Back Peddling leaves no Carbon Footprint. |
March 31, 2008 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 04:09 PM | Comments (0) |
|
If back peddling is good for the environment then the Federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts Peter Garrett over the second weekend in March [when Victorians were enjoying high temperatures and a long weekend] contributed negatively to Australia’s carbon emissions.
Floated as the price to be paid to accede with Garrett’s demand that plastic shopping bags be phased out by the end of the year a dollar a bag was the “top bid” in the popular press. [Labor policy is to phase out plastic shopping bags by ‘economic means”.]Garrett quickly came out with denials which are available for all to read and judge the “pollie-speak”.
All of this was happening when Robin Tuckerman FAIP principal of RT Consulting was girding up his loins to present the third in a series of packaging education seminars designed by Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] and presented on behalf of Australian Industry Group [AIG] at the behest of the Victorian Government to deliver the Industry Skills Advisers ’initiative which aims to develop skills within the packaging industry
Robin’s presentation was entitled Demystifying the National Packaging Covenant a subject in which he is well qualified. Robin is particularly interested in environmental and sustainability issues and has been involved in developing and implementing successful Action Plans and Reports since the original Covenant was introduced in July 1999.
He is also very familiar with the new strengthened Covenant and has assisted a number of organisations in establishing base line data, writing Reports and Action Plans, and providing in house training. All have passed the assessment requirements of the National Packaging Covenant [NPC] Secretariat with one winning the Action Challenge Award at the inaugural Packaging Evolution Awards in 2006.
The National Packaging Covenant is the means by which Australian Industry is pursuing Government backed self-regulation to achieve targets rather than legislation introduced in other parliaments. European Union [EU] countries have targets set under EU directive 94/62 EC dealing with waste minimisation and recycling that are backed by legislation.
In July 2005, the Environmental Protection & Heritage Council (EPHC) agreed to the proposal for a strengthened National Packaging Covenant, for a term of five years. The strengthened Covenant incorporates a number of changes designed to introduce more quantifiable performance measures and more rigorous compliance processes.
Fourteen companies were represented and covered the spectrum of industry sectors obligated to sign onto NPC Mark II. As participants explained their presence it became obvious that amalgamation of companies, which continues unabated, has a marked effect on NPC as executives are replaced. Two examples were provided where NPC involvement was cancelled by executive decision without reference down the line.
One CEO is reported as saying “I just bin letters from people I don’t know”. Several are now addressing the amalgamation of many companies that were already signatories. Twenty-eight amalgamations took the prize for the day!
But it is not all doom and gloom as many positive reasons for attendance went straight to the heart of NPC. The desire to commence with the correct packaging rather than try to offset at the end of use; and a mission to have all packaging to be recyclable were quite positive.
Reasons advanced why companies join, [over 650 have] include: -
• Broader environmental commitment and responsibility
• Save wasted materials, energy, resources, time and money
• Comply with increasing demand for eco-friendly packaging
• Avoid potential penalties from state governments under NEPM
• Be part of a successful voluntary approach that will avoid legislation and much more costly fees
• Help build a more sustainable company
• Save waste packaging going to landfill
• Become a ‘good corporate citizen”
Robin’s experience is that companies that signed onto NPC declared improved triple bottom-line business results and in all instances the benefits outweigh the costs. A number of examples were detailed and are often posted on signatories’ or the NPC web site.
If your company supplies raw materials to packaging manufacturers or is a packaging manufacturer then you should be a signatory to NPC. If you purchase packaging that becomes part of the supply chain or produce packaging waste then membership is also recommended.
The half day discussion session covered the salient points of NPC including costs and benefits, the key performance indicators used and the environmental impact of the scheme. This included a summary of the recycling targets set under the revised document - NPC Mark II. Basically industry has to increase the recycling rate from 48% to 65% without increasing landfill above 2003 levels. Non “recyclable packaging” has also been listed with 25% of it being mandated to be reused.
Plastics of all types have to improve the recycled rate by 10 or 15% over the life of NPC Mark II. The debate about plastic shopping bags will likely continue for sometime. Shopping bags are subject to Schedule 7 to the Australian Retailers Association Code of Practice for the Management of Plastic Bags which is part of the NPC but has totally different targets to the NPC.
Since NPC Mark II was signed off by EPHC members the Federal Government has changed and alterations have been made in all state and territory cabinets. At the next review no minister that signed off in 2005 will be at the table. If NPC Mark II will get a tick of approval or thumbs down remains to be seen.
Australia is now a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol which details actions needed for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions! NPC Mark II has no mention of the reduction of green house emissions although there are covert implications
AIG is also involved in another initiative to improve skills within the packaging industry. In association with RMIT University and Design Victoria [www.designvic.com ] AIG is promoting a program entitled “How to Profit from Design”
Written by Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
Web site: http://www.aipack.com.au/
Packaging : Opportunities Abound With Technology |
August 13, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 03:38 PM | Comments (0) |
|
The traditional joint meeting of members from Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] and the Technical association for the pulp and paper industry of Australia and New Zealand [APPITA] was held in Melbourne in August this year.
Two presenters were coopted to bring information about packaging trends that are related to the activities of members belonging to the two special interest groups. A commendable sixty professionals turned out to pay attention to the addresses by Russell Allan of XQ Innovation and Rodney Urquart CEO of CRC Smartprint.
Russell Allan with a solid background in paperboard packaging formed XQ Innovation and has developed technological advanced methods of determining aspects of paper used in packaging that are still somewhat “on the dark side”.
Mr Allan contends that, although paper as a packaging material has many advantages over other forms of packaging, it suffers from variability in its manufacture and processing into corrugated boxes. The extent of the strength variability in the paper due to run of mill variation and to the boxes during corrugating and subsequent conversion has the effect of increasing the weight of this packaging component by up to 40% over its strictly necessary weight.
The acceptance of this level of variation by the packaging industry leads to negative commercial and environmental impacts and XQ Innovation can assist both paper manufacturers and converters to make productivity gains.
Shear stiffness of corrugated boxes underpins the opportunities to manufacture and convert paper that is more even in both cross and machine direction. A number of kaleidoscopic graphs gave stunning evidence of the messages that Russell was delivering. Field research findings debunk the consideration that the paper converted to corrugated fiberboard shippers need the weight that now comes off the machines.
