EPM speaks to Gareth Bakewell, joint managing director at Reelvision about the evolution of packaging technologies in pharma and what this means for the safety of medicines.
Packaging in life sciences is constantly evolving with new safety features (anti-tampering, tracking technologies etc). Despite this, do you think these technologies are being implemented in enough of a widespread manner throughout the industry?
Without question there are many pharma companies that have a good strategy when it comes to protecting their products from targeted counterfeiters. These businesses have adopted a number of both physical and digital techniques. At Reelvision we have a constant flow of new designs and often receive artwork that contains various counterfeiting features ranging from micro dots that appear randomly to micro text with hidden copy errors and pattern gloss varnishes with intentional imperfections.
However there are many missed opportunities for brand owners to implement counterfeit features into their products and this could be due to a misconception that their inclusion will affect the cost of the packaging, which is not always the case. But with any advancement, the uptake of technology can be gradual and this is not always a bad thing as a slow uptake can often make the advancement more robust leading to long term positivity.
Reelvision’s lead time is particularly fast in this industry. How do you achieve this?
To achieve this service and quality performance, we developed an inline print and die-cutting machine which controls colour through the utilisation of an engraved anilox roller with metered doctor blade that consistently delivered colour without variation. This secure single-pass manufacturing process eliminates the risk of admixture and is combined with a streamlined BSI approved MIS system to enable fast accurate order administration. This generates clear unambiguous instructions for production processing and dispatch of product with simultaneous invoicing.
You’ve been in the industry a while now and have worked with a range of clients. How has packaging evolved over your time to account for things such as counterfeiting or tampering?
I have seen an improvement, driven by ISO, an independent non-governmental international organisation, where through the implementation of ISO9001/2015 PS9000/2016 accreditation, printing companies such as Reelvision have to demonstrate a robust secure disposal process of all manufacturing waste. Thus preventing the counterfeiter from gaining access to confidential documentation.
More so, can the cost of implementing these technologies put companies off using them?
Many counterfeiting measures are cost free if implemented at the point of artwork generation. However the printed packaging industry needs to be careful not to confuse brand owners with jargon & terminology, after all this is an industry that quotes such buzz words as grips, chokes and bleeds to stochastic and samba screens! Therefore it’s vital that a good dialogue chain is established between brand owners and converters where a plan can be formulated to implement the right solutions for a multi layered approach to a sound counterfeit strategy.
So, we know about tracking features and things like holographs and invisible printing for protecting packages but what other technologies are available that manufacturers may not know about?
Most organisations will be aware of counterfeiting techniques such as bi-fluorescent and colourshift inks, debossed emblems, QR codes, RFID tags and smart labels. But even the most sophisticated anti-counterfeit approach is worthless if you can’t identify a genuine product from a fake or that the genuine pack has not been tampered with.
I feel brand identity protection through the control of material specifications and colour consistency is a critical layer of the cake. Packaging converters need to be challenged to reduce the gap between light and dark colour standards and tasked with matching agreed pantone references. It should not be acceptable for colour to drift during production runs or repeat orders as this variation raises a question with the end consumer… is it a fake or has the colour faded because it’s passed its sell by date?
With such a plethora of technologies available, is there a way (either through policy or regulation) for them to be better integrated throughout pharma?
I think dialogue is the key to improving the implementation of counterfeit techniques and this needs to be done prior to MHRA artwork approval. From my experience the food retail sector has this nailed down. I recall as a trainee salesman back in the 90’s, I’d spend hours driving up and down the M1 visiting Baker Street, Blackfriers, Cheshunt, Leeds with a few deviations down the M4 to Bracknell. All these visits would enable me to participate in a group discussion with brand managers, designers, food technicians, food manufacturers and fellow printers. This created the opportunity to view artwork concepts, discuss material grades, check the correct machine drawings have been submitted, voice any concerns and agree a critical path to ensure launches are always achieved on time. Subsequently final artworks were created and approved by all parties. These days all this is achieved via a time saving digital workflow but the principle is still the same with opportunities to voice your opinion prior to artwork being formalised.
Has the implementation of the Falsified Medicines Directive (FMD) in the EU improved the overall safety of medicines in the supply chain?
Introducing measures to ensure all medicines are safe to use can only be a good thing and by adding extra features such as 2D matrix codes with tamper evident features only enhances the security of all drugs.
Do you think the UK’s departure from the EU will harm the safety of medicines being imported into the UK?
In short no. Both the EU and the UK have mirrored each other on the safe flow of medicines back and forth. The fact that the UK is now outside of that shared policy, we will still see the UK following the same rules and regulations.
Outside of FMD, is there anything regulators can do to ensure that companies are adopting technologies that prevent counterfeiters?
Understanding the impact of counterfeit goods is an incentive to drive companies to protect their brands as surveys would suggest that approximately two thirds of consumers who have unintentionally purchased a counterfeit product have in turn lost their trust in a brand. Within the pharmaceutical world the ‘trust’ element is essential as consumers need to know that the product they’re using is a safe and effective treatment.