The genuine article

Counterfeit drugs are a growing problem, but the packaging industry may have some solutions, says Andrew Walker, business development director, Inprint

Recent years have seen an alarming increase in counterfeit ing, with FDA counterfeit drug investigations up by 400% in the last five years. A recent report by the FDA Counterfeit Drug Task Force warns that pharmaceutical and packaging companies must work together to form more comprehensive anticounterfeiting strategies. The goals of an effective strategy are twofold: to make the illegal reproduction of goods a more difficult, costly and consequently less profitable practice; and to make counterfeit goods easier to detect for consumers and retailers. The FDA report concludes that the increasing sophistication of counterfeiters means there is currently no single authentication technology that can offer a comprehensive and long-term solution.

The report recommends the use of multi-featured anticounterfeiting measures, incorporating two or more authentication technologies, as an integral part of an effective anticounterfeiting strategy. Naturally, a multi-layered defence against counterfeiters offers the most comprehensive protection, but incorporating multiple features into a product is not economically viable. This poses the problem to packaging and pharmaceutical companies of which measures to use and in what combinations, with production cost the main consideration.

Many authentication technologies are available to pharmaceutical and packaging companies in the fight against counterfeiters. These range from specialist inks and security strips to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Electro Magnetic Identification (EMID) technology that can be used for both authentication and 'track and trace' purposes.

There are three different levels of anticounterfeiting measure: those detectable with the naked eye or by touch; those that require a common, everyday device to aid detection; and those that can be identified only with designated specialist scanning devices.

The first level 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. However, the limitations are equally apparent; they are easily identified by counterfeiters and are relatively simple to copy, and thus offer little deterrent to well organised and sophisticated counterfeiters.

The second level incorporates both overt and covert measures such as fluorescent inks that are visible only under UV light, and latent images and patterns. These offer increased protection as they are not visible to the naked eye and are harder to reproduce, requiring 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.

However, products with high retail values attract more determined and better-resourced counterfeiters who are able to adapt quickly to new anticounterfeiting measures. This problem necessitates long-term product security in a cost-effective solution that is easily incorporated into traditional packaging or labels.

Many people in the industry believe that RFID is that solution. Similarly, EMID 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-evident seal. Together with optical pigments and microprint and magnetic threads, RFID and EMID technology represent the third, and highest, level of anticounterfeiting measures.

Inprint believes in the need to work closely with pharmacompanies to develop flexible anticounterfeiting strategies. By periodically changing the combination of authentication technologies used in a label, it is possible to stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters. n