IN Brief:
- DIC and artience have developed a common Japanese evaluation protocol for flexible films.
- The protocol establishes shared procedures, criteria and reporting for deinking and delamination.
- The companies will present the work at TOKYO PACK 2026 from 14 to 16 October.
DIC Corporation and the artience Group have developed a common evaluation protocol for recycling printed and laminated flexible packaging in Japan. Announced on 7 October 2026, the initiative is intended to make tests for ink removal, film separation and recovered polymer quality more comparable across packaging producers and recycling businesses. Toyo Ink, part of artience, is involved in the project alongside DIC. The framework defines shared laboratory procedures, evaluation criteria and reporting formats; it has not been announced as a statutory national standard or an independently operated certification scheme.
Food packaging often combines polymer films, coatings, printed information and adhesives to deliver protection with comparatively little material, leaving several constituents to be managed at recycling. Printing provides information and decoration, and adhesives join the components where a laminated structure is necessary. These properties support commercial manufacture but complicate material recovery after use. Recyclers may receive a mixture of films, inks and adhesives whose behaviour varies according to the materials and processes used by the original converter.
Removing printing inks is one part of that process, since colourants and associated residues can affect the appearance and usability of recovered plastic. Printing inks can colour recycled material or leave contaminants that affect how recovered plastic is processed or subsequently used. A deinking treatment seeks to remove those constituents without unnecessarily degrading the polymer. The effectiveness of the treatment depends on the ink chemistry, substrate, processing conditions and way the material has been printed. Tests using different temperatures, treatment times or sample handling procedures can produce results that are difficult to compare directly.
Laminated films present a separate difficulty where adhesives bond different layers, some of which may need to be separated before useful plastic can be recovered. Depending on the combination of polymers and adhesives, a recycling process may need to separate those layers or manage the resulting mixture. An adhesive selected for good performance during filling and distribution can make later separation difficult. DIC and artience therefore propose common ways to assess the ability of a particular construction to be separated, rather than inferring recycling performance from the ease with which the printing ink is removed.
To compare how those treatments perform, DIC and artience have agreed on common test procedures, evaluation criteria and reporting formats rather than relying on each company’s separate measurements. Common conditions can help separate differences in material performance from variation in the laboratory method itself. An objective measure of separation or residual ink is more useful than an unqualified declaration that a structure is recyclable. The detailed numerical operating parameters of the protocol have not been published, however, and it is not yet possible to compare its limits with those of other national or international systems.
Beyond whether ink and layers can be removed, the condition of the recovered material determines which further processing or end uses may be practicable. A successful treatment should produce plastic capable of meeting the specifications for its intended next use, taking account of residual material and changes caused by processing. Removing printed decoration does not automatically establish that the remaining polymer will be suitable for food contact or any other demanding application. Further testing and the relevant regulatory assessment may be required. The new protocol is concerned with comparable recycling evaluations, not approval to reuse all assessed materials in food packaging.
Those recovery aims must still be balanced against the barrier and sealing characteristics needed for food products, particularly where packaging provides a long shelf life. Films for foods with long shelf lives may require barriers against oxygen, moisture or other substances, together with reliable seals and resistance to handling damage. A simpler film construction could be easier to process after use while failing to protect the original product. Deinking and delamination results are therefore one part of material selection, to be considered alongside food contact suitability, preservation, manufacturing compatibility and distribution performance.
Using comparable reports, a converter could evaluate an ink or adhesive system alongside a brand owner’s assessment of alternative film structures, with the limits of each test recorded. A converter may use test results when choosing an ink or adhesive, while a brand owner may compare alternative structures with broadly similar product protection characteristics. A recycler could examine the stated processing conditions before conducting its own assessment. The reports need to retain details about the sample and laboratory method so that apparent differences in performance are not presented as precise, universal rankings across different packaging types.
DIC and artience plan to present the protocol at TOKYO PACK from 14 to 16 October 2026, while seeking wider Japanese industry participation and further trials. They are seeking wider participation from Japanese packaging businesses and further refinement through practical testing. The new shared evaluation approach still requires wider industry adoption, repeatability studies and industrial recycling trials to determine its application at scale. No specific food pouch has been shown to have passed an independent recycling certification under this protocol.
