1 June 2025

Meeting Notes on
Cost Effective Packaging Solution for Fortified Edible Oil
Date: 07/10/2024
Venue: Seminar Hall of FHLS, Room: 407, Inspiration Building, Daffodil International
University (DIU), Birulia, Savar, Dhaka
Chair: Professor Dr. S.M. Mahbub Ul Haque Majumder, Daffodil International University
Participants: A significant number of DIU faculty members were in attendance (see Annex-A
for full list).

Discussion Highlights
The meeting was convened to explore suitable packaging solutions for fortified edible oil, with
particular emphasis placed on balancing cost, safety, environmental impact, and accessibility for
low-income consumers.
During the discussion, contributions were made by Professor Dr. M. A. Rahim, Dr. Md. Nazmus
Saqib, Professor Mahfuza Parveen, Dr. M. Bellal Hossain, Dr. Farzana Rahman, Md. Abdul
Wadud, and the Pro Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. S. M. Mahbub Ul Haque. Due to the absence of an
audio recording and reliance on limited hand notes, some details may not have been fully
captured. The following summary reflects the main points as recalled and has been supplemented
with relevant context for clarity.
Packaging Options Explored
A variety of packaging materials were considered, including LDPE, HDPE, Tetra Pak, pouches,
reusable tin containers, tin-free-steel, amber glass, amber-colored PET bottles, and sachets
designed for mini-pack oil. Each was evaluated in terms of its protective properties, cost-
effectiveness, environmental impact, and suitability for different consumer segments.
LDPE was described by Professor Dr. M. A. Rahim as user-friendly and aseptic, though it was
noted that carton packaging is required for additional protection.
HDPE was acknowledged for its improved barrier properties compared to LDPE, though cost
and environmental concerns were noted.
Tetra Pak and similar multilayer cartons were recognized for their superior protection and
shelf life, but it was observed that these may be less affordable for low-income consumers.
Pouches and Sachets were identified as cost-effective and convenient, especially for small-
quantity sales. However, concerns were raised about the risk of poor-quality seals, leakage, and
environmental impact due to limited recyclability.
Reusable Tin Containers were considered effective for bulk storage, provided the interior is
coated with plant-based lacquer. The high cost and impracticality for daily household use were
noted as drawbacks.
Amber Glass and Amber-Colored PET Bottles were suggested as options for protecting oil
from light, with amber PET highlighted for its durability and lighter weight compared to glass.
Sachets for Mini-Pack Oil were recommended as a practical solution for low-income
consumers, though environmental concerns were reiterated.

