中文The packaging industry has spent nearly a decade obsessing over one question: “Is it recyclable?” Siegwerk India’s Jatin Takkar thinks we’re missing an equally important one: “Is it still safe?”
Speaking at the curtain raiser event for Bharat Packaging Expo at the Indian Institute of Packaging in New Delhi, Takkar delivered a presentation titled “Beyond Recyclable: Why Safety is the Missing Half of Circular Packaging.” His argument was direct and uncomfortable — the industry’s push toward recyclable packaging has driven impressive innovation, but it may also be creating hidden risks that nobody is checking.
Here’s the core of his case. As packaging transitions from multi-layer to mono-material structures, from plastic to paper-based packaging, and as material thickness gets reduced through downgauging, the protective properties of packaging change. These transitions support circular economy goals. But they may also alter how chemicals behave inside the packaging — and whether those chemicals migrate into the products consumers eat, drink, or apply to their skin.
“We are creating new structures, we are moving from multi-layered material to mono-material, we are moving from plastic to paper, we are downgauging plastics,” Takkar said. “But we don’t ask whether it is really safe also.”
The specific concerns he raised are worth unpacking.
First, the role of packaging chemicals — inks, coatings, varnishes, and adhesives. While recyclability discussions focus on barrier properties like oxygen transmission rate and water vapor transmission rate, little attention is paid to how these chemicals behave in newly designed packaging structures. If a 12-micron PET layer is cut down to six microns, or a layer is removed entirely, are the chemicals still contained? Are they still not migrating into food, cosmetics, or pharmaceutical products?
Second, recycled content safety. Takkar referenced the European Printing Ink Association (EuPIA), which has raised concerns about the quality and safety of recycled materials. When printed or coated substrates undergo mechanical recycling, ink chemicals can deteriorate into substances with unknown toxicological profiles. Sometimes they transform into chemicals that science hasn’t fully characterized yet. That’s a significant gap in the safety chain.
Third, CMR substances — Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, and Reprotoxic chemicals. European regulations explicitly restrict these in printing inks. India’s regulatory framework lacks similar clarity. “Unfortunately, in India, none of the packaging regulations explicitly ban carcinogenic chemicals,” Takkar noted. “Packaging needs to be food grade, but who is going to define that? Not everyone is on the same page.”
Fourth, the common assumption that recycled materials can be safely sandwiched between virgin layers in multilayer structures. Takkar challenged this directly: “It may look logical that you have virgin layers in contact with food and recycled material inside, but those recycled materials can still penetrate through those virgin layers. All this needs to be validated.”
His overarching message was clear: safety compliance isn’t a barrier to circularity — it’s the guardrail that makes circularity trustworthy. Without it, the industry risks building circular systems that look sustainable on the outside but carry unexamined risks on the inside.
“The next time someone asks, ‘Is it recyclable?'” Takkar said, “do ask back, ‘Is it still safe?'”
It’s a simple question. But answering it properly requires the kind of systematic testing and validation that the recyclability conversation has largely skipped. That’s the gap Takkar is trying to close — and it’s a gap the industry can’t afford to ignore.
Source: The Packman — https://thepackman.in/beyond-recyclability-siegwerk-calls-for-greater-focus-on-packaging-safety-in-circular-economy/