What XQ Innovation findings reveal is that, despite constant paper weight and thickness, the variation in strength of paper and the conversion damage occurring to boxes in their manufacture mean that nearly all boxes do not meet their full performance potential.
By using the company BQM and PQM machines it is possible to determine the strength of the paper as it comes of the machine and also to determine degradation of the corrugated material during box manufacture. An image showing square metre sections across a sheet of paper gave an indication of the different paper strengths that are able to the calibrated. The strongest square metre compared with the weakest by using XQ testing indicates that as much as 25% is added to the cost. [A square metre is typically the face area of paper used to make a standard box]
Variation in strength from a number of manufacturing processes were compared and as often is the case nature wins hands down. A spider’s web is +/- 0.5% whilst a corrugated box can be as much as 40% with competitive materials well below. Aluminum and steel range around 1% and polymers in the 5% region. As Russell Allan said, answering his own question, “why do we accept this variation?”……. it is all about control of variations in manufacture. He contends that end users and their suppliers accept performance criteria that are not based on any conformance standard.
Whilst the findings of XQ Innovation may be debatable the conclusions to date are obviously beyond the consideration stage as the Intellectual Property rights to develop in-line versions of the instrumentation have been sold to an international instrument maker.
If we can all have the strength to persevere some significant cost savings in paperboard packaging can be achieved.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Functional Communication Surfaces, also known as the CRC Smartprint, operates its corporate office from Monash University’s Clayton Campus in Victoria. The Centre engages both local and international students and researchers through its four research nodes - Australian National University, CSIRO (ensis), Monash University and University of Wollongong and is controlled by Rodney Urquhart, CEO
The Centre is engaged in conducting pure and applied research into various aspects of printing; including printable materials, printing processes and materials used within industry. CRC Smartprint is focused on developing new products and manufacturing processes in the rapidly expanding area of enhanced communication surfaces for the knowledge economy.
In essence Cooperative Research Centres exist to put industry and academia together and after hearing Rod Urquhart’s message there can be no doubt that the CRC Smartprint has achieved the mission. Again much of the message was delivered with coloured graphs and images, but the results are outstanding.
The exponential growth of digital printing has grounding in the work done by CRC Smartprint and as Rod stated “is taking chunks out of lithography” but is really in its infancy. Many research activities revolve around new techniques for digital printing, but the traditionalists can take comfort as research into other applications, including lithography is also in train.
De-inking of newsprint is an exciting research program that results in improved separation of the printed inks and paper fibres and also the recovery of separated particulates. Other innovations being developed are time and temperature indicators as well as freshness and tamper evident sensors all of which will simply be printed onto the package.
Members were told about smart barcodes where it was possible to surcharge a consumer for value adding. The example was bottled wine where it was possible to determine at the point of sale if the consumer had selected a chilled or non-chilled bottle.
Much of the research is locked in commercial in confidence agreements but Rod Urquhart was able to provide enough evidence to prove that the CRC Smartprint has been more than proactive in the years since formation in 2001.
After a spirited question time, the proceedings closed with a gift for the presenters delivered by Llewellyn Stephens National Chairman of AIP. David Vercoe the Victorian Chair of APPITA attended but as just another audience member.
Written by Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
http://www.aipack.com.au/
Need Another Coat? |
July 02, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 03:08 PM | Comments (0) |
|
Over sixty members from the Surface Coatings Australia Association Inc [SCAA] and the Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] turned out on a cold June night to attend a joint technical meeting arranged to discuss the application of water based inks and application of technology in packaging prepress workflows.
Those who attended would more than likely taken a look at the containers of breakfast ingredients the next morning or for those still unable to quit their cigarette packets.
Dr Gary Mort, Business Development Manager, Siegwerk Ink Packaging led the discussion and displayed that he has amassed immense knowledge over his thirty years in the industry.
What are the emerging uses for water based inks was the theme of Gary’s address. Not a lot seemed to be the message, as the first indication was that there has been little innovation and marketing coupled with limited supplies of acrylic resins. Furthermore printers could not achieve the needed attributes for high quality printing and meet the expectations of customers. There was more to come!
Water based ink does not give off emissions but apart from that is harsh on the environment. The residue is a prescribed waste and can not be sent to landfill, because of the residual nasties. In application processes the machines have to be cleaned immediately otherwise the ink will dry with deleterious effects. Gary explained that in corrugated printing the cost to clean the machine is greater than the cost of ink and that water based inks does not currently work with plastics packaging.
So how come water based ink is available? Because when you have the technology you can get high quality results, particularly on short run applications. Overseas seven [7] colour post print offers preprint quality this is available due to technological advance and greater populations enhancing the competition.
Water based inks have an affinity with aluminium and is great for corrugated paperboard packages. The stand out is high volume beer cartons, but the variable quality of the paperboard that is used for the manufacture of the containers is a downside. The use of technology was demonstrated with an example of pizza and some breakfast cereal boxes made from lower quality brown paperboard boxes that are white inked on the outer surface and then overprinted with the coloured graphics. Paper cups for take away beverages are another burgeoning market segment and a target market is paperboard containers for milk and other beverages.
When dealing with packaging that is used in food the inks need to be compatible with the product and the processing and filling systems. Some things that are not food but put in the mouth are cigarettes, and the regulatory authorities have delivered water based inks a bonus. The specifications for the mandated warning graphics demand exceptional quality easily achieved by water based inks.
Interestingly tobacco companies are at the forefront of quality and safety for packaging and some advances in pollution reduction are coming with the development of water soluble filters. In Germany the aluminium “silver paper” universal in cigarette packs is being made using water based inks.
“tobacco companies are at the forefront of quality and safety for packaging” Gary Mort
The future of water based inks that seemed doomed at the start of the doctor’s address seems assured as the demands by flexible packaging users are high. Whilst the current technology will not deliver and it may take three to five years to achieve the ink manufacturers are unrelenting in the desire to meet customers demand
Paul Haggett, Business Development Manager, Kirk Group then took on the task of enlightening the audience about the application of technology in packaging prepress workflows with particular emphasis on digital applications.
It was basically a tutorial on keeping track of expensive artwork and protecting the integrity of your brand. Digital Asset Management [DAM] and Brand Guardianship [BG] was the overarching message from Paul.
DAM will eliminate inconsistencies and control the variables, because it improves viewing conditions, supply processes and controls not achievable with hard copy artwork. Mr Haggett said “success depends on intimate understanding of process capabilities” and then explained the steps needed to achieve the best possible outturn.