Expert Insights
Dr. Md. Nazmus Saqib, Assistant Professor, NFE, DIU, emphasized the importance of cost-
effectiveness and reusability. The need for high-speed packaging was highlighted, alongside the
associated risks of poor sealing and leakage in sachet and pouch packaging. It was further noted
that tin packaging is only effective if an appropriate internal coating is applied. Pouch packaging
was recommended for low-cost markets, while Tetra Pak and similar solutions were suggested
for medium- to high-cost segments.
Dr. Mahfuza Parveen discussed the potential of locally produced Sonali bags, made from jute-
derived materials. While these bags are biodegradable and commonly used for transporting dry
goods, their suitability for liquid oil packaging remains uncertain. It was suggested that
consultation with the Department of Environment would be beneficial, and that a packaging
return policy could help offset costs.
Dr. M. Bellal Hossain recommended exploring maize-based packaging, which had been
successfully used in other countries. For light protection, the use of amber or apple-green colored
PET was suggested. Sachets were also considered a viable option.
Pro Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. S. M. Mahbub Ul Haque (a Chemist), observed that PET was both
cost-effective and environmentally friendly, especially when reused. Tin-free steel (TFS) was
identified as a promising alternative to tin, though concerns regarding carbon emissions were
expressed. The issue of vitamin A and D interaction during oil fortification was discussed, with
the recommendation that a calculated mix could minimize negative interactions. The use of UV
absorbents for light protection was deemed costly.
Dr. Farzana Rahman advocated for laminated PET bottles, citing their durability and cost-
effectiveness. She also discussed innovative packaging materials, such as bio-based polymers
(e.g., polylactic acid with oil-repellent coatings), microcrystalline structures, and UV-absorbent
resins for enhanced protection. The importance of reusability, recyclability, and the potential for
reshaping packaging was stressed. The use of 50 ml containers was recommended for low-
income populations.
Md. Abdul Wadud supported the idea that 50 ml packs would be convenient and affordable for
economically disadvantaged consumers.
Alternative and Innovative Packaging Materials
Tin-Free Steel (Chromium-Coated Steel): This material was discussed as a viable alternative to
traditional tin-plated steel. When coated with food-grade lacquer, it is sturdy, recyclable, and
more cost-effective. However, it was noted that it shares similar drawbacks to tin, such as
oxidation risk from repeated opening and limited suitability for small-quantity packaging.
Sonali Bags: These jute-derived bags were discussed as a biodegradable alternative, but their
suitability for liquid oils remains questionable, and commercial readiness was yet to be
established.
Grain-Based Biodegradable Packaging: Materials such as corn starch, sugarcane, and plant-based
fibers were considered, though it was acknowledged that these currently lack proven oil and
moisture barrier properties and are not yet viable for commercial edible oil packaging.
Observations from NHF
Professor Dr. Sohel Reza Choudhury, Director of the Department of Epidemiology and Research,
NHF, and Program Director, requested that the meeting focus on identifying packaging options
that were both affordable and effective in protecting fortified edible oil from heat and light,
thereby maintaining quality over time. It was further requested that sufficient data and
information be provided to support those options for consideration by policymakers, edible oil
refineries, and packers.
Meeting Conclusion
The discussion was summarized by Prof. Dr. S. M. Mahbub Ul Haque, Pro Vice-Chancellor of
DIU, who stated that DIU would prepare a report on suitable packaging options with
justifications. It was indicated that proposals for future collaboration, including study proposals
on alternative packaging for edible oil, would be submitted to the NHF-LSFF program office.
Annex-A: List of Participants
Note: These minutes have been reconstructed from limited hand notes and supplemented with
relevant context for clarity and completeness. Some details may have been inferred to bridge
gaps in the original record.

Signature
Participant List:

1. S.M. Mahbub Haque Majumder, Pro Vice Chancellor, DIU

2. Dr. Md. Nizam Uddin, DIU
3. Dr. M.A. Rahim, Professor and Head, DIU
4. Dr. M. Bellal Hossain, Dean, FHLS, DIU
5. Prof. Dr. A.B.M. Kamal Pasha, DIU
6. Dr. Md. Sarowar Hossain, DIU
7. Dr. Mahfuza Parveen, DIU
8. Dr. Sharifa Sultana, DIU
9. Dr. Farzana Rahman, DIU
10. Dr. Salamat Khandker,
11. Dr. Md. Mahbubur Rahman, Associate Professor, DIU
12. Dr. Arif Choudhury Apou, Assistant Professor, DIU
13. Juwel Rana, Assistant Professor, NFE, DIU
14. Dr. Md. Nazmus Saqib, Assistant Professor, NFE, DIU
15. Prof. Dr. Md. Sohel, PESS, DIU
16. Md. Harun-Ar Rashid, Assistant Professor, NFE, DIU
17. Prof. Dr. Sohel Reza Choudhury, NHFH&RI
18. Md. Abdul Wadud, DIU
19. Sazzadur Rahman Sagor, DIU
20. Md. Shafiqul Islam, DIU
21. Professor Dr. Mostafa Kamal, Dean, AA, DIU
22. Dr. Mohammed Nadir Bin, Register
23. Shah Muhammad Sadiur, DIU
24. Md. Robiul Hossain, FHLS, DIU
25. Md. Shadhin, NFE, DIU
26. Md. Muslim, NFE, DIU
27. Md. Habib, NFE, DIU
28. Mustak Hassan Md. Iftekhar, Consultant (Advocacy), NHFH&RI
29. Dr. Rina Rani Pal, Program Mangar, NHFH&RI
30. Dr. Mizanur Rahaman, Program Officer, NHFH&RI
31. Ishrat Azam Ishita, Project Officer, NHFH&RI