Greaseproof paper can be printed successfully when the paper grade, ink system and production conditions are matched. Before placing an order, confirm the printing side, food-contact conditions, artwork coverage, drying performance and reel specification. Approve the printed and converted pack against agreed criteria, rather than relying on GSM or a KIT value alone.

For a burger wrap converter, a clear logo is only one part of the purchase decision. The ink also needs to withstand handling, the wrap must resist grease for the intended service time, and the reel must run through printing, slitting and packing without unacceptable waste. A bakery bag adds further requirements for folds, glue seams and feeding.

This guide focuses on printable greaseproof paper for food wraps, liners and bags. It helps buyers decide what to specify, what to test and which changes require another trial.

Choose the paper for the food and finished pack

Start with the food, contact temperature, holding time and finished format. A warm pastry placed in a bag briefly can impose different grease and moisture demands from a hot burger held in a closed wrap. Include steam, sauces, chilling or reheating where these form part of the intended use. A food wrapping grade should not be assumed suitable for oven use.

When reviewing greaseproof paper options, ask how the grade obtains its grease resistance and whether either surface has a coating or treatment. Grease resistance can come from a dense fibre structure, a barrier treatment or a combination. These routes do not create identical printing surfaces, and greaseproof paper is not necessarily completely non-absorbent.

Identify both sides on the specification. Mark the print side and the food-contact side on a sample or drawing. If the two surfaces differ, confirm which one has been evaluated with the proposed ink. Keep this identification consistent through rewinding, sheeting, folding and final packing.

Silicone release paper requires separate consideration because a release surface can change ink wetting and adhesion. Our silicone coated paper vs greaseproof paper guide explains the distinction between release performance and grease holdout. Do not transfer an approved print setup between these materials without checking the new surface.

Use GSM and barrier results together

GSM is mass per unit area. It affects material yield and is useful for comparing grades, but it does not establish printability, stiffness or grease resistance on its own. Request thickness, relevant strength data, surface information and an approved reference sample where these matter to the job. Our guide to choosing greaseproof paper GSM covers the weight selection in more detail.

A KIT rating is a short surface resistance result under a defined method. It is not the number of hours a burger wrap will resist grease, a measure of ink adhesion or proof of food-contact compliance. TAPPI T 559 was developed primarily for fluorochemical-treated papers; its suitability for other barrier systems needs evaluation. For more context, see our guide to grease-resistance tests and application conditions.

Where appropriate, ask the laboratory about a grease breakthrough method such as ISO 16532-1, which can assess creased and uncreased samples. Add a finished-pack trial using the intended food and exposure conditions. This is particularly useful when folds or cut edges become the first points of failure.

Agree print expectations before setting press parameters

Approve colour and detail on the actual paper colour and finish. White and brown papers can produce visibly different results with the same ink. For lightweight or translucent grades, agree the backing used for visual comparison or colour measurement so that two suppliers are assessed consistently.

Give the converter the artwork, number of colours, maximum coverage, repeat length and critical details such as small text, fine lines or barcodes. A sparse logo repeat and a large solid background place different demands on ink transfer and drying. Use a physical reference or an agreed colour measurement method and tolerance instead of an instruction such as “match the screen”.

Match the ink and anilox to the actual job

Flexographic printing is a practical option for many food wrapping applications, including jobs using water-based inks. The ink supplier should confirm suitability for the exact substrate, printing surface and intended packaging use. “Water-based” describes the ink vehicle; it does not by itself establish food-contact suitability.

An anilox roll meters ink onto the printing plate. Its cell volume, line screen, engraving and condition affect ink transfer. The converter should choose these together with the artwork, ink strength, plate and dryer capacity. There is no universal anilox specification for greaseproof paper: too much ink can make drying harder, while too little may leave solids weak or uneven.

Plate hardness, mounting tape and impression also work together. Use sufficient pressure for consistent transfer, then check for squeezed edges, enlarged dots and lost detail. A fixed plate hardness or press speed is not a reliable purchasing specification across different machines and grades.

Check wetting and anchorage separately

Poor wetting can appear as beading or broken ink coverage. Poor anchorage can cause ink to lift from the paper. Rub-off can also reflect incomplete drying or insufficient ink-film strength, so examine how and where the print fails. These observations call for different checks; neither can be diagnosed from a KIT value alone.

