Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

With nearly five decades in the field, I have built deep expertise in printing inks, printing technology, coatings, and adhesives chemistry. Throughout my career, I have led R&D teams and helped introduce innovative solutions across multiple industries. My work has resulted in more than 35 US and international patents and patent applications, as both author and co-author.

I started my career in 1975 after earning an MS in Printing Technology from the Graphic Art University in Moscow, USSR. In 1983, I completed my PhD at the Central Graphic Art Research Institute, where my work centered on developing new printing ink systems.

In 1989, I moved to the United States and spent the next 16 years at Sun Chemical, initially as a chemist and later as North American R&D Manager for Radiation Curable systems. In 2006, I co-founded IdeOn LLC, focusing on technological and chemical innovations for printing, packaging, industrial, and medical uses. After selling the company in 2018, I launched Laksin Consulting LLC, which continues to advise clients worldwide on radiation-curable and water-based solutions for the printing and packaging industries.

Q2. Given tightening restrictions on solvents and photoinitiators, which specific legacy printing assets are now likely to be stranded or cost-prohibitive within 24 months?

For decades, digital technologies have steadily chipped away at the market share of traditional publications and commercial printing. These segments continue to face a difficult future, regardless of changing rules on solvents or photoinitiators. In contrast, packaging—especially food packaging—remains the industry's most stable and sustainable sector and is unlikely to face stranded assets in the near term. Even as operating costs fluctuate with broader economic and political changes, consumer brands will continue to secure the packaging they need.

The critical issue is not asset stranding but why solvents and photoinitiators remain dominant vulnerabilities, and how the industry must transition away from them. I have spent the last 35 years developing packaging technologies that eliminate these components entirely, with a heavy focus on Electron Beam (EB) curing.

EB curing operates without solvents or photoinitiators, offering a stable and regulatory-compliant solution, especially for food-contact uses. Despite these advantages, it has yet to see broad adoption in mainstream flexible packaging, which still relies largely on solvent-based chemistries. UV/LED curing is advancing quickly, but its use in food packaging is mostly limited to secondary exteriors and labels. The food industry’s strict safety standards will continue to slow wider use of photoinitiator-based inks and coatings.

Q3. For UV and EB curable systems, how stable is the global supply chain for high-purity monomers and oligomers? Are we seeing a concentration of risk in specific geographic regions that could threaten production stability?

There is a significant concentration of geographic risk. Although radiation curing technology began in the US and Europe, with companies like Ciba-Geigy (now BASF) and Lamberti leading early development, manufacturing has since shifted elsewhere. The key photoinitiator compounds created by these European innovators are still widely used, but producing them in the West now faces major environmental, regulatory, and operational challenges.

Today, nearly all photoinitiator manufacturing and most large-scale monomer and oligomer production are based in Asia, with China as the primary supplier. Only a small share of specialty acrylates is still made in the US and Europe, and photoinitiator production outside Asia is essentially nonexistent. This high concentration brings significant risk—any geopolitical event, trade disruption, or regulatory change in the region could quickly impact global supply in both the short and long term.

Q4. What is the actual ‘performance gap’ in moisture barriers when moving to mono-materials, and which specific chemistries have proven they can bridge this gap?

The pursuit of a single chemical compound capable of achieving near-zero oxygen and moisture transmission rates in a thin, mono-material film remains an industry challenge—particularly as the safety profiles of historical barrier chemistries face increased regulatory scrutiny.

Closing this performance gap calls for an engineering approach that brings together different chemical and structural elements, rather than depending on a single resin. To tackle the issue, we partnered with Celplast Metalized Products to create a structural solution now in commercial use. The technology uses a metalized PET base with a thin Electron Beam (EB) curable coating, which significantly boosts barrier performance over standard uncoated metalized films. Widespread adoption of these hybrid chemical-mechanical structures is needed to truly bridge the mono-material gap.

Q5. Bio-derived resins and adhesives are gaining market share. Operationally, what is the ‘failure rate’ or durability trade-off when these materials are used in high-speed industrial applications compared to petroleum-based standards?

Bio-derived resins are often promoted as sustainable, but in reality, they play only a small role in true industrial sustainability. Genuine sustainability, as defined by the 1987 UN Brundtland Report, calls for a full life-cycle view—balancing environmental, economic, and social factors in sourcing, manufacturing, logistics, and recycling.

Bio-derived resins fall short in high-speed converting—their mechanical strength, durability, and cost do not match those of petroleum-based materials. In addition, inks and coatings make up only a small portion of the overall package structure, and bio-resins are just a tiny fraction of those formulations.

As long as mainstream flexible packaging remains dependent on high-volume organic solvents, introducing bio-based resins yields negligible sustainability gains. True operational sustainability is achieved through optimization—reducing inventory, refining formulations, and, most importantly, investing in solvent-free technologies such as radiation curing.

Q6. As energy prices remain volatile, where is the current ‘inflection point’ for a mid-sized converter to switch from traditional thermal drying to UV-LED or EB curing, and what is the typical payback period in today’s market?

For converters operating in secondary packaging or narrow-web flexographic markets, the inflection point has already passed—radiation curing is the baseline standard.

For mid- to large-sized converters evaluating primary food packaging, the economic transition to Electron Beam (EB) curing is driven more by total operational cost reductions than by energy prices alone. In a comprehensive financial cost model developed alongside one of the world’s largest converters, we compared the annual operating expenditures of a six-color Central Impression (CI) press utilizing solvent-based inks versus an EB-curable system.

The model is based on all variables: consumables, labor, utility consumption, emissions compliance, and throughput velocity. The results demonstrated a stark variance: $12.2 million annually for the solvent-based line versus $8.8 million for the EB-curable line. While macroeconomic shifts may adjust the baseline numbers today, the structural cost advantages—driven by higher productivity, lower insurance/regulatory costs, and the elimination of thermal drying ovens—consistently favor EB curing, offering an aggressive payback period on the capital expenditure.

Q7. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

How committed are you to building and expanding a flexible platform that brings together radiation curing (UV/LED/EB) and advanced water-based chemistries?

Converters and chemical suppliers who want to stay competitive can no longer rely on single-technology legacy lines. A hybrid setup that combines radiation curing with water-based systems is the best way to drive innovation, meet strict food-contact regulations, and enter high-growth packaging markets. I'd also look for digital printing capabilities as part of this platform to address the fast-growing short-run segment.