Introduction: Can We Trust Packaging Claims?

Hello everyone, my name is Colino and I have a first question for you.

Today, if someone of you bought a bottle or something, or something packed, one question, do you trust the claims which are on these packagings? For example, PFAs free or something. Do you trust them? Yes?

I would say, if yes, then... So, me neither.

Why EcoForentis Exists

I am at the moment building a startup which is called EcoForentis. And why EcoForentis? You can see here a packaging and you can see here fingerprints. My background is forensic science and also regulatory affairs and so on.

So I try to combine all these things to create EcoForentis. is. And why?

The Green-Claims Evidence Gap

Because studies have shown that 53 % of the claims are vague, misleading or unfounded. And 40 % have no supporting evidence.

That's what I'm asking my clients. Is your green claim one one question away from becoming a greenwashing risk and we check if sustainable packaging claims are backed by evidence before retailers, investors or regulators ask.

Key Terms Consumers Often Misunderstand

Biodegradable vs. Compostable

So one question, do you know the difference between biodegradable and compostable? Can someone raise their hand? Okay, not so many.

Biodegradable means a material can be broken down by microorganisms, while compostable means that the material is biodegradable under defined composting conditions.

The problem here is that in packages sometimes it is written compostable, but it's just industrial compostable, not compostable at home. and people read compostable and just throw it in the garden or whatever. What

Regulatory Pressure Is Increasing

is the EU doing? The EU is putting pressure on all the claims.

By the way, F divided by A is pressure.

What the EU’s Packaging Rules Change in Practice

And you need to think PPVR, which is basically the packaging waste regulation, that they are putting now pressure on all all these claims and one example I can give you you order a USB stick from Amazon and it arrives in a big packaging so this is something that that currently is happening and the EU is forcing them to reduce it to a size where you don't have like a big package but then they thought okay let's fill it up with some materials like for example like foam but foam is counted based on the regulation as air so they can't cheat anymore just for you to know the current situation is

that claims are often weak so we as consumers we are misled packaging regulations is tightening which means they're putting a lot of pressure on different especially packaging companies especially packaging who has contact with food and companies face more questions that they need to prove with evidence that for example they don't have any microplastics or pfas or other they are pfas free and the smes are often

and overwhelmed last week i had a talk with a customer and he said basically almost all of his suppliers don't have a clue how to comply with different regulations because for example by 2040 30 by the way and all the packaging needs to be recyclable just for you to know

waste rate relation PPVR yeah yeah PPVR EU directive yeah yeah yeah but not there because the whites why you can apply it in Switzerland is because a lot of companies are selling to the also to a European Union and when you have a company in the European Union you need to prove that your packaging for example is still PFAS free and so on.

It's not anymore possible just to say okay we just say it's PFAS free you need really to prove that in your supply chain that you don't have PFAS in your product just for you to know that's why.

The EcoForentis Solution: Claim Readiness Scans

So basically the product is that we provide with a claim readiness scan we put inputs which is packaging claims or supplier documents do an analysis create an an evidence gap matrix and then the output will be go, fix, test or stop and basically

you can see below there it's with colors to look good and also that the customer easy can see exactly where there needs to be more evidence and this is evidence first approach, science packaging, expertise and fast prototype decision. decision.

Method: From Claim to Evidence to Verdict

So, how does it work? First we have to claim what exactly is being promised. Especially

as I can tell you, microplastics and PFAS, does everyone know what PFAS are? Forever chemicals, oh sorry, then I will explain it. These are forever chemicals, which basically

So basically if you would test your blood, you will find PFAS in your bloodstream, which basically can cause cancer and so on. So basically it's really harmful and especially on pants with Teflon you have PFAS, just for you to know.

So we have first the claim, then second we have the evidence which documents or tests exist. Are there missing clues? Because, as I said, you need now to prove exactly what is in your product and with how many percent or if there is over a certain threshold.

And then a risk analysis. What can go wrong in the future? Maybe your company will be closed because you do not comply with certain regulations. And the verdict is go, fix, test or stop.

Where AI Helps—and Where Humans Must Decide

Where does the AI help? Especially in the extraction of pattern detection. Restrict, map, detect and then the draft.

But we still need the human verdict, which means an expert review if everything really complies.

