Opinion
GRIPES ABOUT WATER-BASED INKS OUTDATED
GEORGE A. MAKRAUER
April 17, 1995
I thought your masthead was dated March 27, 1985, when I read the
front-page article "Water-based inks strain California's converters.''
The only strain I saw in the article was in the credibility of the
sources interviewed for the piece.
The complaints, contentions and consequences of using water-based
inks recited by the complainant converters are 10 years out of date.
Keep in mind that the marketing and sales folks for these same
companies are in the street every day bragging to potential customers
about their technological (to say nothing of environmental) prowess
in order to write business.
For an order, they promise the moon; in response to change, they
promise doom.
In my view, it's not reasonable or responsible to be that inconsistent
over the same basic issue - technological improvement.
Nobody likes government regulation to force changes in an uneven
fashion.
Whether it's different rates of taxes, different product preferences
(e.g. regulations that prefer paper over plastic), different environmental
performance standards (e.g. recycled-content definitions for paper
vs. plastic), or different penalties for nonattainment, the disdain
of an uneven playing field is justifiable and understandable.
However, the fundamental driving principle behind most environmental
regulation is supposed to be technology forcing in its consequences.
The president of a prominent California converter looked me square
in the eye the evening of Jan. 22, 1991, and said, "George,
we set up a plant across the border in Mexico, not just so we can
pay our people there 10 percent of what we pay them here, but also
because we can completely avoid EPA and OSHA regulations in doing
so.''
People who view the solution to environmental compliance as avoidance
rather than as technology improvement will do nothing substantive,
but rather just complain about government regulations.
The complaints in your March 27 article smack of avoidance. And,
bewailing the phase-out of methyl chloroform - one of the most hazardous
industrial chemicals one can expose employees and neighbors to in
a printing operation - as a loophole solvent doesn't lend any credibility
to the industry, either.
Amko Plastics Inc. began converting from alcohol-based inks to
water-based inks in March 1984. In the early years it was a gruesome,
difficult, frustrating and costly exercise.
Unquestionably, quality and productivity suffered.
We made the final conversion to a fully water-based plant in September
1987.
Today our 11 flexo press permits are based solely on water-inks
as the air-quality-compliance technology.
Daily, we print low density and high density polyethylenes, polyester
and nylon substrates and satisfy a growing clientele in a total
range of flexible packaging applications, including food packaging.
One indicator of a company's innovativeness is its inclination
to first call an attorney rather than an engineer to address change.
Attorney [Curtis] Coleman in your article complains, "Part
of the problem is that the rules are forcing technology.''
Mr. Coleman, that's not the problem; that's the fundamental purpose.
The fundamental problem is the industry has never come together
to create the new breakthrough technologies needed to meet reasonable
environmental objectives (where they exist). Today's water-based
inks have been developed by incremental improvements rather than
breakthroughs.
There are two principal reasons why.
One is that regulatory pressures have been applied on printers
who are at the intermediate point in the flow of commerce.
Neither our ink suppliers nor our customers have a regulated stake
in helping us perform better. Customers have played-off water printers
against alcohol printers for the best price and quality, not the
desired environmental benefit.
The other reason rests, in my opinion, with the ink companies.
With all due respect to whatever friends I have left in the ink
industry, ink company sales reps are trained and directed to be
order-takers, not creative, pro-active change-agents.
When they make a call on a prospective customer, they do not say
``I've got an exciting, new-technology-based ink that will do a
better print job at competitive price and with desired environmental
impact.''
Rather, it goes something like this: "What are you using?
Can I have a wet sample? I'll get back to ya' with some drawdowns
and prices.''
That approach ain't gonna drive any new technology anytime, anywhere.
"A substantial investment in equipment, time and employee
training, in addition to research and development'' is not unique
to printing plastic films with water-based inks. They are basic
requirements for getting and staying in the manufacturing business
and supplying quality in the 21st century.
That's reality. (And if California converters don't like the prospect
of doing that for water inks, they sure as blazes will hate what
printing wide web with ultraviolet inks requires.)
Similar frustrations bemoaning environmental improvement are being
expressed across many industries in the United States by many small
and medium-size companies.
They have chosen to ignore 15 years of clear signals from government
- clean up or else.
Fortunately, from our point of view, we see many national, image-conscious
brand marketers also demanding environmentally clean manufacturing
processes from their suppliers.
Right now there are several ink raw material resin companies evaluating
the market attitude and demand to determine if it's worth their
while to invest in breakthrough water-based ink research and development.
They haven't yet become motivated.
The comments quoted in your March 27 article run a substantial
risk of dissuading commitment to those research and development
efforts which could clearly help solve this important technology
challenge. At its base, the problem is attitude, not aptitude.
The industry solution to effectively printing a wide range of plastic
films with water-based inks will not come from a group of complainers
shouting, "It can't be done.''
The breakthroughs - unnecessarily overdue - will come when a group
of printers, ink companies, ink raw material resin producers, plastic
film resin producers, film/resin additive suppliers, printing equipment
suppliers, and printing plate material suppliers finally come together
and do something more than just complain about government regulation
and move plants to Mexico.
To do that will take competent leadership, something this issue
hasn't yet seen.
Leadership by grievance will continue to do nothing for this industry.
Leadership by solution will do great things for everyone.
(Makrauer is president and chief executive
offier of Amko Plastics Inc. in Cincinnati.)
