Finishes & Effects

1. Recyclability hinges on substrate + chemistry + coverage. On fibre packaging, thin conventional inks/varnishes are generally compatible; heavy polymer coatings, full-surface metallisation and film laminations reduce repulpability; spot foiling is typically manageable when metallic layers are ultra-thin and coverage is limited, per mill-aligned guidance. [1][2]
2. Metallics are riskier in plastics. For PET/HDPE/PP, metallic colours/inks and metallised labels can disrupt NIR sorting and reprocessing; most streams class them as non-compatible or “to be tested.” [3][4]
3. UV/“special effect” inks are food-contact-constrained. Inks and varnishes (including UV-cured and special effects) must follow EuPIA guidance/GMP and regional rules; the EU still lacks a harmonised ink regulation, so Swiss Ordinance and EuPIA are de-facto benchmarks. [5][6][7]
4. Barcodes dislike glare. Gloss varnishes/laminations and reflective substrates can impair verification; GS1 guidance recommends verifying contrast/reflectance on finished packs. [8][9]
5. EU rules are tightening. The new EU Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) entered into force Feb 11, 2025; general application from Aug 12, 2026—raising the bar on recyclability substantiation. [10][11]
6. UK EPR fee modulation will monetise recyclability. From 2026, UK disposal fees modulate by recyclability under the RAM; finishes that hinder recycling will cost more. [12][13]
7. Evidence on thermochromic effects is thin. Treat as specialty pigments: risk assess for food contact and verify recyclability via CEPI/PTS/Aticelca where the pack’s fibre is material to claims. Evidence gap remains on NIR sorting/reprocessing impacts at scale. [14][15]

• Lock the target recycling stream first, then select finishes verified as “preferred/compatible” for that stream (APR/RecyClass for plastics; 4evergreen/CEPI/AF&PA for fibre). [1][2][3][4]
• Keep metallics to spot/low-coverage on fibre; avoid metallic masses on plastics unless a guideline explicitly allows and testing passes. [1][3]
• Specify barcode protection as matte or spot-varnish (no high-gloss over codes) and require ISO/GS1 verification on press proofs. [8][9]
• For food packs, include EuPIA/GMP and (where applicable) Swiss Ordinance DoC in supplier requirements for inks/varnishes. [5][6][7]

• PPWR secondary acts & harmonised criteria may narrow acceptable finishes and tighten substantiation—track updates. [10][11]
• UK EPR RAM will financially penalise difficult-to-recycle finishes from 2026. [12]

• AQ varnish (water-based): Aqueous coating for rub/scuff protection; typically thin and repulpable on fibre. [1][2]
• UV varnish/ink: Cured by UV; requires EuPIA/GMP controls for migration; verify de-inking/repulpability where fibre is primary. [5]
• Soft-touch coating: Matte tactile coating (polymeric dispersion) or laminate; coatings may be compatible at low coatweights; laminates often hinder repulping. [1][2]
• Foil (hot/cold): Ultra-thin metallic layer transferred via stamping/adhesive; spot decoration can be removable in mill screening; full-coverage metallisation is problematic. [1][16]
• Emboss/deboss: Relief impression using male/female dies; adds no foreign material; recycling-neutral. [1]
• Metallic inks: Pigments (aluminium/bronze flakes) producing metallic effect; flagged as non-compatible in several plastic design guides. [3]
• Thermochromic inks: Colour-changing pigments (often microcapsules); treat as specialty for safety; recyclability effects not well characterised. [5][14]

• Finish choice → print/process feasibility → barcode/legibility → recyclability stream rules (APR/RecyClass/4evergreen) → EPR fees/claims.
• Chemistry (ink/varnish/adhesive) + coverage + substrate + removal mechanism (screening, washing, de-inking) = recyclability outcome. [1][2][3][4]