Example: Spotting Risky Wording in Supplier Statements

With the AI tools, I just focused on tools which are European based and tools especially Uria Informaniak which is in Switzerland and also which you can analyze different documents and technical data so this is basically just a little demo we have supplier

statement no intentionally added PFAs you need to focus on the word no intentionally claim risk they still provided that right that PFAS is free for us as customer oh there's no PFAS but then you made an analysis and then you find out there is no lab testing or detection limit now we come

Case Studies: Common Claims That Create Risk

Case 1: “Our Packaging Is Recyclable”

to the cases I will just talk with you for a few cases we have the first case from Sherlock GmbH because I needed to not that I have any companies here that's why so we at first

have the PPVR recyclability by 2030 and the claim is our packaging is recyclable so but the question that I need to ask is is it the whole packaging or only the the main material because now at the moment if they just have the main material which is recyclable they can still write it's recyclable.

So we provide with the information after the analysis, material structure, label, adhesive coating and targeting are missing.

so the verdict is fixed test so the claim is too broad recyclability evidence is incomplete so they basically need to make did need to do some more tests to provide to have this claim we have to

Case 2: “Made With Recycled Material”

we have the case to they write made with recycled material by the way recycled material also means you are on a production phase and something drops off and you just use it again you can already write recycled use with recycled materials so yes this is

the regulation so far that's why you is putting a lot of pressure there and it could mean that just a tiny little it's just you're used in with recycled material and without the percentage scope and chain of custody the claim is weak so I ask how much is recycled the whole packaging or just one component

certificate or supplier statement only because they need to provide the full supply chain is says that it's made out of recycled material then the percentage components scope certificates and missing chain of custody the information and then the verdict is specify percentage and component scope we have the case

Case 3: “Bio-based Plastic Packaging”

free from the bad company they say bio -based plastic packaging and they claim it's bio -based but still the question remains the bio -based does not mean the packaging will politely disappear in your garden because a lot of people think that biodegradable means I can just throw it into the woods and it will do his job but it's not the case in reality.

Bio -based means the company tested it maybe in a lab environment and there it degraded and not when I've just throw it in the woods because the temperature are different.

So I asked what percentage is bio -based Which components? Which method or certificate? Is the customer confusing biobased with biodegradable?

So, which means that after analyzing conflicting claim language in marketing text, biobased, biodegradable, compostable, plastic free. Verdict claim needs percentage scope and explanation.

Case 4: “Compostable Packaging”

We have the case 4. They say compostable packaging. And as I told you before, home compostable or industrially.

Is the compostable certified for the full packaging or just one layer? Because this is also a difference.

Because at the moment they can write that it's all compostable, even if it's just one layer. Is the disposal route available in the target market? Then there needs to be checks

whether certificates, conditions and scope are clearly mentioned. This leads to the verdict that conditions unclear, certificate missing.

Case 5: “PFAS-Free”

We have the last case, which is case 5, they say PFAS -free. Then the question is not intentionally added or analytically not detected because also the detection limit is a

huge thing because especially packaging which has contact with food they want to have it really completely PFAS -free because as I said it's harmful for us humans and also for the environment and animals so analytical not detected which PFAS which detection limit they use because as I said it's really important

wall packaging coating ink or adhesive because it can be that you use even your your packaging is PFAS free but you use a coating which basically have PFAS or use a sticker which basically can contain your PFAS and also is it from an accredited laboratory.

So the AI detects risk phases like no intentionally added and flags missing, detection limits or test methods are missing. The verdict is absolute claim too risky without analytical evidence because otherwise this company can close.

Take-Home Messages

So this leads us to the take -home message. Green claims claims need evidence.

Every claim is a case because you have different companies out there and they all fit different needs and they have different supply chain and so on.

And what the AI can do, it can make evidence work faster. But the human judgment remained essential because otherwise if you just use AI makes no sense you need to really to have experts there to read what actually the AI is saying and also as I said the

SMEs are often overwhelmed as I said last week I had a call and that they really need an expert to explain them how to be compliant with certain rules certain regulations and so on especially if they sell to the AEAU.

Founder’s Background and What’s Next

Founder's dream

at the moment I am the founder and yes just for you all I am searching for potential co -founders and so my background is regulatory affairs I

worked in a medtech company in regulatory affairs in material compliance basically if if someone is asking it's a nickel free then I provide with with the statement that is nickel free biomedical engineering material

science as I said forensic science and method development and also I speak German English and Portuguese and my founder stream is to make sustainable

Conclusion: Investigate Claims Before They Become a Liability

packaging trustworthy thank you don't let your claim become the investigation investigation, investigate it first.

Thank you all for listening.