In what he called printing by numbers companies can develop an outcome focused workflow, not achievable with analogue technology. Like looking at a distant suburban landscape the display screen was filled with little boxes that in finality proved that DAM takes weeks to achieve the final sign off on an application whereas using previous hand to hand hard copy samples would take the same number of months.
“Success depends on intimate understanding of process capabilities” - Paul Haggett
The knowledge that the colours and graphics of a company brand will be exact in every repeat application comes from this new brand guardianship deliverable by Digital Asset Management!
Some developing technologies will improve DAM beyond even the most optimistic consideration. Certified PDF is becoming the global language and new file distribution technologies is allowing for files hereinbefore too big to send via cyberspace to be just another attachment. Remote proofing is now possible and is a major cost saving in the process of new graphics. No longer do companies need to allocate a major component of capital for couriers to move artwork between departments and players with all the associated risks.
It was damn well worth braving the elements to hear from two eminent exponents of their art. The presenters were thanked and gifted by the Victorian Chair of SCAA Adrian Thomas. Llewellyn Stephens the President of AIP took the opportunity to present a certificate of office to Lisa Fiumara of Nestle who was recently appointed as a member.
Written by Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging: http://www.aipack.com.au/
Surface Coatings Association: http://www.scaa.asn.au/
Packaging : Maximum Impact! |
May 14, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 12:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) |
|
Greetings, this month the Victorian Division of AIP did not have a meeting but hosted the National folks and the AIP seminar sessions at Auspack the bi-annual Packaging Machinery exhibition.
Bryce Hedditch Packaging Technologist, Masterfoods Australia, snack foods division, delivered an address entitled Packaging: Maximum Impact!
To get maximum impact from packaging Hedditch says that one must put the goods into wrappings or a container, in a compact form for transportation or storage but satisfy the following criteria:
- Product protected from foreseeable elements
- Labelled for legal sale
- Satisfy marketing desires
On a cautionary note he decreed that as well as maximising the packaging benefit, we must minimize its wastes such as excess material or energy, or those latent by poor material choices that can lead to inefficient densities and ultimately damaged stock.
An important issue often overlooked when seeking to obtain maximum benefit is to involve the consumer. The salient questions are: - What defines satisfaction for a consumer and how will they use the finished article. Packaging that together Bryce said that after determining the consumers’ needs, wants and expectations you must find the right balance for: -
“A fancy package may attract a new consumer, but a product that delivers will bring them back”
Turning to inefficiencies that detract from obtaining Maximum Impact Hedditch explained that excess energy can come from slow running machinery, energy leaks, and poor processes including design and also from workforce morale.
He challenged designers to mass a cubic metre of the product in its most raw form and then calculate the number of cubic metres of packaged product on a pallet at despatch. To determine if you are achieving maximum impact you must recalculate all processes and look for where valuable space or mass has been lost. In other words “How much air do you ship?”
Continuation on a theme brought an explanation that poor material costs can affect shelf life and the ability to protect the goods in the supply chain and may well have legal ramifications. There is a need to determine the cost of packaging as a percentage of the return delivered at point of sale. As environmental issues bite it is highly recommended that budgeting considerations have capital for life cycle analysis.
Bryce summed up with a dictionary definition of commend and the verb recommend which is to present or mention as worthy of confidence. His message was if you don’t have enough confidence to back your recommendations go back and review until you do otherwise your packaging will not have maximum impact.
After two days of exacting concentration the delegates joined with the National Chairman of AIP when he thanked all presenters and presented them with a certificate of appreciation and a small token of gratitude. The latter was packaged but environmentally friendly and recyclable would be a good descriptor.
Written by Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
Web site: http://www.aipack.com.au/
Can-Canning to Infinity |
April 15, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 05:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) |
|
The April 2007 meeting of Australian Institute of Packaging was about alternatives to the traditional can but neither of the presenters had furled skirts or high kicks synonymous with staging of Can-Can however the presentation was nonetheless entertaining.
Peter Banfield and Kelvin Davies of Visy combined to update the assembly with the latest trends in food packaging using alternatives to the traditional tin can or innovations on the same.
Peter had travelled extensively and compiled a kaleidoscope depicting trends and concepts. Where necessary a commentary on the salient aspects of the package was included but most were self explanatory, for the underpinning message was that unless your package delivers the message and the contents the promise, it will struggle in the marketplace.(especially with the aging population)
Researches differ widely about canning numbers in traditional forms however, Visy experience indicates that metal cans are definitely not in decline, but are growing in most parts of the world by being enhanced by the combination of technologies with that of the proven can. Foil and Easy Open Ends applied to metal cans is one example, as is the enclosing of single serve or portion pack food in cans in a paperboard sleeve to indicate high value. Ghee in a can with a foil lid was not only innovative but the marketers had made the metal can bulbous to stand out in the crowd.
Private Label (EU) is also a key driver toward innovative alternatives to metal cans and the brand manufacturer who ignores the trend exposed to being left behind. Private label Suppliers are so strong that there is a Private Label Manufacturers Association [PLMA] which is growing and organises exhibitions (Amsterdam) that are now globally recognised as “the place to be”.
Milk in glass and can containers that is retorted and having a different organoleptic profile is gaining some ground in the premium market of traditional UHT paperboard boxes and is now on sale in ten countries but poised to expand. Premiumising is a new word for packagers’ lexicon particularly in brands that want to segment and Private Label that are launching new brands not only against multinational “bread and butter” marques but often against a totally new technology.
In the Australian and North American segments Private Label products are increasingly being packaged in China, Thailand, Latin America and Africa, and imported at prices simply below local costs. As Peter Banfield indicated at retail metal cans continue to have good volumes in Australia, although many are now imported.
One thought provoker was given when it was explained that the development of a substitute flexible package in the US has also allowed the off shore manufacturer to take the advantage of supply chain cost savings, ramp up production and using those economies, “drop” the excess in the North American theatre.
One packer in the Philippines imports Australian dairy products processes them and re-exports the finished shelf stable consumer pack to Canada; but in the old world similar events are reported. A branded African company has food packaged in France and exported home for sale, whilst a Greek operator launched plastic as an alternative to glass, and as it reached maturity reverted to higher premium glass offering with remarkable success.
