation

of packaging innovation, methods for the optimal

implementation, and enforcement of packaging-related

legislation are the main areas in which EPIC is involved.

Because EPIC works in a project-oriented manner, packa-

ging education and information services were selected as

the most urgent topics to deal with (5).

PACKAGING EXHIBITIONS AND CONFERENCES IN EU

Due to the high technological level of the European

packaging industry and also to the proximity of the EU

to areas of many developing countries like those in the

Mediterranean basin and in eastern Europe, packaging

exhibitions in the EU members states are very important

trade events.

The biggest packaging event in the world by far is

INTERPACK in Dusseldorf (Germany), which takes place

every 3 years and hosts the highest number of exhibitors

and visitors. The ﬁve most important EU countries for the

packaging business are Germany, Italy, France, Great

Britain, and Spain, and in all of them an international

packaging exhibition is regularly organized, attracting

globally almost 10,000 exhibitors and 400,000 visitors. In

Table 2, the most recent data of these packaging events

are presented together with the ﬁgures of PACK EXPO in

Chicago, the second most important packaging event in

the world as a comparison. Data concerning the Russian

exhibition UPAKOVKA are also reported. This particular

event deserves to be mentioned because it was promoted

and organized along its 15 editions since 1982 by the

Italian IPACK-IMA and is recognized as the leading and

most important business connection between Western and

Eastern Europe in the packaging area, the route by which

technological innovations ﬁrst moved to Russia and neigh-

boring countries.

Another proof of dynamicity of the packaging context in

the EU is witnessed by the high number and the high level

of technical-scientiﬁc events which are regularly held in

Europe, both on general and speciﬁc topics. These events

are fundamental moments for sharing news regarding

technical and scientiﬁc progress and achievements and

are also valuable forums for spreading the progressively

harmonized regulations on important packaging issues.

It is almost impossible to enumerate all the Symposia,

Congresses, Conferences, and Workshops organized in

Europe each year, but some events and institutions cer-

tainly deserve to be mentioned and remembered. Pira

International, for instance, which is recognized worldwide

as one of the most important knowledge providers in

different industry sectors, guarantees both the purposes

of sharing harmonized regulations and updating scientiﬁc

information in packaging; this is done mainly by means of

its subsidiary Intertech-Pira (6) which offers events,

training, online information, and much more. Alongside

business-oriented organizations, there are several non-

proﬁt and scientiﬁc associations that also deal with broad

scientiﬁc topics in packaging. The European Federation of

Food Science and Technology (EFFoST), for example, is an

organization with 80 members afﬁliated in 21 European

Table 2. The Main Packaging Exhibitions in EU and in the World

Exhibition Exhibitors Visitors Surface of Exhibition (m

)

Interpack 2005 Dusseldorf, Germany 2,654 176,964 164,199

Emballage 2006 Paris, France 2,200 108,054 66,927

Ipack-Ima 2006 Milan, Italy 1,558 47,761 63,172

Hispack 2006 Barcelona, Spain 2,194 40,405 53,669

Total 2007 Birmingham, UK 1,061 Not available 42,870

Pack Expo 2006 Chicago, USA 2,302 45,741 116,600

Upakovka 2007 Moscow, Russia 350 23,000 23,000

PACKAGING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 883

countries, deeply committed to stimulating innovations in

novel food processing and packaging through its periodical

events and activities (7). A further example of a nonproﬁt

organization is ILSI Europe, which belongs to the Inter-

national Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). This is a network

of scientists which regularly provides publications and

organizes meetings on packaging subjects, especially

through the Packaging Materials Task Force, aimed at

advancing the safety and quality of packaged foods (8).

ILSI Europe meetings and symposia are often organized

in close collaboration with the European Commission (EC)

and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

No less important and numerous are the events and the

organizations that in Europe approach more speciﬁc

packaging issues. Two representative examples in this

direction may be chosen selecting an industrial-related

topic and a prevailing scientiﬁc theme of interest. The

ﬁeld of bioplastics and biodegradable plastics, for instance,

is covered by European Bioplastics (9), an industrial

association supporting the market introduction of bioplas-

tics but also very active in organizing conferences and

exhibitions on the topic. The new achievements for shelf-

life extending, shelf-life testing, and prediction are the

subject of SLIM (Shelf Life International Meeting), a

periodical symposium set up in 2003 that every two years

brings together scientists from both industrial and public

research institutions (10).

