Originally Published PMPN January 2006
Security Packaging Supplement
Packaging Security: When Track and Trace Meets Authentication
by Daphne Allen, Editor
Are these two approaches to security complementary?
 |
Drug manufacturers no longer need to be reminded of the security threats to their products. Medical device makers, too, are aware. Counterfeiting and diversion have occurred domestically, and FDA has increased its scrutiny of the healthcare products supply chain, opening up dozens more investigations than in years past.
Krenly Cruz, from OMJ/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson & Johnson company, described the risks as keynote speaker at the recent Packaging Security Coalition Security Summit. “The notion that counterfeiting happens only in other countries is totally inaccurate,” said Cruz.
“Pharmaceutical counterfeiting and diversion continues to escalate at wholly unacceptable levels and, according to the Center for Medicines in the Public Interest, is expected to reach $75 billion over the next four years.”
With the need for security established, the challenge for manufacturers is deciding a course of action. While each product has its own supply chain with unique requirements, the choices could be broken down into three general options: track-and-trace technologies, authentication technologies, or a combination of the two.
FDA’s hope lies mainly with a track-and-trace approach employing radio-frequency identification (RFID). “We have been advocating the adoption and widespread use of electronic track-and-trace technologies for almost two years now. We know that many . . . have been involved in exploring RFID technology for significantly longer than that,” explained Randall Lutter, PhD, FDA’s acting associate commissioner for policy and planning, at the RFID Healthcare Adoption Summit sponsored by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the Healthcare Distribution Management Association in November 2005. “With our February 2004 report, we gave this technology a big push for use in the pharma sector. Let me be clear that this continues to be an agency priority, and we are prepared to give this another big push to keep the momentum moving quickly.”
FDA also sees worth in authentication technologies. As part of its initiative to prepare for possible pandemic avian flu, the agency wants to protect the security of antiviral drugs and vaccines. It encourages “pharmaceutical manufacturers to take advantage of new technologies that provide protective packaging and other features to ensure the product is both authentic and has not been tampered with.” (For more on FDA’s goals, see the sidebar on page 66.)
Given such FDA interest, manufacturers are busy evaluating track-and-trace and authentication technologies. Many packaging technology providers report that they are working with manufacturers to secure their products. Activity ranges from pilot programs to fully implemented solutions. We explore these technologies, ranging from RFID to color-shifting ink, in this supplement. Part of this discussion will involve the debate over what roles technologies play in terms of track and trace and authentication.
Surveying Security Throughout this feature we reference our exclusive e-mail survey on security packaging. In November 2005, PMP News surveyed subscribers working for pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, nutritional supplement manufacturers, and contract packagers to determine their use of packaging technologies for product security. A 13-question survey was designed by PMP News and Readex Research and e-mailed successfully to 1754 subscribers. The survey was closed for tabulation with a total of 153 usable returns—a 9% response rate. The responses were tabulated by Readex in accordance with accepted research standards and practices. |
To gauge industry progress, PMP News asked subscribers through an exclusive e-mail survey to rank their problems, solutions, challenges, and other concerns. According to the survey, 82% of the respondents are using or considering using packaging technologies to enhance the security of their pharmaceuticals or medical devices. While these respondents found tampering to be the most significant risk (80% of the respondents said it was very important or important to protect against that), counterfeiting and diversion were sizable threats (64% and 59% of the respondents, respectively). In terms of occurrence, counterfeiting was the biggest threat—22% of the respondents had been victims, compared with that of tampering (18%), theft (17%), and diversion (16%). Other results are included below, as are announcements on technologies and industry perspective.
INDUSTRY NEEDS
In our annual roundtable discussion on pharmaceutical packaging last year, professionals expressed an interest in robust and reliable security that can be standardized across the supply chain. (See PMP News’ June 2005 issue for the complete discussion.) The ideal system would be an outgrowth of systems already in use, and it would be expandable as needed, participants seemed to say.
