PACKAGING INNOVATIONS REVIEW
The shows allow for intense scrutiny of the latest innovations
has been decided that fibre is no longer compulsory. I would disagree with this as fibre is an integral part of all diets and consumers should be noting how much of it they’re eating. Other problems include an
indication of the food or drink’s physical condition/treatment, i.e. frozen, frozen and defrosted, etc, but this does not apply to ingredients, products where freezing is technologically necessary (i.e. ice cream) and where freezing has no negative impact on safety or quality. In the ingredients list, imitation
foods (where an ingredient expected to be normally used or naturally present is substituted with something different) must be indicated, vegetable oils and fats have to be specifically labelled (no generic ‘vegetable oil’) and allergens are now to be found in the ingredients list (in bold) rather than in a specific allergen box. The regulation, as Lorraine
points out, is still being reviewed as there are grey areas, such as issues with multi-lingual labels, but, either way, the industry has until the 13th December 2014 to get on the right side of the law. I then attended the well-named
At the next seminar I attended,
Lorraine Eve of Ashbury Labelling discussed the new EU Regulation on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers. You can read more on her opinion on the regulation in our Last Word on page 49, but it has to be said, after just a thirty a minute presentation, the sheer detail and weight of the regulation caused my head to spin. The new legislation, which was
released on the 13th December last year, ensures a standardised label format across (most of) the food and drink industry. The new rules include changes to legibility, namely font size, mandatory nutrition labelling, names of food and the list of ingredients. I think it’s fantastic that
nutrition information will now be mandatory as it is an excellent way to help consumers make healthier choices. On this info, fat will be moved up, protein will be moved down, salt can not be labelled as ‘sodium’ or ‘salt equivalent’, whilst serving sizes and sizes per pack must also be given. This is all great. However, it
Lion’s Lair, where a series of entrepreneurs pitched their packaging ideas to a panel of judges, who were Jane Beer, senior packaging technologist at Wilkinson, Phil Huggett, GM packaging manager at Sainsbury’s, Terry Isham, associate principle engineer at Kraft Foods and Monica Alves- Teixeira, senior packaging Engineer at Avon Cosmetics. First up was the
aforementioned Stergios of MMR, pitching the company’s sensory research on a pack’s effect on the product within that I commissioned them to write. You can see the report in full on
pages 26 to 28. We also saw Thistle
Marketing’s new dispensing range, which used less parts than what is currently on the market, whilst Macfarlane Packaging presented their Re- Seal range of labels to help reduce both the large amount of food waste seen in the UK every year and the 78,000 packaging- related accidents seen in hospital due to consumers opening packets with knives. However, the most exciting
presentation was from InspirePac with their BottleSafe product - a box for transit protection of premium wine and spirits. Developed with logistics provider UPS, the box has seen many falls from windows, kickabouts in car parks and throws across the room in order to ensure complete bottle protection. Our two presenters for the BottleSafe continued their insistence that the box was safe by kicking it around the auditorium whilst having tape placed over their mouths. After intense scrutiny from the judges, the BottleSafe was crowned the winner! Finally, the BIG Packaging
Debate looked at the issue of whether sustainable packaging was saving the planet or costing the earth. This year’s panel consisted of
Dr. John Williams, head of materials for energy & industry at NNFCC, Prof. Rob Holdway, Director at Giraffe Innovation, Stuart Lendrum, head of packaging & design at Sainsbury’s, Tom Heap, freelance journalist & broadcaster, Dominic Box, Managing Director at Tangible Branding and chairing the debate was Kevin Vyse, Owner of KBV Associates. Kevin kicked off the debate by asking: “Sustainable solutions are
undoubtedly having a knock-on effect. Light-weighting has caused consumers to use two carrier shopping bags instead of one and it seems that a hesham bag takes 200 times more energy to make than a plastic one - so where is the logic?” Rob commented: “The problem
is design, packaging designers need to take more responsibility and control when designing a bag or the package for a product.” Tom then said:"But how much
information gets through to the consumer. None, but why should it? When they buy a product they look at what it does, which is usually two things – protects and sells. Anything else is secondary to the consumer.” Dominic was in agreeance,
saying: “It is the role of the manufacturer to reduce cost and create green packaging. The consumer will either buy it or not. Brand owners investing in good environmental practice will not generally be credited for this by consumers who will pay for added benefits and functional convenience. They will not accept a reduction in performance and expect lower not higher prices for environmentally friendly packaging.” Rob finally added: “Tesco has
done a lot of research into this and consumers do struggle with packaging when it comes to disposal and quite often packaging that is hard to recycle stays on the shelf!” The actual term
‘sustainability’ was also debated, with Tom calling it a “useless” word, no matter what sphere it is being used in. So with the day finished, I
headed home with heavy bags and a questioning head. Here’s to the next one - see you in October in London!
Stergios Bititsios of MMR dis- cusses the research he did for FMCG News (see pages 26-28)
FMCGNews.co.uk | FMCG News | 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52