PD_Packaging Digest

Packaging Digest, Fall 2015

Issue link: http://dc.cn.ubm-us.com/i/586152

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 28 of 39

29 www.PackagingDigest.com FALL 2015 // BEST PRACTICES toward the familiar technology (see "Which coding equipment technology are you thinking of switching to?" chart on p.30). Laser isn't far behind though at 37%, beating out thermal/ thermal transfer (at 33%) by a small margin. At 20%, print-and-apply labeling still has a following, again somewhat curiously to me. Embossing brings up the rear at just 10%. T e 7% who choose "Other" admit that they don't know what technology they would switch to. T e type of substrate the code is printed on could make a dif erence in the technology used, so we also asked about the materials. Our numbers ref ect what we've been seeing in the market, with f exible packaging at the top and glass trailing. Write-in items from "Other" can be categorized into corrugated and labels (paper and f lm). production challenges Code legibility, accuracy and high- speed application are top concerns for those responsible for the date coding operation on packaging lines. Here are some other production challenges poll respondents shared: "More and more information required that may exceed the limitations of inkjet printing (# of lines / length of text)." "Use of laser coding to reduce hazardous waste and consumables cost." "Accuracy and placement keeping up with higher speed lines." "I see packaging is always changing so new technologies may need to change." "In some of the developing countries automatic machinery is not used. Most equipment is designed for automatic machinery. We are still working on manual packaging systems." "Improved quality of coding legibility and reduction in missing package coding." "Higher print speeds." "Will become a requirement for small business." potential code replacements Could there be a better way for consumers to determine if their foods and beverages are fresh and/or safe to consume than the often confusing and unregulated date code? Are smart sensor technologies or quick-response (QR) codes viable options? T e vast majority of respondents to our exclusive poll don't see it happening. When it comes to smart sensors or indicator labels, only 1% say they are currently using them and only 8% say they are considering using them. But some of you are hedging your bets for the future. More than a quarter (29%) say they don't know if they are considering smart sensors (see "Are you using/considering using smart sensors/labels that indicate when a product has gone bad and should not be consumed?" chart at left). And 87% of respondents say, if they did use a smart sensor, they would add it along with the date code. Only 7% said they would replace the date code with the smart sensor and 7% didn't know. QR codes fare a little better but still don't cut it. Half the poll takers say they are not using or not thinking about using a QR code to give consumers more information, specif cally on the freshness or safety of the product. And more people say they don't know (30%) if they are using Continued on page 30 DESIGNED FOR YOU C-P Flexible Packaging, with its advanced FlexPath ™ approach which seamlessly integrates design, engineering, printing, labeling and converting capabilities to bring the most innovative package and label ideas to life. WWW.CPFLEXPACK.COM | 800-767-0600 Roll Stock • Pre-Made Pouches • Labels • Re-Sealable Packaging • Printing Solutions Do you think customers/consumers understand how these phrases are different? Source: 2015 Spring Packaging Digest online poll Sometimes Rarely Usually Never Always 0% 2% 3% 17% 32% 46% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of PD_Packaging Digest - Packaging Digest, Fall 2015