• Barcode/readability: GS1 General Specifications; gloss/reflectance checks recommended on finished packs. [8][9]
• Food-contact inks/varnishes: EuPIA Guideline & GMP; EU Framework (EC) 1935/2004 & 2023/2006; Swiss Ordinance 817.023.21 (2024 update) with DoC obligations for inks/printed FCM. [5][6][7]
• Recyclability design: 4evergreen (fibre), AF&PA (US fibre), CEPI test methods; APR (US plastics), RecyClass (EU plastics), CEFLEX D4ACE (EU flexibles). [1][2][3][4][17]
• Claims: US FTC Green Guides (under review), requiring substantiation for “recyclable” claims. [18]
• Policy shifts: PPWR in force (EU); UK EPR RAM and modulated fees. [10][12]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][10][12][18]

PPWR secondary measures and UK RAM details may change finish acceptability, lab test expectations, and on-pack labelling by 2026+. [10][12]

• 4evergreen “Circularity by Design”: Inks & varnishes—prefer water-based/energy-curable systems at low coatweights and avoid polymeric coatings that can create stickies; decorative metallic components—<1 µm metallic layers and limited coverage are compatible; heavy metallisation and plastic films are not recommended for standard mills. [1][2]
• AF&PA: non-fibre elements (barrier coatings/adhesives) may challenge mills; minimise and ensure removability. [2]
• Foil stamping: FSEA cites studies indicating hot/cold foil on paperboard remains repulpable when selectively applied; confirm with CEPI/PTS where claims matter. [16]

• RecyClass: PET bottles—metallic colours listed as non-compatible; flexibles have strict print/ink coverage and bleed/washability rules; “metallic inks” flagged negatively. [3][4]
• APR: PET/HDPE—metallised labels may be detected as metal and rejected; metallic/foil decorations require testing or are discouraged. [4]

• GS1 Canada & GS1 US: high-gloss substrates reduce scan reliability; verify reflectance/contrast on finished goods; avoid glare over symbols. [8][9]

• Ink/varnish laydowns on fibre: prefer <12 g/m² dry for compatibility (per 4evergreen). [1]
• Metallic decoration: use spot application with low coverage; avoid full-panel metallisation/laminates for fibre and plastics unless DfR testing passes. [1][3][4]

• Print-ready/Pre-press: reserve matte barcode window; verify size/quiet zones; proof on final finish and run GS1 verification. [8][9]
• Recyclability: identify target stream → check finish against APR/RecyClass/4evergreen → if uncertain, require CEPI/PTS/Aticelca test. [1][3][4][14]
• Food-contact: collect EuPIA GMP/Exclusion declarations + (if applicable) Swiss DoC; migration data for special inks. [5][6][7]

1. What’s the primary recycling stream? (Fibre vs. plastics)
2. If plastics, avoid metallic/metalised; if fibre, is coverage spot & thin?
3. Food-contact? If yes, EuPIA/Swiss compliance package required
4. Barcode in finish zone? If yes, change to matte/spot AQ
5. Still uncertain? Commission DfR lab test (CEPI/PTS/Aticelca/APR). [1][3][4][14]

• Print area coverage vs. recyclability risk → inputs: % coverage, coatweight (g/m²), metallic presence, substrate; output: guideline status (green/amber/red) with source link. [1][3]
• EPR fee sensitivity (UK) → inputs: pack format + recyclability class; output: modulated fee deltas (tie to RAM once published). [12]

• Require finish details (chemistry, coatweight, % coverage), recyclability guide citations, food-contact declarations, barcode proof grade, and DfR test plans. [1][3][5][7]

High use of soft-touch/foils → keep spot foils and low-coat soft-touch; verify barcode under store lighting; if FSC claims present, align recyclability claims accordingly. [1][8]

UV/special inks near food contact require strict EuPIA/Swiss compliance and migration testing; avoid metallics on plastic primaries. [5][7][3]

Avoid metallic colours/labels; ensure label/ink systems are APR-preferred; full-body sleeves require compatible materials/inks. [4][3]