Shelf Stable is leaning to segmentation for these newer plastic packs and some are also targeting the chilled markets. One example from France which when reported raised some debate, is for shelf stable products to be displayed in Supermarkets exactly as the traditional chilled range. Concern from the audience was that consumers may become confused or complacent and end up with spoiled product.
Some emerging European trends market the advantages of new clear plastic barrier technology and has delivered retorted hot dogs with included sauce, which has not displaced cans, but glass. Extrusion blow moulded self heating packs (Wolfgang Puck) for the on-the-run consumer is an example
But all is not lost for the traditionalists for Peter, as he handed the microphone to Kelvin Davies; advised that the metal can makers in Thailand can not keep up with demand.
Kelvin explained the science of packaging food in alternative package forms and the manner in which a process [casually referred to by many] retort may be carried out. The important thing is to heat the product long enough to render the product sterile without degradation. Retorting may be done by traditional steam, other processes using electricity, and microwave, pressure, whilst light or chemical technology are also being developed. Much was advised about computer technology and logic systems in the control of retorting in the burgeoning market for ready to eat meals. Not only human food, for Peter Banfield had already told us that the many US consumers treat their pets to as much as US$8.00 per day worth of food!
Metal cans have been light weighted and combined with high speed filling lowered costs with significant success, which when added to inherent advantages in tamper evident and tamper proofing, combined with the 100% recyclability and high volume return in kerbside collections adds to longevity and continued acceptance.
But plastic alternatives have more ability in the areas of shelf awareness and stand out shapes. Consumers are slowly converting to the message that a plastic package represent high quality and will pay a premium for a package that actually arrives on the shelf at a higher unit cost than the one it replaced.
Whilst the introduction of plastic packages continues unabated the message for Kelvin the Scientist was that “plastic is more complicated” and careful evaluation is the most important thing to consider when making the change. Whilst realtors shout position-position-position the plastic package technologists would say evaluate-evaluate-evaluate and benchmark against a proven package in the same genre.
The evening ended with a question and answer session and by coincidence the two presenters from Visy were thanked by the 2007 Chairperson Nola Porteus also of Visy who presented new member John McBride with his certificate of office. Guess what? John works for Visy.
Written by Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
Web site: http://www.aipack.com.au/
2006 Southern Cross Awards |
March 11, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 08:05 PM | Comments (0) |
|
The Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] was again involved with the 2006 Southern Cross Awards organised by the Packaging Council of Australia [PCA]. This year, twenty seven education institutions participated with over 500 students registering, and 400 of them submitting an entry.
The AIP “Judges Rationale” Award was won by Blake Pearce (see photo) then at Holmesglen Institute of TAFE in Victoria but now a student at Monash University studying design. At the March meeting of AIP Blake was invited to share the secrets of his success with members and guests. Given the background of the presentation an invitation was extended to students across Melbourne undertaking courses related to Packaging. Around one third of the attendees were students and those interviewed gave a “thumbs up” to the evening and the opportunity to network with packaging professionals.
Sharon Robertson the senior Judge who is Design Director of The Promotions Factory, Prahran (VIC) said, “This year, the briefs were challenging, with the introduction of some packaging aspects not looked at before. The aim is to always encourage students to keep pushing themselves, go outside their comfort zones and explore design solutions that work through imagination, research and innovation. As a result, we found the standard of entries to be high with a strong emphasis on well executed mockups [sic] and more thorough rationales. I am deeply passionate about giving students every opportunity to achieve their best and I can think of no other vehicle that allows them to excel in such a unique way. I would like to thank all of the students and lecturers who entered the Awards. To the students - you have taken part in something that will be of value to you as you embark on your careers. It brings me great joy to think that we have helped you on your way.”
So it was with that testimonial that Blake fronted the podium and explained the rationale behind his creation that was adjudged the entry across all briefs, which best represents excellence in research, documentation and presentation of the rationale.
Blake explained that he sought a packaging solution to changing trends in demographics, wellness, cooking and optic skills. He determined that 42% of the population are said to be obese which has focused many on healthy eating. But as the out-of-house food providers do not always dispense healthy food many have returned to home cooking. He found that some who want to make their own meals do not have many culinary skills and those who have belong to another generation and due to ageing have poor eyesight.
His award winning submission was called COOK which was a multi-compartmented spice, herb or other free flowing condiments. It is shown below in an extract from the PCA web site.
Blake’s explanation of the functioning of COOK indicates that anyone could well be the next Mrs Beeton or one of the TV cooks who have whipped up a batch of hyperbole about how easy it is to prepare meals.
Australian Institute of Packaging "Judges Rationale" Award
"Judges Rationale" Award Criteria: For the entry, across all categories, which best represents excellence in research, documentation and presentation of the rationale.
Student: Blake Pearce
Institution: Holmesglen Institute of TAFE, Victoria
Blake’s rationale traced the creative stages of his design process in a logical and clear progression, outlining each stage closely. The structural details of the multi-compartmental spice container, called Cook, were clearly defined and supported by detailed drawings and photographs. This was a well researched and well presented rationale with sufficient detail in support of his entry.
During question time it was determined that Blake was unable to afford to have demonstration units manufactured so the concept has not been tested in the market place. But the benefit of involvement with AIP at technical meetings shone through when a member of the audience expressed an interest in following through with Blake to possible manufacture and test marketing.
AIP conducts monthly meetings and endeavors to cater for members wants, but as education of packaging professionals underpins its very existence the students who excel in disciplines related to packaging will always find a warm welcome at any meeting.
Written by Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
Web site: http://www.aipack.com.au/
Green Packaging - The Challenges Ahead |
February 15, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 08:35 PM | Comments (0) |
|
The 2007 year, which is the forty-fourth that Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] has been conducting monthly meetings, was a joint venture with the Society of Plastics Engineers [SPE] where Robin Tuckerman FAIP brought five speakers to the podium to discuss plastics for Green Packaging. (Photo: From left to right; Gerry, Skye, Peter, Katherine and John.)
The theme for the meeting came about from a survey of members last year when over 40% of respondents asked for sessions dealing with environmental issues.
An alternate title could have been Form, File and Spiel for such was the discipline that facilitator Robin had injected or blown into his confreres who presented. The keynote address given by Peter Bury from PACIA was entitled “Using Degradable Plastics in Australia-Product Stewardship Guide and Commitment”. Justification for the existence of PACIA [and for that matter any industry lobby] was explained as “being able to do what an individual could not” particularly in the minefield of Government interface.
