buy cialis

Working toward Sustainability

January 26, 2012 – 4:56 pm

“There’s no such thing as a sustainable package,” Al Iannuzzi recently told me. “Every package has a footprint. But you can make a package greener or more sustainable through continuous improvement.”

Iannuzzi has reached this conclusion after working for more than 30 years in the environmental, health, and safety field, once working for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection as well as at an environmental consulting firm. Iannuzzi is currently senior director in the Worldwide Environment, Health & Safety department at Johnson & Johnson and is charged with directing its global product stewardship and green marketing programs. These include leading J&J’s EARTHWARDS greener product design process, Healthy Future 2015 product stewardship sustainability goals, green marketing, environmental toxicology, and other related programs.

book-cover-image2Iannuzzi includes the EARTHWARDS process in one chapter of his new book, Greener Products: The Making and Marketing of Sustainable Brands (CRC Press 2011). (He also has written Industry Self-Regulation and Voluntary Environmental Compliance (CRC Press 2002).

The EARTHWARDS process is used to examine product impact and the changes that can be made to make that product more sustainable. According to J&J’s site, to be considered for EARTHWARDS designation, “a product must achieve a greater than 10% improvement in at least three of the seven areas below:

• Materials used.
• Packaging reduction.
• Energy reduction.
• Waste reduction.
• Water reduction.
• Positive social impact or benefit.
• Product innovation.

“In EARTHWARDS, we do a high-level life cycle analysis, and we devised goals for packaging engineers,” explains Iannuzzi. “These include reducing the size and weight of packaging as well as the amount of materials used. We also encourage the use of more sustainable packaging like biobased materials or those that use postconsumer recycled content. We also identify whether we are using any materials of concern, such as heavy metals, certain inks, or PVC, which are on our watch list.”

Iannuzzi also explains that companies should reach out to their customers to understand their needs for greener packaging and where to make changes. “Packaging is the first thing nurses and doctors see. Product safety and efficacy are critical, but we do hear requests for sustainability across all our business sectors, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices,” he says.

J&J is a corporate member of PracticeGreenhealth, where healthcare organizations have come together to collaborate on best environmental practices. “There are a thousand-plus hospitals involved in this effort, so we definitely wanted to learn more from our customers,” he adds. “The best greener products are those that meet customer needs.”

Iannuzzi says that changing tertiary packaging alone can have a big impact. “We were able to do so pretty quickly by employing the returnable and reusable Greenbox for maintaining the cold chain for our Simponi drug. The packaging still has an impact, but it is significantly less,” he explains. The Greenbox has allowed J&J to use a shipper that is 50% lighter than its competitor’s shippers as well as reduce the disposal of Styrofoam, J&J reports on its Web site.

In his book, Iannuzzi offers case studies of more-sustainable packages from a number of companies and industries as well as explores regulatory drivers and best practices. He also discusses the need for working in tandem with marketing colleagues on “green” marketing. “It is important to communicate that your product and package are greener,” he says.

A chapter authored by James A. Fava, founder of sustainability consulting firm Five Winds International, covers environmental standards and tools.

Iannuzzi says he wrote the book to encourage others to develop greener products. “If you don’t try, you’ll never succeed,” he says.

When I asked him whether packaging professionals can help change their own companies and start sustainability programs, Iannuzzi says that “it depends upon the corporate culture.” He says, though, that he took a chance and made his own proposal to his boss back in 1999, and it was approved.

Click here for a sample chapter of Greener Products: The Making and Marketing of Sustainable Brands.

Daphne Allen

Big Mistake?

January 24, 2012 – 5:24 pm

daphne_1026101In our daily newsletter today, we shared a report of a substantial payout in a court case involving contaminated propofol vials. A jury had ordered Teva Pharmaceuticals and Baxter Healthcare Corp. to pay $104 million to a 71-year-old patient and his wife after he contracted hepatitis C reportedly after being given propofol from a vial used for other patients. According to the story from Lawyers USA, “jumbo . . . vials of propofol were at risk of being reused for multiple patients.” (We covered an earlier case in “Larger the Package, Larger the Liability?