Sniffing Out Fakes Kurve Technology Inc. (Bothell, WA) has added authentication technology to its nasal drug delivery device. The ViaNase ID reads printed codes or RFID tags on unit-dose ampules and locks down if the wrong—or fake—drug has been loaded. ViaNase ID also records such information as drug name, product code, and expiration date. These data can be saved to a data storage card or downloaded to a PC or PDA. An electronic display shows the number of doses delivered and the number of doses left in the prescription, and an alarm signals when it’s time to administer the drug. Marc Giroux, CEO of Kurve Technology, says that pain-management drugs are moving toward nasal delivery, and firms need to control and protect those controlled substances. “As a truly intelligent nasal delivery device, ViaNase ID offers pharmaceutical companies one of the first methods at the patient level to confirm that the drug is authentic,” says Giroux. Kurve will license ViaNase ID to select pharmaceutical companies on a globally exclusive arrangement by therapeutic class. |
Based on that roundtable, our recent subscriber survey, and individual interviews with subscribers, these needs still prevail. Electronic Product Codes (EPCs) carrying National Drug Codes (NDCs) or at least part of them, conveyed by RFID tags, and coupled with serial numbers may fit the bill. Users are also considering layering this standardized system with other technologies, such as redundant bar codes for backing up track-and-trace solutions and possibly overt, covert, and forensic features for authentication.
But no one is expecting—and therefore waiting for—a perfect solution. “There are no complete solutions for counterfeiting,” says a manager of package development for a global healthcare products firm. “We cannot control or stop folks from creating counterfeits of products. We can add features that make it more difficult for folks to duplicate products and features to allow end-users to verify that a product is real. As for diversion, the various laws that are being enacted in several states to make distributing drug products more difficult along with pedigree will help to reduce diversion. Diversion can still happen with unscrupulous folks, but the new laws will make it easier to catch them. Let’s hope we have a federal law so we don’t have 50 versions of pedigree.”
Pfizer is setting a good example. The manufacturer is writing serial numbers onto RFID tags, which are being applied in-line to individual bottles, cases, and pallets of Viagra destined for the U.S. market. A two-dimensional Datamatrix bar code carries the same information as the RFID tag, and color-shifting ink is used on bottle labels.
TRACK AND TRACE
Even though FDA’s bar coding rule focused on improving the safety of drug administration and not on security, it introduced drug companies to the idea of a universal, standardized system for automatically identifying products. Such coding may also play a role in security, as it facilitates product identification. Interestingly, bar coding and printing are the top solutions that our survey respondents are currently using or considering as part of a security solution—73% for bar coding lot or date codes, 46% for printing, and 29% for bar coding NDCs or Universal Product Codes (UPCs).
FDA built upon this foundation of its recommendations for RFID use in its 2004 anticounterfeiting report, “Combating Counterfeit Drugs.” “RFID technology makes it easier to ensure that drugs are authentic, and it also creates an electronic pedigree, or record of the chain of custody, from the point of manufacture to the point of dispensing,” FDA said later that year. “Electronic pedigrees will improve patient safety and protect the public health by allowing wholesalers and retailers to rapidly identify, quarantine, and report suspected counterfeit drugs and to conduct efficient, targeted recalls.”
Why Is Your Company Not Using or Not Considering Security Packaging Technology? “Because we haven’t had any packaging issues concerning security, which implies that the current system works, even though there is always a way to improve your system.” “Have not run into security issues.” “Not a common practice for “Not a requirement.” “Our customers do not require it.” “Products are in the development process, and this aspect has not been thoroughly considered.” “Urinary catheters and gastrostomy tubes are not a high risk for tampering.” “We supply bulk product.” Selected verbatim responses to PMP News 2005 Security Survey. |
Serialization seems to be the key. “If every package produced can be identified with a serial number and recorded as it moves through each point in the supply chain, and at each point it is recorded it is actually verified—that is, the number has not shown up in the same spot more than once and is a real number issued by the manufacturer—then we have something,” says one drug packaging director. “If someone does try to counterfeit the product, they would also need to address the serialized feature, whether it be by creating new RFID tags or bar code labels or altering them in some way, the system will sort out the good from the bad numbers and help identify a potential problem. In the end, if the pharmacist has the ability to verify the serial number via this ‘system,’ then we should be all set.”
The numbering system itself would serve as more than just a means for track and trace—its sequence would provide a means for product authentication. “If there is a counterfeiter that wants to ‘break’ the integrity of what we’ve established, he would need to figure out the numbering sequence,” says this director. “He would also need to hack into the systems that are sitting behind this doing the verification and tracking, someplace at each of our own companies behind a firewall.”
Companies choosing serialization must decide between sequential numbering proposed as part of the basic EPC numerology or random numbering, possibly even alphanumeric.