Bakelite the first plastic is a brand named material based on the thermosetting phenol formaldehyde resin polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride, developed in 1907–1909 by Dr. Leo Baekeland. Peter explained that plastics really came about because the world was running out of elephants which were slaughtered for the ivory in their tusks. One kilogram of plastic is equal to the tusks of 15000 elephants, so right off plastics were good for the environment; not to mention the elephants.
But nearly a hundred years on “plastics are well postioned but have an image problem” according to Bury. He sheeted this directly to manufacturers who use false and misleading information that confuses consumers. But The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] is “red hot” on manufacturers who claim that a plastic is degradable or compostable but can not show evidence in support. ACCC uses Australain Standard 14021 [2002] as the verifaicator for claims made about a product.
So the message for the Industry support body is “have evidence before you make the claim” then evidence and more evidence. Information is contained on PACIA web site.
John Nickless from Innovia Films [Asia Pacific] Pty Ltd explained that compostable plastic packaging is a high demand by consumers and that the same consumers are purchasers of organic food stuffs. Organics are growing by 25% per annum and consumers will pay a premium for the product and the packaging. One overseas supermarket chain has over 500 organic product lines on sale.
Overseas Governments are commiting industry to degradable plastics by the imposition of penalties and John Nickeless flags that “governments are governments” and Australia will follow.
Innova’s leader in degradable plastics is Nature Flex ® which is manufactured from cropped timber and is 95% modified cellulose that degrades naturally or can be composted. The approach to remove only the tops of trees and let them coppice is sound as there is less environmental impact in many ways.
The company’s degradable film is now the preferred choice for sanitary products that end up in sewerage systems. Non degradable plastics used before the conversion to Nature Flex® needed much attention at the treatment plant as the sanitary products arrived downstream intact and had to given special attention to get the degradable material free for processing.
Gerry Kleisterlee of Pro-Pac Packaging [Aust] Pty Ltd discussed her company’s environmental thrust and told us that “the basic material is Nature’s Recipe”. The products under scrutiny were flowable and non-flowable void fillers that were introduced in 1996 to compete with polystyrene products.
Other Green Packs from Pro-Pac are Air Pac ® a pillow formed to cushion products in transit and Pad Loc ® that is a replacement for foam-in-place void fillers.
Skye Reilly of Sancell Pty Ltd completed the introduction of new products and also had a focus on protective packaging. She completed a quick environmentally awareness survey using the audience which demonstrated that recycling and reuse may well be lower on the totem than spin doctors would have us believe.
Sancell’s environmental policy underpins what products they take to the market place. The product produced is EnviroBubble ® that is made from 100% LDPE with Totally Degradable plastic additives [TDPA] blended into the resin during production.
These additives trigger a process of oxidative degradation when heated by the Ultra Violet in sunlight and heat, then moisture, micro-organisms and oxygen cause the product to be degraded in twelve months.
Half of all Sancell’s customers have changed over to EnviroBubble ® giving a growth in sales of 16.5% in the last twelve months and a higher number in profitability.
Marketed as EnviroProtecta Bags the white quilted bags are becoming ubiquitous and are more “eye candy” than the traditional paper padded mailers and small parcel packages.
Katherine Dean, Research Scientist at CSIRO who is project leader for that organization’s Green Materials and Systems research was enjoined to excite the technologists who attended and spoke about Biopolymer Research.
The thrust of research is to look at all petrochemical based materials and find replacements in biodegradable stock. The search goes on amongst starches from wheat and corn, polylactic acid [PLA] and biodegradable oil based materials.
Plantic Technologies® a leader in biodegradable plastic was conceived at CSIRO and today the emphasis is on nano-technology and microbiological methods that may increase the time of degradation that can be built into the life cycle.
Futurists can contemplate Katherine Dean’s contention that “there will come a time when bio polymers will be cheaper than petrochemical polymers”
A question time followed mainly focused on the issues of contamination of the waste stream and how to educate the public. That is a whole other subject that remained unanswered as the audience participated in thanking the guest speakers.
Considerations for “later” can be posed from the meeting:
- Oil is being used quicker than it is produced but petrochemical plastics can be recycled many times.
- Do all materials now in use have a biopolymer alternative?
- Water is needed to grow the raw materials for biopolymers and it is in its infancy. Will we have enough water?
- Biodegradable materials by their very nature vanish and have to be started anew.
Contact Information
Australian Institute of Packaging
www.aipack.com.au
Society of Plastics Engineers
www.4spe.org
PACIA
www.pacia.org.au
Innovia Films [Asia Pacific] Pty Ltd
www.innoviafilms.com
Pro-Pac Packaging [Aust] Pty Ltd
www.pro-pac.com.au
Sancell Pty Ltd
www.sancell.com.au
CSIRO
http://www.cmit.csiro.au/home/contacts/
Written by:
Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
Web site: www.aipack.com.au
Glass Recycling - Its all Sorted |
December 06, 2006 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 02:32 AM | Comments (1) |
|
If anyone needed substantiation of the benefits of being a member of a special interest group such as the Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] it became clear in early November when members of AIP were privy to a site visit to Visy- Recycling Glass at Laverton in Victoria.
Visy Recycling Glass in Laverton played host to a number of members from the Australian Institute of Packaging (AIP) on two separate occasions during November
AIP members gained an insight into the current state of play with regards to glass packaging recycling in Australia and were given the privilege of being able to see the automated glass sorting facility in action.
The state of the art facility is the only one of its kind within Australia and allows mixed and broken glass to be sorted into different colours, whilst removing high levels of contamination during the process.
Broken glass is sourced from kerbside collections and arrives from Municipal Recycling Facilities [MRF] all over the country. It arrives in various states of cleanliness from very clean to almost unrecognisable and in many instances loads of glass can be highly contaminated.
Contamination, the group was advised, comes in the form of Pyrex baking dishes, ceramic cups and plates and of course the usual nappies and plastics with the latter being removed at the very start of the process by manual labour.
The removal of ceramics is an area of focus for the plant because if a piece of ceramic gets between the shear blades during the glass bottle production process it can result in broken shear blades. Pyrex is also an issue because the melt point is different to normal glass and as a result can create weaknesses in the glass during carbonated beverage filling of the bottle.