Such sizable awards are most likely prompting drug makers to take a second look at their own packaging, even beyond that for propofol. Joseph Perz from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion offered several options in his presentation during FDA’s November 2010 public workshop on FDA’s Safe Use Initiative. In “Injections without Infections: Outbreaks, Incidents, and Lessons Learned,” Perz suggested the following changes for parenteral medication delivery:

• Autodisable syringes.
• Prefilled syringes.
• Right-sized vials.
• Improved terminology.
• Visual cues.
• Tamper-evident packaging.
• Redundancy/safety nets.
•Integrating pharmacy with delivery.

Perz even suggested the use of an indicator to serve as a visual cue to use, such as a “red stripe” appearing on a used syringe.

Such packaging technologies can put up definite roadblocks to drug misuse, and I hope you’ll consider them. Of course, safe drug administration practices must be followed by nurses and other healthcare practitioners, and CDC discusses them on its Web site under “Safe Injection Practices to Prevent Transmission of Infections to Patients.”

But packaging can keep those practitioners on track.

Interestingly, CDC urges practitioners to “use single-dose vials for parenteral medications whenever possible” and “do not administer medications from single-dose vials or ampules to multiple patients or combine leftover contents for later use.”

Consider offering packaging that helps support CDC’s recommendations.

Daphne Allen

ANVISA Publishes Comments on Future Direction of Its Serialization Law

January 4, 2012 – 7:28 pm

daphne_111610happyIn December, Brazil’s ANVISA indicated that implementation of Law 11.903/2009 (Serialization / Traceability) is changing. Comments published on ANVISA’s Web site imply that the controversial provision for security labels printed by the Brazilian Mint (Casa do Moeda) established in RDC 59 and in subsequent normative instructions will be replaced by printing 2-D Data Matrix, reports Peter Schmitt, managing director of Montesino Associates LLC. Schmitt detailed the pending law to PMP News readers back in September 2010 in the Webcast, “UPDATE: Brazil Law 11.903 – An “Emerging” Regulation for Traceability & Serialization.”

The comments, however, are not the last word. “The document is not a guideline; in fact it makes reference that future guidelines will be forthcoming,” says Schmitt.

In addition, “Point 7 is ambiguous,” says Schmitt. “It writes that how and where the 2-D Data Matrix is applied will be at the discretion of the owner of the registration. There are many questions, key among them whether and how the data will be aggregated.”

This publication comes after ANVISA repealed Normative Instruction on March 2, 2011.

For more details, including Schmitt’s translation of the comments into English, please contact Schmitt at

Daphne Allen

US Pharmacopeia Takes Up Supply Chain Security

December 19, 2011 – 8:47 am

The United States Pharmacopeia is placing supply chain security at the forefront with a new general chapter on best practices for ensuring supply chain integrity and protecting consumers from poor quality and counterfeit medicines.

USP General Chapter <1083>, Good Distribution Practices-Supply Chain Integrity, with the recently published USP General Chapter <1079>, Good Storage and Transportation Practices For Drug Products, will be part of a suite of chapters the standards body will develop on supply chain issues, says Desmond Hunt, PhD, USP senior scientific liaison.

A draft version of General Chapter <1083> from USP’s Packaging, Storage, and Distribution Expert Committee will be posted to USP’s web site in January. The proposed guidance will be published to the Pharmacopeial Forum in March/April 2012 for public comments.

“At this point, we are proposing General Chapter <1083> to stimulate discussion with the expectation that it will evolve significantly. General Chapter <1083> will bring a lot to the table in terms of things to think about, and potential directions,” Hunt says.

General Chapter <1083> is guidance for all parties in a supply chain, and encompasses best supply chain practices for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, drug components, and Internet pharmacy.

“The global supply chain for pharmaceuticals is extremely porous. Maintaining security is an intricate and multi-faceted effort with pockets of information available via FDA guidance, trade organizations, and other sources. An overall approach rather than a piece meal one is lacking,” says Hunt.

As with General Chapter <1079>, General Chapter <1083> emphasizes a supply chain quality systems approach and what parties should be doing to mitigate risk. Chapter sections include good importation practices, combating counterfeits, diversion, and theft, and responding to natural disasters.

“One of the issues we have seen is that approaches for securing the supply chain can be quite different and often based on companies’ resources. Smaller companies may not be aware of best practices. We are hoping this document puts the information out there for all players to start to come up with some commonalities,” Hunt says.