Anticounterfeiting Options by Narendra Srivatsa, Business Development Manager, Brand Authentication, New Jersey Packaging (Fairfield, NJ) There are a number of anticounterfeiting and antifraud products available today that offer a wide range of reliable options for brand protection. These products make use of the latest technology in antidiversion, anticounterfeiting, and antifraud printing methods to provide durable, easy-to-apply, and relatively affordable ways to guard against pharmaceutical product fraud and maintain consumer confidence and safety. Overt features offer significant value in that consumers are able to see that security steps are being taken by the manufacturer. Many overt features can be combined with covert and forensic ones and those that facilitate track and trace, such as RFID, bar codes, and chemical identifiers. • Holography. Featuring specialized coating technologies, holography for pharmaceutical companies can be embedded images that can include messages, bar codes, photographs, and more. Since holography is difficult to counterfeit, it is currently being used by the U.S. government to protect sensitive documents. • Serialization. Random serialization, such as that encoded by Reduced Space Symbology and 2-D codes, includes such pertinent information as lot code and expiration date, and fill service with data management and additional functions. Human-readable codes can be used for verification through online or telephone systems. • Color shift. Unique colors are available that can be assigned to individual companies. • Tamper evidence. Frangible materials that leave behind a signature code on the package. Patterned adhesives are also available. |
“The notion of case- and item-level serialization is here to stay,” says James Hintlian at Accenture, a consultancy that has conducted a number of pilot programs exploring RFID use in the pharmaceutical supply chain.
He adds that “RFID is a disruptive technology. It suddenly changes all the rules, and enables new ways of doing things that you didn’t anticipate before. Five years ago, we wouldn’t have anticipated item-level tags of drug products as a way to mitigate counterfeiting.” Technology is available that enables companies to tag items and cases cost-effectively, he says.
 |
Figure 1. Source: PMP News 2005 Security Packaging Survey |
Still, RFID implementation among our survey respondents isn’t as far along as bar code implementation. Just 27% of respondents are currently tagging or considering tagging items with RFID tags, and 16% are currently tagging or considering tagging cases and pallets with RFID tags. Also, 16% are considering or employing mass serialization.
Companies don’t have to wait for RFID to begin serialization. “Mass serialization of the supply chain is a bridge to RFID,” explains Greg Metcalf, industry market manager for Nosco Inc. (Gurnee, IL). He reports that his firm is working with pharmaceutical firms that are embedding serial numbers in 2-D Data Matrix codes and even in proprietary coding systems such as an Orbid code [provided by Orbid Corp. (San Francisco)]. “What is important is to have a unique identifier for track and trace. After printed codes, the next generation is RFID,” he says. (For more from Metcalf on RFID, see the Track and Trace column on page 26.)
When firms get into mass serialization, regardless of whether it is carried by either a printed code or an RFID tag, they will need systems for generating, applying, archiving, and tracking serial numbers. They will also need to keep track of parent-to-child relationships between packaging levels, such as from item to carton to case to pallet.
What Is Your Most Recent Security Project? “Applied a color-shifting label to carton for export use.” “Changing tamper-evident seals.” “Country-specific labeling to avoid diversion.” “Holograms and Biocode on induction seals and color-shifting inks and Biocode on primary container.” “Holography on induction seals and new design on caps.” “Laser printing variable data.” “OTC drugs use induction seals. Tubes require puncture outlet to dispense product.” “Our facility has been recertified by the Business Anti-Smuggling Coalition.” “RFID tagging at the pallet level.” “RFID tagging of bottles. Biggest challenge is readability of RFID tags from different vendors.” “RFID tagging with injectionmolded components.” “Special glue pattern that will provide some measure of tamper evidence and anticounterfeiting feature.” “Taggants in formula.” “Tamper-evident tape applied to carton flaps.” “Two-dimensional bar coding and RFID.” “Walleting blister lines with tamper-evident seals closing wallet cards.” Selected verbatim responses to PMP News 2005 Security Survey. |
“Brand owners need multiple levels of product coding, sometimes as high as five levels, to properly track products as they leave production and then throughout the supply chain,” says Kevin Erdman, president of Verify Brand Inc. (Minneapolis). The firm’s patent-pending system is deployed in multiple locations within the health and life sciences industry. It generates and imports unique product identifiers; supports code application in human-readable, bar code, and RFID and other formats; archives product codes along with product data; provides Internet and call center verification of the codes; manages unauthor- ized events; and records, analyzes, and reports any questionable activity.
 |
Figure 2. Technologies used by or of interest to healthcare product packagers, reported by percentage of respondents. Source: PMP News 2005 Security Packaging Survey |
Verify Brand has teamed up with Orbid to offer Orbid’s 2DMI closed system, whose marks appear “as unintelligible graphical representations of encrypted data,” states Orbid’s Web site. The marks can only be decoded by the product manufacturer, using a unique algorithm to unlock the data represented by the marks. Nosco can print the marks on cartons, labels, inserts and outserts, or other media.