The automated glass facility is totally computerised with each step of the process accessible and adjustable through a computer monitored system.
Optical Sorting
Using a process similar to a digital camera, the automated glass facility identifies and separates the different types or colours of glass by taking individual snapshots of each piece of glass at high speed. The light then identifies and processes the colour whilst air jets shoot the glass off into individual colour streams.
The cameras used in the automated optical sort have the ability to sort up to a million individual pieces of glass per minute and can detect up to 16 million different colours in total.
The facility was upgraded in 2005 and has driven glass recycling rates from 65,000 tonne to up to 120,000 tonne per annum or just under a 50% improvement in recovery rates since its completion.
In an attempt to recover as much as they can of the glass that enters the plant, the final act of recovery involves ‘aging’ glass that is rejected because it may have pieces of the paper label stuck to it. This can render it unreadable by the plants optical sort equipment, however material is stockpiled and then resorted through the plant to ensure that every possible piece of glass is recycled.
Every piece of glass that can be recovered and sent on for reuse in bottle manufacture is a win for the environment. Each 1,000 kg of glass used saves 1,100 kilograms of raw material being used.
Not only does the use of recycled glass reduce the energy needed to make new glass but it extends the life of raw material deposits and the costs associated with mining, processing and transporting over distances.
The generation of glass that is simply too small in size to recover is an inevitable part of the recycling process and this material can be used in road base and also for drainage base under roads because of the stability of the material, Visy Recycling Glass continues to work hard on sourcing new markets for this material.
Benchmarking on a global scale we still have room for improvement. Each year one of Visy Recycling Glass’ customers manufactures more than a million tonnes of glass, but only about one third of the glass in the waste stream is recycled.
High Recovery Rates
In Switzerland where recycling world's best practice exists 91% of manufactured glass is recovered for recycling. Albeit a small country like Switzerland does not suffer the Australian tyranny of distance to get waste to recycling facilities there is certainly room for a quantum leap in the volume of glass recycled.
A number of the visitors adjourned to a local watering hole to continue networking and must have reflected on a Visy statement that "a million people can drink out of the same bottle" as glass can be recycled forever.
Whether or not folks were drinking from a glass or stubby made of recycled glass is simply not answerable as there is no discernable difference between virgin material glass and that made from recycle.
The Australian Institute of Packaging can be accessed via the recyclable web site www.aipack.com.au whilst Visy-Glass Recycling can be accessed through the company's main site www.visy.com.au
by Michael B Halley
michael.halley@elmtree.net.au
Austrlian Institute of Packaging (FAIP)
Reviewed by Meredith Banks
Visy Recycling - Corporate & Environmental Affairs
PackMax Challenges Logistics in Claiming "less on a pallet may be cheaper" |
July 14, 2006 |
|
Posted by Michael Halley at 12:13 AM | Comments (0) |
|
Packaging Mythtakes
The invitation to the July meeting said that three nominated speakers would explore vital aspects of packaging and management and the event was entitled The Three Tenets. A tenet according to Macquarie dictionary is any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma or the like held to be true.
The three tenet deliverers were:
-Chris Perks Principal ChrisPerksPartners discussing packaging design
-Michael Sinnott Senior Consultant the appointments group discussing communications in management
-Geoff Walton Principal Geoff Walton Consulting discussing the basics of packaging technology – myths and mythtakes
Chris Perks set the scene with a graphic reading Advertising leads consumers into temptation . Packaging is the temptation . Packaging, according to Chris, is an important marketing tool as the pack on the shelf will have been designed to provide an offer to the consumer that is different to and/or more desirable than that of its competitors .
He exampled water stating that there is virtually no difference between the various brands in the Supermarket yet some command much higher prices . The reason is that the product will have been marketed to set it in a premium position which will be done by a mix of advertising and a distinctive pack presence.
Mr Perks contends that for most consumer products, package design is the hardest working, most sustainable and cost effective marketing tool . Underpinning this is the tenet that every consumer that has a potential interest in buying a brand will be influenced by its packaging, and the influence continues after purchase . The package will remain under notice in the pantry, on the vanity and other places throughout the home reinforcing brand perception every time it is seen.
This is in complete contrast to the amount of time expended at the time of original purchase where the consumer allows only 2 . 5 seconds determining which product goes in the trolley . The package is the product and the packaging does most of the selling, so the design can not be left to risk . Unlike advertising, in a store environment the competition is sitting right next to your brand pulling your consumers’ loyalty, providing a new promise, evoking a new experience . So as Chris put it is vital that your package captures the consumers’ heart as well as their eyes.
To become a powerful marketing tool the fundamental criteria that a pack must meet is to be distinctive, genuine, desirable and clear. Consumers look for prompts that help to distinguish between brands and these are known to be mentally and visually checked off in order. Colour is first, followed by shape, then images and finally words and messages, but the challenge for designers is to maximize the relationship between the brand and the cues.
Chris said that color can be the most powerful differentiators for a brand and gave examples, such as Cadbury purple, John West green, Weight Watchers blue and Maggi Yellow. Shapes such as Coca Cola and Perrier bottles, are instantly recognizable as is the Heinz keystone and many of the sports equipment manufacturers logos. Images are used to identify products benefits and can be used to show country of origin and the specific content. Nestle uses words to great advantage such as Nestea, Nescafe, and Nesquick.
Paramount is communication, according to Perks for in 2.5 seconds your product must communicate your offer to the modern consumers who are increasingly savvy and demanding more genuine products and product claims.
A series of branding images and design features of packs from here and overseas were shown and an insight into the good and not so good package designs were covered leading up to a final tenet. Every step from pack shape, to label design should be based on the brands’ core values and promises—with the involvement of all the packaging professionals from the starting point of the project. Chris Perks said “all too often packaging is developed in a fragmented way with groups independently involved in pack formats, label design, research and advertising; rather than working together to create a truly integrated result.
None would have given Chris a bad mark for Communication but after a short break we resumed our seats to hear Mike Sinnott tell us how to communicate with management and see if Chris met the criteria.
Mike used the definition of communication to support his tenet ‘imparting or interchanging of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing or signs.’ He sees developing and maintaining clear and friendly communication in the work place as the steppingstone to good interpersonal skills and that feedback is most important in passing messages through a chain-of-command.