THE PACKAGING MEGA-TRENDS IN THE EU

Pinpointing the main trends and the targets of such a big

and diversiﬁed world like the packaging world is always

difﬁcult and somewhat of a gamble. And it is even more so

when a heterogeneous context like the EU is considered.

Nevertheless, for the leading inﬂuence that the most

advanced countries have on the entire European market

and that often extend to extra-EU countries, it is worth

trying to identify the hottest packaging trends. The pur-

suit of a correct balance between market and environment

will very likely be a signiﬁcant aspect of the future of

packaging in Europe. ‘‘Sustainability’’ will still be one of

the most pronounced and written words in packaging,

even if the contexts might be different. At least three

broad topics can be tentatively mentioned:

1. The prevention or reduction of the impact of packa-

ging and packaging waste on the environment,

ensuring the functioning of the internal market,

will drive the development of new biodegradable

and recycling packaging options.

2. The shaping of the role of outsourcing and workﬂow,

as well as the limitation of the logistics and trans-

port costs, will lead to industrial policies that will

affect packaging production and usage.

3. The design of smart and safe packaging that can

meet the consumer’s expectations and act on pur-

chasing behavior will certainly engage creative

designer and packaging scientists in the search

for more sustainable, convenient, and attractive

packages.

CONCLUSION

In the increasingly interdependent world of an almost

completely globalized economy in the 21st century, it is

more than ever necessary to have a common vision for

every business, particularly for packaging, because of its

tight link with human activities. The EU model of co-

operation appears to be a good example of promoting unity

while preserving diversity, ensuring that policies satisfy

the requirements of all of the peoples of Europe. After

the tragedy of the Second World War, European citizens

slowly learned to work together in a spirit of curiosity,

openness, and solidarity, which also seems to be the

best strategy for a balanced development and progress of

packaging worldwide.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The European Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/

Accessed June 29, 2007.

2. The Joint Research Centre. Available at http://www.jrc.ec.eur-

opa.eu/ Accessed June 29, 2007.

3. Community Reference Laboratory for Food Contact Materi-

als. Available at http://crl-fcm.jrc.it/ Accessed June 29, 2007.

4. European Food Safety Authority. Available at http://www.ef-

sa.europa.eu/ Accessed June 29, 2007.

5. The European Packaging Institutes Consortium. Available at

http://epic.elma.nl/over_epic.htm Accessed June 29, 2007.

6. Intertech, a subsidiary of Pira International. Available

at http://www.intertechpira.com/ Accessed November 30,

2007.

7. The European Federation of Food Science and Technology,

EFFOST. Available at http://www.effost.org/ Accessed Novem-

ber 30, 2007.

8. The International Life Science Istitute, ILSI Europe. Avail-

able at (http://europe.ilsi.org/ Accessed November 30, 2007.

9. European Bioplastics, an Industrial Association. Available at

http://www.european-bioplastics.org/ Accessed November 30,

2007.

10. Shelf Life International Meeting, SLIM. Available at http://

www.packlab-jessica.it/slim2008/ Accessed November 30,

2007.

PACKAGING LINE PERFORMANCE

PAUL J. ZEPF

Zarpac, Inc.—Engineering,

Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Performance in most production environments is a widely

used term similar to efﬁciency, which means different

things to many different people. Therefore the word

performance can be relative and qualitative if it is not

rigidly deﬁned. The only understanding that may be

common to all is that it is a reﬂection of productivity

(value/time), output, or effectiveness of time. Unless it is

rigorously deﬁned and understood, the word performance

884 PACKAGING LINE PERFORMANCE

has limited value to decision makers, other than project-

ing a sense of being or desire. Performance can be de-

scribed as a measure of proﬁtability based on the ability to

produce the needed quantity of quality packages in the

time required to fulﬁll customer needs at the lowest per

unit cost over a sustained long period of time (W1 month).

To many people, performance is the best return based on

up-front costs or capital costs only. To successful compa-

nies, performance is also the best value that is based

on capital and ongoing operating costs. If one buys a

system based on up-front costs or lowest costs to just get

into production without working out operational costs

over one-year, three-year, and ﬁve-year periods (TCO or

true cost of operating), then their anticipated proﬁts

(based on marketing targets) will rarely materialize.