Systech International (Cranbury, NJ) is working with Tagsys (Doylestown, PA) and SupplyScape Corp. (Woburn, MA) to provide an integrated system for serialization of EPCs, authentication, and pedigree building at all distribution levels, says Dave DeJean, Systech’s director of PPM sales, serialized product tracking, RFID, and bar code solutions. Tagsys provides unique high-frequency (HF; 13.56 MHz) RFID tags with six-sigma-level performance for item-level use. [Tagsys wrote a white paper with Texas Instruments (Dallas) and Royal Philips Electronics of The Netherlands on the benefits of HF for item-level tagging in 2005.]
Systech’s TIPS Serialized Product Tracking software then encodes and records EPC serial numbers (provided in blocks by EPCglobal on the tags as the tags are placed on item-level packages on the line. After the tags are verified, the software directs printing systems to apply redundant bar codes on the packaging line. Once the EPC codes are applied and verified, they are exported to SupplyScape’s software for tracking the supply chain and building an electronic drug pedigree.
 |
Figure 3. Packaging levels to be protected with security features, reported by percentage of respondents. Source: PMP News 2005 Security Packaging Survey |
DeJean says that after only three months in development, the system is running live in U.S. production for one of the most counterfeited drugs on the worldwide market. Says DeJean: “96-bit EPC 13.56 MHz tags are applied to bottles and written in-line. After the tags are encoded they are verified, and the system then tells a laser printer to print redundant two-dimensional Data Matrix codes on the bottles. We then verify the two again. The system tracks all units on the line, and we then apply 915-MHz tags to cases and pallets.” All parent-child relationships are recorded, and information is passed up to central data repository systems such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Now running at a maximum line speed of 120 containers per minute, DeJean hopes to get to 300 containers per minute and possibly even 500.
AUTHENTICATION
While RFID will assist users in “cutting into diversion,” says the packaging director of a large pharmaceutical company, “it is not for anticounterfeiting,” he says. “Tags can be read easily and replaced. Newer tags can be encrypted, and there are private sections of the tags, but RFID is just one of many steps to take to protect products. Pedigrees will help, but there will still be issues.”
And once item serialization is adopted and widespread, adds another such director, the “other overt features will likely not go away, simply because those are the only features that could be practical at the patient level.”
These overt features are packaging and labeling technologies that allow manufacturers to add unique elements for brand authentication. They include holograms, color-shifting inks, optically variable devices (OVDs), and other specially designed unique printing methods or substrate additions.
Authentication features can also be covert, such as microtext, hidden watermarks, reactive inks, and other printing and substrate additions.
Forensic elements are another layer, including taggants, DNA markers, proprietary ingredients, and others.
Ernie Chaplin, vice president of sales and marketing for Pharmagraphics (Greensboro, NC), says that the printed products provider has been experimenting with microprint, heat-sensitive and color-shifting inks, and glue and ink taggants and markers.
 |
Figure 4. Education needs of healthcare product packagers, reported by percentage of respondents. Source: PMP News 2005 Security Packaging Survey |
Before recommending a particular technology, Nosco’s Metcalf says that he always asks potential users this multipart question: “What are you trying to prevent, and where in the supply chain are you trying to prevent it?” He then suggests layering different overt, covert, and forensic technologies together.
The good news about adding such features is that they can be added to other processes and packaging and labeling substrates, often easily and economically. “Microprinting is easy to put into a carton or label,” says Metcalf. Nosco is also printing cartons with color-shifting inks using a UV flexographic process for a customer whose drug product is set to launch later in 2006. “For color shift, screen printing and UV flexo work best,” he says.
Graphic Security Systems Corp. (Lake Worth, FL) offers another printing technology that embeds covert images into existing graphics. Called Scrambled Indicia (SI), the patented technology was developed by a photographer, Alfred Alasia, who devised a means of putting a security image into another image (or even a hologram) and blurring the first image. SI can also be printed in UV- or infrared-light-visible ink so that only decoding under such light detects the hidden image. The embedded blurred image can only be refocused using proprietary decoding software.