Failure to respond is a clear sign of inadequate communication skills and Mike related several personal experiences where he had to go “over someone’s head” to get an answer to a simple request. Amongst common causes of poor communication are; the language barrier when dealing with non-native English speakers, excessive use of jargon and lack of common goals. He sees as the classics….blaming other people or a dislike for the sender of the message.
Refusal to listen is a common cause of poor communication and is linked with body language. [We all know the person at a meeting who folds arms across the body indicating “I don’t want to hear this”] Other non verbal communications can be detected by accessing the person with whom you are talking. The easiest to denote is the failure to look you in the eye a sure sign of untruthfulness.
Mike left us with his own three tenets:
-What I hear I forget
-What I see I remember
-What I do I understand
Those who listened will probably forget and those who looked at the screen will probably remember and Mike Sinnott therefore claims to understand communication. So it was left to Geoff Walton to not only communicate but wrap up what had been a busy evening.
We had heard a little about communication and advertising from the previous presenters but in this session were subject to some subliminal advertising for a product called PackMax [TM] which Geoff clearly declared he had an interest in the software package.
Geoff commenced with a back to basics proposal and enjoined the laws of nature to communicate his tenets . He says that we can group the various aspects of packaging into three areas, technical, economical and organizational . Technical encompass such things as protection and barrier properties and graphics, whilst economical considerations fall into two profit centers being material and logistic costs . The organization has to deal with internal issues from opposing forces such as purchasing, marketing, engineering and production . Mr Walton bundles these issues into what he calls The Manufacturers’ Dilemma .
He then conducted a tutorial to show that the laws of nature as evidenced in geometry and mathematics formed the basics of engineering and which in turn were fundamental to packaging design . Further he developed the base concept that packaging was really all about surface area and volume and used five different solid geometry shapes to demonstrate his point .
This then led into a discussion of the economics of packaging material costs (surface area) vis-a-vis logistical costs (pack shape and volume). Geoff was able to display how PackMax [TM] always considered both costs simultaneously to the extent of revealing one packaging mythtake, namely, that it was often cheaper to put less on a pallet than more .
PackMax [TM] always considered both costs simultaneously to the extent of revealing one packaging mythtake, namely, that it was often cheaper to put less on a pallet than more .
When considering both material and logistic costs, organizational rivalry then came into play and to understand the relationship between the four executive managerial functions it was necessary to look at the dichotomy which occurs in the roles of the Purchasing Manager and the Logistic Manager .
Again using the software Geoff demonstrated his tenet which is more easily reflected in a copy of his summary:
1. The real criterion for evaluation has to be the cost per ultimate selling unit, which in this case is the cost per liter of product.
2. The Purchasing Manager would select the 12 liter option with lowest material costs.
3. The Logistics Manager would select the 4 liter option with lowest logistic costs.
The CEO/General Manager would select the 12 liter option with lowest total costs, so preventing the Logistics Manager from minimizing his costs.
Note: Purchasing Managers logically (BY THE LAWS OF NATURE) reduce costs by packing in larger units. Logistic Managers cannot palleteize larger units so easily, so they need smaller units to utilize pallet cubic volume more economically.
Chris Perks had earlier said that involvement of all interested parties as early as possible needs to be company policy and Geoff Walton reinforces this message . He stated inter - alia “Optimum design sizing is not a guessing game!”
He showed what you get when marketing managers tell packaging designers that they want a certain fixed volume or weight in a retail or commercial unit. In an example optimum cost calculations were examined for every nominated unit volume between 4 and 20 liters. Material costs and logistic costs were calculated for each showing that the purchasing manager’s material costs consistently decrease with increase in the volume unit. [Because he has used the 2:1:2 L: W: D box ratio to minimize his material area purchases.]
The Logistics Manager however gets no consistency. He has to take what the purchasing manager gives him with respect to dimensions and can only choose the most beneficial pallet pattern to optimize his loads.
Total costs jump around a bit on the graph and whether the “minimum” cost option is achieved is very much “hit and miss” as pallet patterns can be extremely sensitive to small changes in box dimensions.
Geoff’s final tenet on the issue was “As long as a policy of “design optimization” is adhered to in an organization, the Marketing Manager will invariably decide on a particular size based on other issues. This is OK because when the Marketing Manager selects a volume unit, he/she would be selecting the minimum cost option for that particular volume”
Obviously believing one of Mike Sinnot’s tenets [What I see I remember] Geoff showed an example of his optimum package which had taken all of his doctrine into consideration both in package design and graphics.
After an hour or more of information exchange none in the audience could say that the presenters did not leave them with a feeling that the opinions, principles, doctrines, dogmas or the like delivered could be held to be other than true .
Written by:
Michael B Halley FAIP
Australian Institute of Packaging
Web site: www.aipack.com.au
Chris Perks
PerksDesignPartners
c.perks@perksdesignpartners.com
Michael Sinnott
The Appointments Group
mike@appointmentsgroup.com.au
Geoff Walton
Geoff Walton Consulting
gnwalton@optusnet.com.au
Shelf Ready Packaging Not Ready Yet |
May 30, 2006 |
|
Posted by Don Dunnington at 05:40 PM | Comments (0) |
|
In his opening remarks to members of the Australian Institute of Packaging in Victoria in early May 2006, Krathyn White, Editor of PKN magazine, declared, “A lot has been made of shelf ready packaging over the last couple of years, but despite the hoopla, one only has to walk down the aisles of any major Australian supermarket to see the impact of shelf ready to-date and for all it's worth, insignificant.”
White sees packaging as largely “shelf un-ready” with less than 5% of shelved product being shipped in a system that constitutes shelf-ready.
For a complete report on White’s presentation concerning the un-ready state of shelf ready packaging, you can view or download this article (PDF – 4 pages).
Don Dunnington
Moderator
Cans Cleverly Cloned - AIP Meeting |
July 27, 2005 |
|
Posted by Michael Halley at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) |
|
.jpg)
The Macquarie Dictionary will need to consider changing the definition of a can once all of the technological innovations proffered at the July meeting of Australian Institute of Packaging arrive in the market place.
When experts from the paperboard, metal and plastics beverage packaging suppliers come to the same venue to expound the virtues of their products you should expect to come away with quite disparate views. Such was the case when Patrice Lesage Vice President of Sales at Sidel Solutions, Charles Vorrath Key Account Manager at Tetra Pak and David Houston General Manager Technical and Engineering Services at Amcor’s Rigid Packaging Group presented on behalf of the company and technology.