Repackaged product is a challenging topic addressed in the chapter. Parties need to ensure that information and security features are retained when product is repackaged. “We are saying there should be some new security device on that repackaged product with systems in place to retain information so product can still be traced,” Hunt says.

USP will convene a wide audience for a workshop on General Chapter <1083> on May 22, 23 at its Rockville, MD headquarters. With attendees including FDA, the Transportation Safety Administration, trade groups, and manufacturers, the workshop will address feedback received on the chapter and attempt to reach consensus on best practices.

The agenda includes sessions on existing laws and regulations-their direction and common elements–convergent technologies with cold chain tracking, traceability technology, and GS1 standards.

“The workshop initially was meant to focus on what is contained in General Chapter <1083>. We are opening it up to identify additional important topics that need to be included in the chapter and help us figure out the future direction of USP guidance in the supply chain area,” Hunt says.

Hunt says the chapter is likely to see at least one thorough revision before it becomes official. “It will be extensively scrutinized. The final version when it appears a year or two years from now will be highly authoritative, based on the feedback we receive from industry and our workshop discussions.”

USP takes a systematic approach in determining what next to focus on after a chapter has been completed, considering ideas that originate with the Expert Committee or from stakeholder requests, Hunt says.

“There will be more chapters covering supply chain. Companies are having issues with vibration, shock, the impact of x- ray, and pressure in distribution. These may be topics we look at developing our next supply chain guidance around.”

Dave Vaczek

Upping the Bar for Packaging: Up and Away

December 16, 2011 – 1:25 pm

daphne_111610happyI was intrigued to see packaging mentioned in the new child safety program promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other partners, Up and Away. The program is part of the PROTECT Initiative, with drug manufacturers, packaging suppliers, and others joining the CDC “to develop strategies to keep children safe from unintentional medication overdoses.”

Addressing packaging challenges is one of those strategies. The Up and Away program advises consumers to “hear the click to make sure the safety cap is locked,” and “always relock the safety cap on a medicine bottle.”

Interestingly, I found myself giving this same advice this past weekend to my family when I encountered an OTC drug bottle with the child-resistant cap unengaged. In MY house, of all places!

But while such advice is valid and necessary, better packaging may also be needed. Packaging that doesn’t demand a whole lot of consumer effort to ensure child resistance would be ideal, because (as demonstrated in my house) vigilance only goes so far. Consumers often become too sick, weak, or even lazy to pay too much attention when reclosing a bottle.

Packaging improvements are on PROTECT’s list. Two of the program’s initiatives are:

1. Implement improvements in medication packaging to reduce harm from unsupervised medication ingestions (children accessing and ingesting medication without adult supervision).

2. Refine dosing measures on medication packaging and labeling to reduce errors potentially made by parents/caregivers when administering medication.

Changes have already been made for some products. McNeil Consumer Healthcare reported on its Web site that “Infants’ TYLENOL will include a new, enhanced bottle with a protective flow restrictor opening and push-in syringe,” and “Children’s TYLENOL will feature a new, enhanced bottle with a protective flow restrictor opening designed to be used with a dosing cup.”

In addition, unit-dose packaging featuring dose-level child resistance may offer another alternative. Explains Walt Berghahn, executive director of the Healthcare Compliance Packaging Council: “Any time child resistance depends upon users re-engaging a feature you are going to have challenges. We need to provide CR protection for every dose.”

I am excited to see Up and Away emphasize the role packaging plays in drug safety in the home, and I am excited to see an impressive list of partners supporting the cause. And today I just saw that The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has joined the campaign, mentioning it in its e-newsletter this week.

Let’s all push for further improvements in packaging, and not just for OTC products.

Daphne Allen

December’s New To-Do List: E-Pedigree and Track and Trace

November 30, 2011 – 10:45 am

daphne_102610If pharmaceutical electronic pedigrees and track and trace are on your radar, December will be a busy month for you. California’s State Board of Pharmacy (CA BoP) has announced that it will discuss implementation of the state’s electronic pedigree requirements during its board meeting on December 6. In addition, GS1 Healthcare US is seeking feedback from U.S. industry stakeholders by December 15 on its emerging pharmaceutical traceability models, Chain of Custody and Chain of Ownership. We encourage you to participate in both–and the good news is that you can right from your desk!