Stealth SI security images can be reproduced using digital, flexographic, gravure, lithography, letter press, and silk-screen printing. The firm’s latest technology allows the covert image to be authenticated over the Internet or with a handheld scanner, explains marketing director Terry Sigler. “The original SI required a lens to visually unscramble the security image, but the new Stealth SI can be authenticated using a lens or our new Internet software technology. If you don’t totally trust the supply chain, because someone along the chain could allow counterfeit products in, you can simply have inspectors scan specific areas on the package and send back the scans. The inspector does not have to know that the scan has a security image.”
When it comes to overt technologies, there is some debate as to whether patients need to be involved in product authentication. Not all drug companies believe that patients should participate, “but some companies might,” says one packaging director. “Until we can guarantee every point in the supply chain and until pharmacies are using the serialization, [authentication technologies] will have a place.”
Ken Traub, CEO and president of American Bank Note Holographics Inc. (Robbinsville, NJ), says that physical authentication features need to be present so consumers can verify product identity. He refers to “technologies that are difficult to simulate but practical for consumers to use,” such as tamper-apparent seals, labels, and shrink sleeves that employ holography. Covert features such as machine-readable embedded codes and black light–visible elements can be layered with overt elements, as can forensic features. The firm’s HoloSeal labels, for instance, can feature overt and covert elements, and they can also be transparent for application over printed packaging. Hologram demetallization can be used with varying levels of transparency, and the labels can be numbered for tracking.
Challenge Printing (Clifton, NJ) incorporates authentication features (as well as RFID tagging) into primary packaging and labeling products. “We have developed a unique rating of each anticounterfeiting solution along the lines of security robustness and cost,” says Margaret Polt, marketing manager. “By doing so, we have enabled customers to perform a straightforward cost-benefit analysis.” The firm has also devised an authentication protocol that governs the use of such devices in packaging. “It addresses the need for constant change in the security mechanisms to remain ahead of potential counterfeiters,” Polt says.
 |
Figure 5. Degree of challenge in implementing security packaging technologies, with 4 representing a strong challenge and 1 representing a not-so-strong-at-all challenge. Source: PMP News 2005 Security Packaging Survey |
Tursso Companies Inc. (St. Paul, MN) offers several security features, including AuthentiKey, a covert optical watermark product, as well as tamper-evident materials, ink taggants, and holograms. “The ideal use of these products would be to layer two or more watermarks along with specialty materials, like fluorescent fibers or tamper-evident stock, into the package design,” says David Gray, vice president, sales and marketing, for Tursso. “We are also involved in RFID research and development. We’re partnering with one of our largest material suppliers in developing a robust RFID product offering.”
Kurz Transfer Products LP (Charlotte, NC) markets TrustSeal OVDs that employ diffractive technologies for use in labeling or packaging substrates. In-mold labeling and decorating is also possible. For one OVD, Kurz demetallized out certain areas of the foil and filled them in with color-shifting ink, explains Brad Long, business development manager for brand management. Another security solution is a high-refractive index coating that can be applied to existing labels. “It features an intricate overt design that protects data, and it provides tamper evidence.” Cardinal Health Packaging Services (Philadelphia) is already using TrustSeal in pilot tests for prescription drug products not yet on the market.
TrustSeal is also available in versions created through cold stamping without the use of heat or pressure. In this process, which can be integrated into existing printing processes, an adhesive is applied to a substrate by flexographic or offset printing. Foil is pressed onto this substrate, and the adhesive binds to the foil as it is cured using UV light. When transparent foils are used, UV printing inks are used in place of the adhesive.
Perlen Converting LLC (Whippany, NJ) is also working with Kurz to add OVD strips to its blister films. “Our product doesn’t require an investment in additional equipment,” says Doug Voreis, general manager for Perlen. “In addition, it can incorporate taggants and printing for lot tracing.”
Some drug packagers, however, argue against the use of overt technologies. The features may call out trouble unnecessarily, they say. And consumers can be fooled, especially as counterfeiters grow more sophisticated and begin duplicating security features. But while these folks argue that pharmacists should be the last ones to authenticate products, others suspect that pharmacists don’t want such responsibility and therefore liability. Auditors randomly inspecting the supply chain should be trusted instead. A drug firm’s response to this debate will determine whether covert, overt, or forensic features are in order.
FDA Establishes RFID’s Next Steps FDA has as much faith in RFID as it did when it encouraged pharma back in February 2004 to adopt it. During the RFID Healthcare Adoption Summit sponsored by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the Healthcare Distribution Management Association last November, Randall Lutter, PhD, FDA’s acting associate commissioner for policy and planning, outlined FDA’s action plan for RFID: • Ensure that radio-frequency (RF) exposure does not impact the quality, safety, or efficacy of drug and biologic products.