Somehow the words of a paradoxical song about skin seemed to draw the three materials closer together. Overall it was displayed that irrespective of the material used to form a beverage container it “helps to keep your insides in”. So it is innovation and technological rethinking [quote Patrice Lesage] that will differentiate the dissimilar types of materials and the products made from them.
The organisers were encouraged when a sell out crowd came along, particularly as Patrice Lesage had made a special trip from Thailand to address the meeting. He moved straight into the fray saying that when customers demand a major reduction in bottle costs it is not simply a matter of increasing machine speed. He stated “for a short period of time any machine can run very fast” but went on to explain that the solution to cost reduction and retention of quality will not be achieved by “turning up the wick”.
“...for a short period of time any machine can run very fast” - Patrice Lesage
Sidel Solutions
Sidel Solutions has invested 25 million Euro in technological rethinking in order to turn customer demands into reality. The company is now aiming for 2000 bottles per minute which is a long way from 400 achieved in 1978 when machines were running at 80% efficiency but had a thirty [30] minute change over time. Today they are regularly achieving 1600 bottles per minute with machine efficiency of 97% and a change over time of only three [3] minutes.
This has been brought about by the development of machines such as the SBO Universal [TM] which delivers a process guaranteed to customers’ specification with a commitment to quality at output rates of 1800 bottles per minute. In line with this cost down new blow moulding technologies focusing on optimum base cooling are delivering energy savings as high as 25%.
The company has girded its loins and has ten [10] new bottle base designs developed with patents pending, which will deliver lower base weights, large process windows at high speed, and air blowing technology for optimum stress cracking elimination and quick cooling.
So the gauntlet was dropped by the plastics container industry for the other materials to pick up or shy away from.
Tetra Pak “Protects what’s Good”
Charles Vorrath picked it up and said Tetra Pak “Protects what’s Good” and every year the equivalent use for every person on the planet is ten or eleven paperboard containers. Before reaching for the calculator the number is in excess of 100 billion and with mainland China consumers growing exponentially the record keeps being broken. Similar upsurge in sales as with plastics has been recorded by Tetra Pak since 1980 when only 20 million containers were sold.
Products filled into Tetra Pak containers are mainly beverages with dairy products running at 55% and juices together with still beverages accounting for 41%. The other 4% is made up of diverse products with Soy and Wine being stand out contents. In a global operation some products are geographically inclined such as wine in Europe which is experiencing major growth.
Again, Tetra Pak has a success story to tell about cost reduction and efficiency gains, but it is innovation that sets the scene for excitement. Who would have thought that a representative of Tetra Pak would talk about a package that contains no paper?
In Mexico a clear Tetra Wedge Aseptic® package is being sold! Another innovation, Tetra Wedge Aseptic® Microwaveable has no foil in the laminate can be put straight into the Microwave, whilst Tetra Recart ® is a retortable carton for vegetables, ready meals and products as far removed as pet food.
It was here that the definition of a can was in need of change, for mention was made of Carton Can® and it got more so. Tetra Top® for chilled products is a paperboard container with a bottle opening and is on sale in New Zealand with marked success. Carton Shot®, a 100 millilitre box with a screw top, Carton Cup® a tear top tub for yoghurt and ice-cream, and Carton Bottle® with sizes ranging from 100 ml to one litre are taking the joust up to the other Knights in the battle.
The White Knight for the traditional beverage can spurred his steed into battle and indicated that amongst the 7300 employees in 66 plants Amcor’s global business is second in sales world wide to Tetra Pak there are many smart people and smart solutions to keep the can from being canned or dropped in the can.
Amcor Rigid Packaging Group
Product Leadership and Innovation in concert with the customers in a trickle down process will be the driver to keep beverage cans on consumers’ want lists. Saying that most innovations come from additions or improvements to existing products David Houston also stated that innovation has always added to overall sales. But he went on to say that the company has a high investment in Research and Development but in addition the Rigid Packaging group uses licensing from around the world, and quoted Ball Metal® and Crown Cork & Seal ® for beverage cans, US Can® for aerosols and Impress® for food cans as being partners into the future.
“Most innovations come from additions or improvements to existing products” David Houston
Standard-shaped-slimline and special are words David used to describe the range of cans that are available and in every day use. In the end it is the end that has delivered cost savings and customer acceptance, with special decorations focused on consumer trends. Cans are available with a crinkle over-varnish, printed with fluorescent or thermocramotic inks or with coloured opening tabs as a matter of course.
The traditional can started its lessening of popularity around 1984 when Coca Cola hit the shelves with a shaped can which today is a little ho-hum. Heineken’s Keg Can was designed to increase sales and have done so with remarkable results, Jim Beam have just released a “barrel” shaped can aimed at boosting sales, but shaped cans are also the solution to counterfeiting.
In China it was determined that more than 40% of the aerosol WD 40 spray available in stores was counterfeit. The answer lay in a simple reshaping of the can which fortunately for the brand owner and Amcor’s technology partner, for shaped cans, Crown Cork & Seal (CC&S) is only possible on the CC&S technology. The simplicity comes from a technology where a regular can is manufactured and then blown into shape using know-how that allows for stretching of the metal but does not damage the internal lining.
Innovation in metal cans is such that aluminium bottles are being produced in Japan using technology that draws the body and irons the wall then necks down the open end to form the final bottle tread and shape. Although in its infancy the aluminium bottle is returning sales of three [3] billion units, which is a significant inroad into the thirty [30] billion can market.
David mentioned that the company has high hopes for screw cap closures (made by Amcor Closures) for wine bottles, where they target around half the market. [Amcor’s Glass division manufactures wine bottles] Versatal® a patented polymer coated steel that has the permeability of glass and the strength of steel is just one product that will carry the can well into the future.
So even though a bottle maybe a can, or a carton a bottle, or plastic a laminate on metal or board it should be noted that all are recyclable and some materials come from renewable resources.
Learn More
The Australian Institute of Packaging [AIP] brings presenters of the calibre of those mentioned above in each East Coast capital every month and welcomes guests. Details of the AIP are contained at www.aipack.com.au
For more information about products mentioned view company web sites: -
- Amcor Rigid Packaging …. www.amcor.com
- Sidel Solutions …. www.sidel.com
- Tetra Pak …. www.tetrapak.com
Written by Michael B Halley, FAIP