Too many people are hooked on this false sense of perfor-

mance that will only contribute to the long-term uncom-

petitiveness of the company. Short-term or no planning

leads to long-term disasters. Anyone can demonstrate

excellent performance for an hour or even a day, but

performance can only truly be judged quarter by quarter

and better still year by year. The best performance

translates into consistent steady-state production demon-

strating control and quality at all times and under all

conditions.

Terms such as output, capacity, efﬁciency, and relia-

bility have always been key words used in production.

They describe the pulse of the production line and play an

important role in managerial decision-making.

Nevertheless, these terms are frequently confused,

misunderstood, ill-deﬁned, and improperly used. Also,

proper mathematics and new tools such as ‘‘designed

experiments’’ and computer simulations have not been

understood and used effectively because of confusion and

misunderstandings.

Efﬁciency, utility, capacity, and output, when maxi-

mized through the application of all available tools, are

major contributors to the producers’ economic viability.

Unfortunately, production is ﬁlled with confusing deﬁ-

nitions and outmoded concepts concerning productivity

and production line performance.

It is important that all levels of management, espe-

cially top management, understand these new or tired and

true historical ideas in order to make timely and proﬁtable

decisions.

Although efﬁciency and utilization each tell a story

about the performance of a production line, only proper

OEE (overall equipment effectiveness) and their deriva-

tives can give a true view of production performance.

OEE (OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS)

OEE is the best-recognized hard performance measure

and methodology for packages or products that have

a very dominant critical input or high-cost product

component and few, if any, other input items (e.g., paper

mills—rolls of newsprint or white paper, converting, blow

molding, injection molding). Some companies use the term

process reliability instead of OEE. It is usually a key

metric that supports or directs TPM, lean, six-sigma,

and other common performance-enhancing philosophies

below.

Definition of OEE ¼ Availability Quality

 Performance

Availability. Availability takes into account down-

time loss and is calculated as

Availability = Operating time/Planned production time

Performance. Performance takes into account speed

loss and is calculated as

Performance = Ideal cycle time/(Operating time/Total pieces)

Ideal cycle time is the minimum cycle time that your

process can be expected to achieve in optimal circum-

stances. It is sometimes called design cycle time, theore-

tical cycle time,ornameplate capacity.

Since run rate is the reciprocal of cycle time, perfor-

mance can also be calculated as

Performance = (Total pieces/Operating time)/Ideal run rate

Performance is capped at 100%, to ensure that if an error

is made in specifying the ideal cycle time or ideal run rate,

the effect on OEE will be limited.

Quality. Quality takes into account quality loss and

is calculated as

Quality = Good pieces / Total pieces

More rigorous mathematical deﬁnitions of OEE for

production processes are

OEE = Availability × (1 − Scrap factor) × (1 − Rate factor)

MTBF + MTTR

MTBF

Net production

Net production + product loss

OEE =

Effective run rate

Normal rate

Typically lowTypically not large

(should not be)

Main source of

time loss

OEE = Availability × Quality × Performance

Output (Y)

OEE

Scheduled time × Normal rate

MTBF is the mean time between failure.

MTTR is the mean time to repair (similar to MTOF or

mean time of failure, depending on how you deﬁne

them).

Normal rate is the steady-state speed of the production

process as designed, tested, and veriﬁed.

PACKAGING LINE PERFORMANCE 885

TEEP (TOTAL EFFECTIVE EQUIPMENT PRODUCTIVITY)

TEEP is a recognized overall hard performance measure

for production processes. It is essentially what you actu-

ally produced over a given time period (usually a week)

divided by the output the equipment could conceivably

produce using all of the deﬁned time period. The rate loss

factor is determined from the speciﬁcations agreed to by

the OEM and the user and is the normal rate of steady-

state running divided by the maximum rate that can be

sustained and still ensure quality products. TEEP is in a

way the top view of how the plant utilizes all time and

its assets, but it lacks the detail and understanding of

planned and unplanned events.

TEEP is basically an equipment productivity/efﬁciency

index that corresponds to the total productivity and

efﬁciency of equipment in how much the equipment has

served to produce the quality products by using the

calendar time given in order to produce. This index

indicates the operation environment and machine condi-

tion (Chand and Shirvani, 2000), and also indicates what

the degree of total productivity/efﬁciency during the given

calendar time is. This index can be calculated as in the

equations below.