According to CA BoP’s agenda, Connie T. Jung, FDA’s acting associate director for policy and communications in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, will kick off the discussion with a presentation. Jung will be followed by presentations and questions from the pharmaceutical supply chain and then discussion about future rule makings to implement California’s requirements. You should be able to access the meeting via a Webcast. For details, visit the CA BoP’s agenda online.

We also encourage you to watch GS1′s videos on its technical models for Chain of Custody and Chain of Ownership and provide feedback by Dec. 15. According to GS1, Chain of Custody is defined as “a record of organizations, entities, and locations that have had or currently has physical possession of the product, while Chain of Ownership records the legal title of the product. The objective in both Chains is for trading partners to be able to document the product attributes and all other trading partners involved in the Chain of Custody/Ownership.”

“For more than seven years, we’ve been working to help pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and hospitals understand the business and technical aspects of tracking and tracing serialized product through the supply chain,” says Bob Celeste, director of healthcare, GS1 US. “The launch of this video is part of that overall effort, as it paints a picture of how stakeholders can leverage pedigree information to increase supply chain security and visibility up and down the distribution chain.”

I’ve given you a lot to do in the next few weeks, but your participation is needed. You’ve got just over three years to serialize 50% of your prescription drugs to meet CA’s law. And there is movement toward federal activity . . .

Daphne Allen

Invest in Preventive Maintenance

November 30, 2011 – 10:42 am

As the end of 2011 nears, we’ll all be looking back to ensure we’ve wrapped up any unfinished business and making resolutions for 2012.

Is preventive maintenance on your list?

Or has your schedule slipped? If so, how do you know whether your machinery is still operating to your specifications? Could product quality be at risk?

Companies have been downsizing lately, and some may have cut costs by “reducing head count that didn’t add value to the bottom line,” observes D. Bruce Cohen, principal of PackTechPlus LLC and a member of our editorial advisory board. The danger, he says, is that “things get overlooked, preventive maintenance gets postponed, some things slip by, and before you know it, you have a product recall. The recall initiates an FDA inspection which in turn shows up numerous 483s.”

Companies that have gone through mergers or acquisitions may be especially vulnerable. “The new company is looking at ways to show how much value the new organization can bring to the bottom line, and the first thing they announce is how much cost savings they will be able to get from the merger. Processes and head count that are supportive and don’t add value to the bottom line are early targets to be cut,” he warns.

There are some solutions that can help and still provide some savings, Cohen says. “There are predictive software systems that can spot potential failures before they happen,” he says. “Checks and balances that occur in the manufacturing process can be less head count intensive but still provide the necessary oversight that prevents errors.

“With all of the advances that have come to the pharma industry and other manufacturing businesses, there must be new systems, software, and new ways-of-working that can provide better means of maintaining the highly sophisticated equipment used in today’s pharma industry,” he concludes.

We will be exploring preventive maintenance a bit more in our December 2011 issue, so stay tuned for more details. In the meantime, review your planned maintenance schedules for all machinery, and consult your machinery manufacturers for their recommendations. In the event that you are missing colleagues who once maintained machinery, machinery manufacturers can often be called upon to help out.

Daphne Allen

Survey: Debate over the Costs behind Sustainability

November 22, 2011 – 7:38 pm

daphne_102610While interest in sustainability may certainly be increasing, it is not a top concern for packaging professionals involved in pharmaceutical or medical product manufacturing. According to the 2011 Sustainble Packaging Study commissioned by PMP News sister publication Packaging Digest, “sustainability” did not even make it into the top ten business factors having the greatest impact on a related company’s strategic direction.  (In last year’s survey, sustainability placed sixth.) Of greatest concern this year? Managing costs, pricing pressures, and regulatory requirements.

But before you blame the economy, think again. When asked how the current economy may be affecting sustainability efforts, respondents offered conflicting perspectives on whether more-sustainable strategies even increase or decrease costs, making it difficult to blame any drop in concern on the economy. And, as you will see from verbatim comments submitted by survey respondents, sustainability may be a means to reduce costs.

The study included input from consumer packaged goods companies (including pharmaceuticals and medical devices) along with input from packaging material, machinery, and service providers. (For the purposes of this article, medical respondents will be the term used to describe any respondent who indicated they are involved in packaging pharmaceuticals and medical devices).

