Cutting Systems Cutting through recyclable
plastic’s PET peeves Addressing PET’s manufacturing pain points
By Dan Margherio, director of sales, IMA Food North America
recycling. Such broad recycling accessibility makes PET a practical choice for both manufacturers and consumers, directly supporting eff orts toward a circular economy.
A
mid evolving regulations and growing consumer demand for environmentally conscious solutions, major brands in dairy, snack and other segments are moving away from conventional virgin plastics like polystyrene and adopting substrates that prioritise recyclability, post-consumer recycled content, or both. However, as the food industry embraces sustainability on an ever-broadening scale, packaging materials must be reimagined and reshaped as well as recycled and repurposed. Despite their obvious promise of carbon footprint reduction, such newer, more eco-friendly materials often come with unique challenges for packaging manufacturers and brand owners.
These obstacles are well worth overcoming, especially since the drawbacks of traditional plastics are not limited to environmental concerns. Other issues include increased alarm over conventional plastic resins’ high levels of polyfl uoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Such “forever chemicals” pose long-term health and environmental risks – prompting well- founded fears that have infl uenced and expedited the push toward next-generation PFAS-free mono- material packaging.
For this reason and others, against this backdrop one substrate in particular, PET, has emerged as a particularly promising option for its blend of recyclability, functional benefi ts and consumer appeal. PET’s widespread recyclability is a defi ning advantage; even the United States, whose recycling stream sophistication generally lags behind other developed markets, most places off er curbside PET
That said, sustainable packaging is only truly sustainable if it admirably serves its primary purpose: product protection. Beyond recyclability, PET excels in safeguarding products from oxygen and moisture, both critical to preventing premature spoilage; few things erode brand loyalty like a food item that goes bad before its labeled expiration date. Additionally, PET’s transparency provides a distinct edge in competitive retail environments. The ability to showcase the product within the packaging builds trust among consumers and enhances shelf appeal, both key to standing out in crowded supermarket aisles.
A CUT ABOVE: PET’S ENHANCED CUTTING NEEDS
Considering the myriad benefi ts PET enjoys compared with other resins – including traditional plastics and several sustainability-minded ones – the hesitance and graduality behind PET’s adoption largely boils down to one issue: manufacturability. Despite its outstanding attributes, there’s simply no denying that PET is fi ckle and carries production challenges both upstream and downstream. One prominent pain point has been “cut-ability,” meaning the ability to separate formed cups into individual cups. PET’s density and ruggedness make it harder to cut and form compared with other substrates. Moreover, PET does not “snap” as easily as most other resins, necessitating enhanced measures for cups that require protective layers above and beyond sealing liners. This issue becomes especially evident with resealable cups – for example, quart- sized containers of yogurt.
To address these challenges, many manufacturers are shifting from traditional form-fi ll-seal (FFS) processes to fi ll-seal (FS) operations. By outsourcing the cup formation step, manufacturers can simplify production and better manage PET’s unique characteristics. FS systems provide greater fl exibility, enabling manufacturers to adjust component sizes, graphics, and other design elements with greater
ease. Notably, such fl exibility is especially valuable amid fl uctuating substrate availability. FS processes involve loading preformed cups into stackers, sterilising them with vaporised peroxide or sterile air/steam, and sealing them with fi lm, foil or paper. These “snap-on” lids provide an added layer of protection, ensuring product integrity. Advanced fi lling systems further enhance the consumer experience by preventing residue from collecting on the seals, maintaining a clean appearance upon initial product opening.
In focusing solely on fi lling and sealing preformed cups, FS operations off er an attractive, streamlined alternative. For one, the FS approach eliminates some of the more labor-intensive and technically demanding aspects of FFS, such as controlling timing and temperature during thermoforming. Modern FS equipment, designed for user-friendly operation, addresses the ongoing shortage of skilled packaging equipment operators, making it an increasingly compelling option for manufacturers seeking to optimise manpower.
But of course, FFS systems still have their place and, like FS setups, are evolving along with the packaging substrates they handle. For instance, innovations in cutting equipment and simpler FFS equipment retrofi ts are making it easier to separate multipacks into individual units, overcoming one of the primary obstacles posed by PET’s density. One such technology features an innovative extractable central cutting unit design, and utilises a patented punch process to deliver precise cutting and pre-cutting of eco-friendly materials like PET, PP and PLA. As sustainability continues to redefi ne the food packaging industry, PET emerges as a standout choice for its versatility and environmental benefi ts. With its recyclability, superior product protection and established consumer appeal, PET off ers manufacturers a compelling eco-conscious packaging solution. While manufacturability challenges remain, advancements in production technologies and equipment are paving the way for broader adoption. By leveraging these innovations, food manufacturers can achieve their sustainability objectives while delivering the quality and convenience consumers expect.
16
April 2026
www.convertermag.com
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