TEEP ¼

Actual output

Theoretical output

for the same time period

TEEP ¼

Loading time

Calendar time





Operating time

Loading time





Net operating time

Operating time





Valued operating time

Net operating time



TEEP ¼

Valued operating time

Calendar time



TEEP ¼

Valued operating time

Calendar time

Valued operating time is the equivalent time the pro-

duction process has been continuously running at its ideal

rate or OEM established possible rate for that machine

and product.

TEEP ¼Schedule factor  Rate loss factor  OEE

TEEP ¼

Scheduled time

Calendar time





Normal rate

Maximum rate



ðOEEÞ

The normal rate is that steady-state line speed that the

line was designed to run at during the scheduled produ-

cing time period for that product.

The valued operating time is the equivalent time

required to run the actual output at the capable rate. All

suggested equipment performance indices such as produc-

tivity, reliability, efﬁciency, and maintainability in this

model do not directly consider the manufacturing costs.

TEEP is the top view above OEE. OEE is the best

metric to use at ﬁrst because it gives better insight and

direction for improving the production process directly.

OTHER COMMON PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING

BUSINESS PHILOSOPHIES AND METHODOLOGIES

In this section we will brieﬂy explain some common

methodologies for optimizing plant operations and produc-

tion throughput and thereby affecting performance.

Regardless of the methodology used, hard data in the

form that can be easily analyzed such as benchmarks and

efﬁciency values are still required. The purpose of intro-

ducing these methodologies is to see how performance

measurements ﬁt as a requirement for all of them.

CBM—Condition-Based Maintenance (or monitoring)

The Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State Univer-

sity (www.arl.12su.edu/areas/soa/conditionmaint.htrnl)

describes this term:

The objective of condition-based maintenance (CBM) is to

accurately detect the current state of mechanical systems

and accurately predict systems’ remaining useful lives. This

enables organizations to perform maintenance only when

needed to prevent operational deﬁciencies or failures, essen-

tially eliminating costly periodic maintenance and greatly

reducing the likelihood of machinery failures. CBM represents

one of the most promising developments in the evolution of

maintenance practices. As organizations are increasingly

faced with demands to lower maintenance costs, increase

product quality, and hasten organizational responsiveness/

operational readiness, CBM has emerged as a viable alter-

native to traditional planned maintenance, run-to-failure

operation, and the various maintenance approaches between

those two extremes:

For an example see www.pwcglobal.com/parn/case-stu-

dies/case-study/html.

CMMS—Computerized Maintenance Management System

It’s pretty well impossible to work in the plant engineering

and maintenance area without coming across CMMS

software programs. Most technical magazines contain

entire columns and even devote whole issues to these

software systems. In recent years, vendors have been

making the software available on secure, remote internet

sites as well. It’s hard to come up with a set deﬁnition for

CMMS, but, in general, software programs that capture

data on plant purchasing, maintenance and repair sche-

duling, and equipment monitoring fall into the broad

category of CMMS software.

Because of their role in tracking plant assets and work,

CMMS packages are also often used in conjunction with

speciﬁc, acronym-based maintenance initiatives like PdM

and RCM. Finally, CMMS is also often used interchange-

ably with EAM (enterprise asset management) and ERP

(enterprise resource planning) to comprise the wider ﬁeld

of plant software that ties in or attempts to tie in all

aspects of plant and production operations from ordering

to distribution. See http://controleng.com and search un-

der CMMS.

886 PACKAGING LINE PERFORMANCE

FMECA—Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis

In his article Uptime: Strategies for Excellence in Main-

tenance Management (Productivity Press, 1995), John D.

Campbell deﬁnes FMECA as ‘‘a logical, progressive

method used to understand the root causes of failures

and their subsequent effect on production, safety, cost,

quality, etc.’’

In general, FMECA is basically up-front negative

thinking with a positive outcome—that is, thinking about

what can go wrong and how to ﬁx or deal with it before the

fact. FMECA is usually a group activity to identify,

prioritize, and identify corrective actions and document

all the potential ways a product and/or production system

can or could fail to perform its intended function. Prior-

itizing is done by scoring a severity (S), likelihood (L), and

detection (D) (correction (C) if used) and multiplying them

together to get an RPN (risk priority number) value, in

order to sort and establish a hierarchy of risk and/or items

needing further investigation. See Volume 8 of How to Use

Advanced Analysis Tools for Optimum Selection and

Troubleshooting of Production Machinery.

