Shrink sleeves · stretch labels · flexible packaging films · laminates — engineered for brand owners, converters and co-packers who cannot afford to compromise on consistency.
Sleeve label films · flexible packaging rollstock · laminates · compostable structures. Trial roll to full container.
| Material | Thickness mic / mil | Width mm / in | Length/roll m | Shrink / Stretch | Core mm / in | Primary Application | Food Safe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PETG | 30–60 / 1.2–2.4 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Shrink sleeve labels | Yes | |
| OPS | 35–55 / 1.4–2.2 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Shrink sleeve, wrap-around | Yes | |
| PET | 30–60 / 1.2–2.4 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Shrink sleeve label, packaging, lamination | Yes | |
| LDPE | 30–50 / 1.2–2.0 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Stretch sleeve labels | Yes | |
| PLA | 30–60 / 1.2–2.4 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Bio shrink sleeve, compostable packaging | Yes | |
| PO | 40–50 / 1.6–2.0 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Polyolefin shrink sleeve, stretch labels | Yes | |
| PP | 15–80 / 0.6–3.2 | 300–1500 / 12–59″ | 3–8,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | BOPP flow wrap · CPP sealant · PPWR laminates | Yes | |
| PA | 70–200 / 2.8–7.9 | 200–1200 / 8–47″ | 1–5,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | PA/PE vacuum pouches · meat · cook-in · thermoforming | Yes |
* Custom thickness, width and core available on request. PP = BOPP/CPP grades. PA = PA/PE coextrusion. Full flexible packaging range including EVOH, MDO-PE, PBAT/PLA — see Materials hub.
Proforma Invoice within 24 hours · No obligation · Trial rolls available
polimexgroup.com/quote
Reference: RFQ-—
A confirmation with your enquiry summary has been sent to your email.
We'll send your Pro-Forma Invoice within 24 hours.
We don't just supply film. We engineer material solutions that perform consistently at production speed, across every order, every market.
Technical guides, regulatory analysis and procurement intelligence for label converters, brand owners and co-packers.
2026-05-08 · 8 min read · Polimex Tech
Polimex is a film supplier, not a law firm, and this article is not a substitute for advice from qualified counsel in your target market. What we can offer, from the packaging specification side, is a clear summary of the two frameworks brand owners in the US and EU most commonly run into, and the pattern of what tends to get flagged.
The US Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides address environmental marketing claims generally, and biodegradability specifically. The core standard: a general, unqualified biodegradability claim is treated as implying the product will decompose within a reasonably short period after customary disposal — typically read as one year or less. If a product will not fully biodegrade within that timeframe under the disposal method consumers actually use, an unqualified claim is considered potentially deceptive.
Two things follow directly from this for flexible packaging: first, since most packaging waste in the US is landfilled — not composted — and landfill conditions do not support timely biodegradation (see our companion article on the landfill/compost distinction), an unqualified "biodegradable" claim on packaging destined for the trash can is exactly the pattern the Green Guides target. Second, a compostability claim needs to be qualified with the disposal infrastructure it actually requires — "industrially compostable where facilities exist" is a materially different (and defensible) claim from an unqualified "compostable."
The EU's approach layers two directives: the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) and the proposed Green Claims Directive. Together, the direction of travel is toward requiring independent substantiation and verification for environmental claims before they're made, not after a challenge. Generic, unsubstantiated claims — terms like "eco-friendly," "green," or "biodegradable" without a specific, verifiable, and time-bound basis — are the explicit target. A claim tied to a recognised standard (EN 13432, for instance) with third-party certification is a materially stronger position than an internal or supplier-asserted claim without that backing.
| Claim Pattern | Regulatory Risk |
|---|---|
| "Biodegradable" with no qualification | High — implies a timeframe and disposal route that may not match reality for most consumers |
| "Compostable" with no infrastructure qualifier | High — most consumers do not have industrial composting access; claim implies broader applicability than exists |
| "Industrially compostable, EN 13432 certified" with cert reference | Lower — specific, standard-referenced, verifiable |
| "Made from renewable/bio-based materials" | Lower risk but still requires the underlying feedstock claim to be accurate and substantiated |
The practical takeaway for a brand working with Polimex or any film supplier: request the compostability documentation for the specific grade and thickness you're ordering (certification is grade- and gauge-specific, not blanket across a material family), and have your legal/regulatory team confirm the exact on-pack wording against current guidance in each market you sell into — US and EU requirements are not identical, and both are actively evolving. We can tell you what standard a film grade is tested against; we can't tell you what specific words are safe to print on your pack in your market, and neither can any other film supplier without qualified legal review.
Both US FTC Green Guides and EU Green Claims rules penalise unqualified biodegradability/compostability claims. The defensible pattern is a specific, standard-referenced, infrastructure-qualified claim (e.g. "industrially compostable, EN 13432") rather than a general "biodegradable" statement. Confirm exact wording with qualified legal counsel in each target market. Polimex supplies compostability documentation per film lot. Contact: ops@polimexgroup.com