Brian Madden, managing director of Inprint, discusses the value of various techniques including radio frequency identification and electromagnetic identification
The emergence of RFID (radio frequency identification) technology is, perhaps, the most significant development in the packaging industry in recent years.
This new technology is likely to bring huge efficiencies to many industries, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, where the tracking and tracing of products is important in both terms of efficiency and regulatory compliance.
As well as having the potential to revolutionise the supply chain, RFID has been heralded as the comprehensive answer to the problem of counterfeiting in the pharmaceutical industry. Counterfeiting is an increasingly costly problem for the industry, with an estimated yearly cost of $1.5 billion in lost revenue and FDA counterfeit drug investigations up by over 400% in the last five years alone.
Not only are these illegal products a financial burden on the industry, they are inherently unsafe and a risk to consumers.
A recent report by the FDA Counterfeit Drug Task Force warns that to combat the growing problem of counterfeit drugs, pharmaceutical and packaging companies must work together to form more comprehensive anti-counterfeiting strategies.
The goals of an effective anti-counterfeiting strategy are to make the illegal reproduction of goods a more difficult, costly and subsequently less profitable practice and to make counterfeit goods easier to detect for consumers and retailers.
To many in the industry, RFID represents the 'silver bullet' that will achieve these goals.
However, the FDA report does not reflect this view.
It concludes that while RFID has the potential to dramatically improve brand protection, it should only be regarded as a temporary barrier to the counterfeiters.
While authentication technologies such as RFID can price smaller counterfeiters out of the market, eventually the most sophisticated of counterfeiters and organised criminal gangs will develop techniques to bypass even the most advanced new anti-counterfeiting measures.
The FDA report concludes that there is no single authentication technology that can stop counterfeiting in its tracks.
Central to the formation of more comprehensive anti-counterfeiting strategies is the development of new packaging and labels that are difficult and expensive to illegally reproduce.
As there is no single authentication technology that can offer comprehensive protection, the most effective use of the technology available is to incorporate multiple anti-counterfeiting measures into packaging and labels.
A multi-layered defence against counterfeiters offers the most effective protection, but incorporating multiple features into product packaging is only economically viable for high-end goods such as expensive cosmetics and currency.
This poses the problem to packaging and pharmaceutical companies of which measures to use and in what combinations, with production cost the main consideration.
If we assume that due to it's 'track and trace' potential, RFID will be a universal feature in pharmaceutical packaging in the future, the question for the packaging and labelling companies is which other authentication technologies to use alongside it.
Many authentication technologies are easily incorporated into packaging and labels, ranging from specialist inks and security strips to microprint and magnetic threads. These can be split into three different levels of anti-counterfeiting measure (ACM): those detectable with the naked eye or by touch; those that require a common, everyday device to aid detection; and those that can only be identified with designated specialist scanning devices.
This first level of ACMs includes overt, visual and tactile measures such as textured paper, laminates, watermarks, holograms and specialist inks.
The benefits of these are obvious; they are easily identified by both consumer and retailer and are economical to incorporate into the packaging of less valuable products.
The limitations are equally apparent; they are easily identified by counterfeiters and are relatively simple to copy.
Such measures offer some brand protection but they are little deterrent to today's well-organised and increasingly sophisticated counterfeiters. Overt authentication techniques can be made more effective by educating retailers and consumers about the problem of counterfeiting.
Unless people are aware of what to look for, any overt features incorporated into a label or product packaging are rendered ineffective.
It is up to both government organisations and pharmaceutical companies to increase consumer awareness of the problem of counterfeit drugs.
The second level incorporates both overt and covert measures such as fluorescent inks that are only visible under ultra-violet light and latent images and patterns.
These offer increased protection as they are not visible to the naked eye and are harder to illegally reproduce, as they require specialist materials that are either difficult or expensive to obtain.
Retailers and suppliers with the appropriate equipment can also easily verify the products as genuine.
Again, unless retailers are supplied with, or are willing to invest in, the necessary verification equipment, such measures are useless. Also, products with high retail values attract more determined and better-resourced counterfeiters who are able to quickly adapt to new anti-counterfeiting measures.
This problem necessitates a means of ensuring long-term product security in a cost-effective solution that is easily incorporated into traditional packaging or labels.
Along with optical pigments and microprint and magnetic threads, RFID and EMID technology represent the third, and highest, level of anti-counterfeiting measures.
A similar concept to RFID, EMID - electro magnetic identification tags use unique ID codes that are authenticated by specialist scanners. Tags are embedded into blister packs and can be read through the exterior packaging without disturbing the tamper-evidence seal. While these new technologies are the hardest to reproduce, they are also the most complicated and costly to implement.
For example, before RFID or EMID could be effectively employed across the pharmaceutical industry, manufacturers, suppliers and retailers would need to invest in the specialist equipment needed to scan the RFID chips.
This is a costly process that could take years to implement.
A combination of two or more authentication technologies including RFID would represent an effective but not totally comprehensive barrier against counterfeiters.
Eventually the criminals would evolve their techniques to reproduce even the most sophisticated anti-counterfeiting measures.
For this reason, packaging and pharmaceutical companies should periodically change the combinations of authentication technologies as part of an effective anti-counterfeiting strategy.
This proactive approach will help the industry stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters. Until every aspect of the pharmaceutical industry effectively implements a comprehensive anti-counterfeiting strategy, the problem will simply be displaced rather than eradicated. Counterfeiters will continue to target the most vulnerable areas of the industry, such as the south east Asian market and companies without effective anti-counterfeiting strategies will continue to lose revenue and consumers will remain at risk. Should the European pharmaceutical industry take heed of February's FDA report, we may well see a shift in anti-counterfeiting practices, and consequently, a fall in counterfeit drugs in the future.
However, with new technologies such as RFID not yet implemented, it could be years before the recommendations laid out in last February's FDA report become introduced across the industry.
Until then, pharmaceutical companies must make the best use of the anti-counterfeiting measures available whilst working with government organisations to increase consumer awareness.
