The GPMA (Graphics & Print Media Alliance) is made up of a raft of trade associations that represent companies operating in the graphics and print media industry supply chain. Members include the BPIF – with CEO Charles Jarrold the current chair – while manufacturers’ association Picon holds the secretariat.
Other organisations involved include the British Coatings Federation, which has already warned over the impact of the legislative change.
The letter to Kit Malthouse minister of state at the Home Office and Lee Rowley, parliamentary under-secretary at BEIS was also endorsed by the IPIA and BAPC, the Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI), Boss Federation, the Flexographic Industry Association, the PPMA and Two Sides.
The GPMA explained the damaging inadvertent impact of the gamma butyrolactone (GBL) and 1,4-butanediol (BDO) being reclassified as Class B drugs making them subject to a strict licensing scheme.
It’s understood that the government initially believed that fewer than 70 companies would be affected.
GBL and BDO are used as industrial chemicals in products including certain types of inkjet inks, such as eco solvent, and the GPMA pointed out that their use had been “grossly underestimated”.
“The number of users and significance to Industry should have been properly ascertained through public consultation with stakeholders,” the GPMA said, and described the impact of the new restrictions as having a “disproportionate impact”.
“This would be caused primarily as more than 4,000 businesses use these affected inks to produce their day to day living directly through print production. The value of this specific type of print production annually is estimated at £1bn,” the GPMA’s letter stated.
“There is also a much wider usage of this ink in printing equipment present at schools, colleges, universities, local councils, construction site offices, fashion houses and Government offices.”
When the BCF wrote to the Home Office at the beginning of February it cited an estimated figure of over 7,500 potentially affected businesses, including users outside the printing industry. However, with additional information gleaned since the BCF thinks it is likely the true number could be into five figures.
The GPMA also pointed out that the cost and formulation of inks did not pose a viable conduit for drug manufacturing, describing distillation for illicit use as “uneconomic and impractical”
“For example; the average cost of 50 litres of cleaning fluid that contains GBL – and is a primary source material for drugs manufacture – costs around £250-£500 on average. For the same quantity of affected ink, it would cost £5,000 to purchase it on average.”
The alliance said the fresh regulatory controls, which are set to come into force on 15 June, would also “bring further post-Brexit disadvantage to UK companies and further divergence from Europe.”
An exemption from the licensing requirements for users of complex mixtures, such as printing inks, has not been put in place.
“It is understood that there is an exemption in place in the United States for chemical mixtures containing less than 70% GBL by weight or volume from regulatory requirements under the Controlled Substances Act. The imposition of a licensing requirement on users of mixtures is thus disproportionate to the risk posed,” the GPMA letter noted.
The GPMA also suggested a number of mitigating actions, including delaying the introduction of the new controls, transitional arrangements to allow manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the licensing requirements, and for end users such as printing firms to be exempted and covered by a registration scheme rather than licensing.
Industry manufacturers and suppliers are monitoring the situation closely, with Epson stating it was “deeply concerned” about the knock-on impact.