FMECA is a proactive key tool used to prevent pro-

blems from occurring and is a vital part of the up-front

engineering disciplines. There should be a special focus on

safety and environmental issues that must be corrected

despite a lack of justiﬁcation. It also aids in identifying

key design or process characteristics that require special

controls (those above normal process controls) for manu-

facturing, as well as highlighting areas for improvement

in safety, functional control, or performance. FMECA is a

cost-effective logical risk assessment tool for product

development & evaluation, safety, environment condi-

tions, quality, time reduction, and historical reference.

There is a web site completely devoted to the FMECA

cause, at www.fmeca.com; it provides a functional deﬁni-

tion of the term, which is usually used interchangeably

with the acronym FMEA: FMEAs are intended to result in

preventative actions, and they are not ‘‘after-the-fact’’

exercises done to satisfy a customer or obtain TS or QS

9000 status. Time and resources for a comprehensive

FMEA must be allotted during design and process devel-

opment, when design and process changes can most easily

and inexpensively be implemented. Only after a product

failure or ﬁnancial crises arising from late changes in

production is the cost of not performing an FMEA

revealed.

Good Business Practice

Good business practice has always been and will always be

the holistic effective endeavor or work guided by a main

purpose or a goal (the focus). All work has to be coordi-

nated in a proper hierarchical manner to yield results of

quality and quantity to fulﬁll human needs in a timely

manner with optimum value based on efﬁcient efforts

expended and needs required. Good business always

focuses on arriving at the optimum combination of product

design, assembly process, equipment design, and custo-

mer needs. (Some people would call this concurrent en-

gineering, or cross-functional development, but in fact it is

just common sense.) Good business practice never yields to

wants, likes, or desires, which are false needs and con-

tribute a negative value to the company and eventually to

society. False needs are very deceptive but over time

always display themselves as negative fruits or results

that can be costly to the company; but most of the time,

false needs are costly in human lives, money and/or a

waste or misuse of the physical and mental resources that

we never could nor will be able to waste in the future. See

the book The Art of Work by Thomas J. Zepf for a more

complete development of good business practice.

ISO—International Organization for Standardization

It’s impossible to ignore the banners draped on the side of

industrial facilities that proudly proclaim the company’s

compliance with one or another ISO standard, with ISO

9000 and ISO 14000 being the two most popular. As ISO

says itself, it is a network of the national standards

institutes of 157 countries, on the basis of one member

per country, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva,

Switzerland, that coordinates the system.

ISO is a nongovernmental organization: Its members

are not, as is the case in the United Nations system,

delegations of national governments. Nevertheless, ISO

occupies a special position between the public and private

sectors. This is because, on the one hand, many of its

member institutes are part of the governmental structure

of their countries, or are mandated by their government.

On the other hand, other members have their roots

uniquely in the private sector, having been set up by

national partnerships of industry associations.

Therefore, ISO is able to act as a bridging organization

in which a consensus can be reached on solutions that

meet both the requirements of business and the broader

needs of society, such as the needs of stakeholder groups

like consumers and users.

For everything you’d ever want to know about ISO—

including more about the organization’s history, how you

can start the certiﬁcation process at your plant, and which

standards should be applicable to your organization—visit

their home page at http://www.iso.ch/ for detailed

information.

Lean Manufacturing

Lean is a quality philosophy that strives to minimize

consumption of resources that add no value to the ﬁnished

product. Its focus is waste from all areas of production

from labor, materials, energy, time, inventory, and so on,

as well as reaching deep into the organization.

MRO—Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (or Overhaul)

MRO

, the generic

term for just about everything in the

plant engineering and maintenance world, appears to

have a product-based implication. That is, people talk

about ‘‘MRO sourcing’’ and ‘‘MRO procurement’’ to mean

searches for the kinds of products and supplies that help

plant professionals do their jobs. An important sub-branch

of this industry is e- MRO—that is, the buying and selling

of these products online.

PACKAGING LINE PERFORMANCE 887