Lutter announced that FDA’s Counterfeit Drug Task Force will hold a public workshop in January or February 2006. The new chairpersons of the task force are Lutter and Maggie Glavin, associate commissioner for regulatory affairs. The group plans to discuss RFID standard-setting activities as well as the stay of the Prescription Drug Protection Act regarding pedigree requirements. Lutter also said that the agency hopes to identify current barriers to RFID adoption and find ways to overcome them. Some questions that need answering include: • What type of number should be used as the unique identifier: the embedded National Drug Code (NDC) number or a randomly generated number to protect privacy and mask product identity? • Should all transaction information be stored and accessible at a single central database or a distributed network of information? • What common fields and information should be included in an electronic pedigree? • What incentives are needed for more rapid and widespread adoption? • What can FDA do to facilitate/drive adoption across the supply chain? |
One packaging director favors “tagging products with forensic tools that are not for users to see.”
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) questions the effectiveness of packaging technology alone. “Packaging and labeling, and even counterfeit-resistant technologies, can themselves be counterfeited, often within 12–18 months,” says the group on its Web site. “The counterfeiters are becoming increasingly sophisticated and are making use of advanced technologies to duplicate the packaging and labeling of authentic drugs.” Instead, even though PhRMA says it doesn’t dictate anything, it sees the benefits of electronic authentication using serialization.
COMPLEMENTARY OR COMPETITIVE?
Product manufacturers have a variety of options to consider for track-and-trace and authentication initiatives. In some senses, the two groups complement one another, while in others they compete. And some industry participants and observers consider track-and-trace and authentication technologies to be one in the same, like those that argue that RFID is a track-and-trace and authentication technology that can provide authentication through encrypted serialization.
Voreis of Perlen Converting points out that there are “differences between inventory control applications and anticounterfeiting applications. RFID is being driven by major retailers. But we need to educate people as to what are true anticounterfeiting technologies. Inventory control products are being sold as anticounterfeiting tools,” he explains. True anticounterfeiting solutions are those that enable companies to “get their products back and to prove whether or not they are authentic.”
“The best solution involves reliable track-and-trace and anticounterfeiting methods that cannot be manipulated or changed,” says Voreis. “It should be an integral part of the final package, and the chain of control should be taken all the way to the patient.”
Some argue that adding unique serial numbers to printed codes or RFID tags takes track-and-trace initiatives into the realm of anticounterfeiting.
Too much faith in the current drug system may leave it vulnerable. Gray from Tursso says that one challenge he faces is getting companies to incorporate security features into package design. “If they haven’t had a problem to date, they are reluctant to change,” he says. “Major pharma companies marketing product overseas are more open to incorporating security features into their package than are those that market only in the United States.”
Chaplin from Pharmagraphics as well as Toni Shinn from Hueck Foils (Wall, NJ) agree. “We have a lot of interest in our technologies, but no one is buying them,” says Chaplin. He says there is a reasonable upcharge, but doesn’t suspect that is the holdup. “The conversion to adding covert technologies is surprisingly simple.”
Says Hueck’s Shinn: “Our parent company, Hueck Folien, receives orders for Protecco, our holographic and guilloche-printed foil, but we are only seeing interest at this point.” While RFID may appear to be a less-expensive solution, she says, using the firm’s Protecco foil is “not as labor intensive as implementing RFID.”
Implementation decisions may be limited to a select few. Says Chaplin: “One packaging director told me that their pressure-sensitive label used three security technologies, but he only knew one of the three.”
Narendra Srivatsa, business development manager, brand authentication, for New Jersey Packaging (Fairfield, NJ), says that “for pharmaceutical manufacturers, brand protection is one of the lowest-cost tools offering the greatest means to restore confidence in their products and themselves, by demonstrating that they are taking steps in ensuring that the patient gets genuine products.”
Summarizing the Packaging Security Coalition meeting, Dean Shacklett, COO of National Label Co. and a coalition member, says, “Decide early what depth of product security you’ll need, not only today but in the near future. Plan for multilevel protection: overt means for the consumer, covert means for the trade, and forensic-like solutions for manufacturer evaluation. Then, be sure to thoroughly educate the consumer and channel distribution to achieve better security compliance.”
Copyright ©2006 Pharmaceutical & Medical Packaging News