In this year’s study, 34% of medical respondents selected “managing costs” as one of the factors that will impact strategy, while 32% selected “pricing pressures” and 28% selected “regulatory requirements.” Compare these percentages to just 16% selecting “sustainability.” (Cost was the top concern in 2010, too, with 34% selecting it, compared with 24% selecting sustainability.)

Nonetheless, 51% of medical respondents say that their companies’ emphasis on sustainability has increased, while 46% say it has stayed the same and only 3% say it has decreased. In addition, 49% have found that customer interest in sustainable packaging has increased, while 42% say it has stayed the same and 9% say it has decreased.

There seems to be considerable debate over whether sustainability programs entail cost. Some see sustainability as a means to reduce costs. For instance, when asked about the economy’s impact, one respondent wrote that “competitive pressures, energy and raw material cost increases, and consumer demands have forced us to put more effort into sustainability in our operations.”

“In many instances sustainability activities are also cost-saving initiatives. As the economy continues to worsen, we are looking for more opportunities to save money and by doing so, have had some good wins in sustainability as well,” explains another respondent.

However, other respondents are finding added costs to sustainability programs. “Sustainable materials are more costly; however, packagers and consumers do not want to pay for increased costs,” explains one respondent, echoing input from several others.

A few pointed to the costs behind the effort. The downturn “has a negative impact on capital investments required for sustainability,” and it “has made any new process needing to be implemented out of touch due to cost related issues,” write two respondents. Says another: “Lay-offs have reduced staff to low levels–no extra staff to man such low ROI projects.”

“We need to see an immediate savings or return to implement a process,” writes another.

The kicker could be this one: “Let’s be frank: in this economy, company survival trumps sustainability.”

However, one respondent points out that the economy has even “made it easier to implement strategies that emphasize the REDUCE in reduce/reuse/recycle.”

Such comments exemplify these statistics: Just as in 2010, waste reduction is the number-one way medical respondents are pursuing sustainability. Sixty-eight percent are focusing on reducing waste, while 64% are recycling and 61% are conserving energy. Just over half (52%) are using recycled materials, and 40% are using renewable materials. Only 19% are using compostable/biodegradable materials.

One respondent sums it up this way: “All bio materials are more expensive, and with these economic conditions, my customers are not willing to engage in a more expensive package. However, it has pushed for packaging reductions, which in our case comes primarily in the form of gauge reduction.”

So, does less really have to cost more? Perhaps the best advice comes from this respondent: “Be more efficient. Best use of resources.”

To some, “resources” will mean capital; to others, materials or energy. But does it really matter? The days of excess have passed for most in this ongoing downturn, teaching us all to make better use of any resource.

Daphne Allen

Multiple responses were allowed from each respondent. For a complete presentation on the sustainability in packaging study results, visit . Also, watch for details of an upcoming webcast on the subject.

Study Evaluates Impact of Pouch Size on Contamination

October 26, 2011 – 3:15 pm

A first concern of nurses is avoiding contaminating the inside of sterile packaging when devices are flipped to a sterile field or handed off to the scrub nurse.

At the Healthcare Packaging Immersion Experience organized by Michigan State University and Oliver-Tolas Healthcare Packaging, Tony Trier, a masters degree candidate at the Michigan State University School of Packaging, presented a study on the effect of pouch size on device contamination and nurses’ hand repositioning when opening a pouch.

“The interface between people and packaging is not just an issue of convenience but an integrated part of patient care. In this study, we wanted to observe peoples’ interaction with the pouch, and see if pouch width affects the aseptic presentation,” said Trier, who studies under MSU associate professor Dr. Laura Bix.

“The nurses were very excited about this when we were recruiting for the study,” Trier added.

Few studies have been done on the impact of packaging on nosocomial or hospital acquired infections (HAIs), Trier said.

While standard practices prevail at the local or hospital level, there are no overarching universal guidelines for nurses to follow. AORN standards and recommended practices caution against flipping the device as it may puncture the sterile drape or get tossed off the field. Devices should rather be handed to a scrub nurse. A heavily cited recommendation within AORN’s recommended practice for presentation is defined by D.M. Fogg in Alexander’s Care of Patient In Surgery. Fogg defines the line of demarcation in the aseptic opening of packages as the inner part of the seal beyond which is it considered non-sterile, Trier described.

The Association of Surgical Technologists says that tossing to the field from a 12-in. distance is acceptable. AST says the device should be balanced within the pack when presenting to avoid contaminated edges.

In Trier’s study, 97 practitioners, predominately nurses and surgical technicians, were digitally recorded aseptically presenting tongue depressors to a drape representing a sterile field. Depressors were packaged in small (3 x 5 inch), medium (10 x 9 5/8), and large (16 by 10 ½) Chevron pouches.

Glitterbug lotion (Brevis Corp.), commonly used by infection control experts to teach proper hand washing techniques, was used to simulate contamination. The lotion, which fluoresces under black light, was applied to the surface of the gloves except thumb and forefinger areas where the pouch is gripped. Both sides of the pouches were covered except the uppermost portion where the pouch was gripped for opening.

The investigation monitored the participants’ hand motions and the transfer of the potion to the tongue depressors, illuminated with the application of a Brevis Corp. glow bar.

Depressors were shown to be marked with the potion in 11.5% of 583 trials performed, with the majority of contaminated product coming from large pouches. Of 65 incidents of contamination, product in large pouches occurred 32 times, medium bags 19 times, small pouches, 14.

The results seem to suggest that large pouches may be harder to handle, with an opportunity for package design improvements. But Trier says there is more work to be done.

“This is raw data. We can’t draw any conclusions until we analyze the results for statistical significance,” Trier says.

The study related the breadth of peoples’ hands to the pouch sizes, measured against how many times they moved their hands around the pouch. “We had a strict definition as to what constitutes a hand movement. Measuring the hand movements as we watched the videos was a challenge. Analysis is currently underway,” he says.

The study had certain limitations, Trier reported.

Further testing could employ the lotion transfer method when devices are presented to a scrub nurse. Also, “it would be worthwhile to continue the study with more realistic conditions of use, including varied products and contexts.”

Dave Vaczek

Consider the Point of Consumption

October 26, 2011 – 1:51 am

daphne_102610We often talk about making packaging more interesting at the point of sale (POS) to drive patient/consumer interest, but I just heard a better point for you to consider: the “Point of Consumption (POC).” Michael Nieuwesteeg, managing director of the Netherlands Packaging Centre (NVC), who joined me to co-moderate the day-long Innovation Briefs at Innopack, told the audience that the POC should drive packaging development, not the POS.

Nieuwesteeg’s plea prepared the audience for a later announcement by the NVC and the Healthcare Compliance Packaging Council (HCPC) Europe. The two groups have teamed up to release a position paper stating that “designing packaged medicinal products in the proper way . . . may significantly contribute to the improvement of healthcare by stimulating, supporting, and enabling an effective adherence of the patient to the medication prescribed.”

And patients are asking for better packaging. When announcing the paper to the Innopack audience, Tassilo Korab, executive director of the HCPC-Europe, recounted a memorable statement made by a patient during a roundtable discussion HCPC-Europe and NVC had held with patients, healthcare providers, pharma companies, and others. “The last point of contact between the healthcare system and the patient is not the pharmacist, but the packaging,” this patient said. “And sometimes that can present a real hurdle.”

During his discussion on packaging innovation, Nieuwesteeg urged Innopack attendees to review Article 9 of the United Nations’s ENABLE program, which stresses Accessibility.

Interestingly, he said that ISO TC122 WG9 N 047 is working on “Accessible Design in Packaging.”

Aiming for accessibility will serve pharmaceutical packagers espousing HCPC-Europe/NVC’s call to action. They see success in these actions:

“Take POC as the starting point for packaging design.”
“Apply available and possible newly developed communicative and behavioural insights into packaging.”
“Use packaging to facilitate and stimulate positive feedback loops between patient and healthcare providers.”

Pharma packaging designers can look to consumer packaging for ideas that could benefit patients, the groups write.

Nieuwesteeg reiterated that point to the Innopack audience: “You can learn more by looking outside your own industry. Remember, technologies that are now being used in pharma like folding cartons and RFID did not start in the pharma industry!”

To come full circle, I am always struck by the chewing gum packages I find at the point of sale: striking colors, interesting textures, and holographic effects, all on cartons that open in unexpected yet engaging ways, bottles with durable flip tops, and highly portable blister packages that hold up in my purse. And I find that the utility of these packages extends well beyond to the point of consumption.

Couldn’t such POS engagement and POC utility be used for life-saving or sustaining pharmaceuticals?

Daphne Allen