Do not apply a universal dyne threshold or automatically require corona treatment. First identify the surface and assess it with the ink supplier. Where treatment is appropriate, agree the method and treated side, then validate the complete paper and ink combination. Smoothness data can support comparisons, but results from Bekk, Bendtsen and Sheffield methods are not interchangeable.

Water absorption is another separate property. A Cobb result alone cannot establish ink drying or adhesion performance, and ISO 535 excludes papers below 50 g/m² from its scope. For lighter wrapping grades, ask the supplier or laboratory which method is suitable and record the test side and conditions.

Validate drying before winding and storage

For water-based flexo printing, absorption and evaporation depend on the specific paper and ink formulation. Less absorbent surfaces can place more demand on the dryers. Check airflow, exhaust, dwell time, ink laydown and production speed together; raising dryer temperature alone may create curl or dimensional changes without solving the underlying problem.

During a multicolour trial, assess transfer between stations as well as the finished print. Record ink viscosity and, where relevant, pH according to the ink supplier’s instructions. Judge the result after the agreed drying period and again after winding or stacking. A print that feels dry at the press exit can still block or transfer during storage.

Blocking is unwanted sticking between adjacent layers. Set-off is transfer from a printed surface to a surface touching it in a reel or stack. Check both at representative winding pressure, storage time and temperature. Lack of visible transfer does not establish that chemical migration is acceptable.

Use these as investigation prompts. Record the conditions and change one variable at a time where practical, so that an apparent improvement can be reproduced on the next order.

Specify reels for printing and downstream converting

A reel that fits the press may still be unsuitable for the slitter, sheeter or bag machine. Confirm width and tolerance, core inner diameter, maximum outer diameter, maximum reel weight, edge quality and splice requirements against every machine in the route.

Provide a winding drawing showing the printed side facing in or out, the web leaving the top or bottom of the reel, and the leading edge of the artwork. Include the operator’s viewing direction. “Wound in” or “wound out” alone does not fully describe how the artwork will enter the next machine.

Paper properties differ in the machine direction (MD) and cross direction (CD). Record the direction in the finished sheet or bag and test the actual fold layout. Fold quality, tearing and feeding depend on the grade and geometry; grain direction alone does not guarantee a clean fold or permanent dead fold.

Keep reels protected during storage and follow the supplier’s acclimatisation guidance. The time needed depends on reel size, packaging and the temperature and humidity difference between storage and production. A fixed 24-hour period is not a universal rule.

Build speed and tension gradually during the trial within equipment and material limits. Record stable running conditions, web breaks, wrinkles, register changes, usable output and waste. For glued bags, check seam strength and ink or coating in the glue area. For heat-sealed formats, first confirm that the material has a suitable sealable construction; grease resistance alone does not imply heat sealability.

Assess food contact suitability for the finished wrap

Define the destination market and the intended food contact before selecting the ink. Request supporting documentation for the paper, barrier treatment, ink and any adhesive or varnish, with their conditions of use. The converter needs to assess the finished printed article, including foreseeable contact caused by folding and handling.

For conventional printing on the non-food-contact side, keep the printed surface away from food. The EU good manufacturing practice rules for food-contact materials specifically address transfer through the substrate and set-off in stacks or reels. Thin paper should not be assumed to prevent ink components reaching the food-contact side.

Ask the ink supplier and converter to document the suitability assessment for the relevant market, food type, temperature and contact duration. Low odour, low migration and good rub resistance describe different requirements. A low-odour result does not prove migration compliance, and a paper supplier’s declaration does not automatically cover the converted pack.

The laboratory should select tests based on the construction, substances of concern and applicable requirements. Do not treat one generic overall migration test or a statement such as “FDA compliant ink” as universal approval. For paper-based packaging, migration methods and exposure conditions should suit the material; plastic test conditions are not automatically transferable. See EuPIA’s migration assessment guidance. For UV or LED curing, the assessment also needs to address the ink system and validated cure conditions on the actual job.

If the specification includes a PFAS restriction, define the claim and the evidence needed. A statement about no intentionally added PFAS and a laboratory result with a stated detection limit answer different questions. Neither printability nor grease resistance proves PFAS status. Our PFAS-free greaseproof paper guide provides further sourcing context.

Approve the job through staged tests

Use laboratory drawdowns or proofs to screen paper and ink combinations before a press trial. They can identify obvious wetting, colour or adhesion problems efficiently. Final approval should then use representative printing, winding and converting conditions, including the intended coverage and production speed.

Agree the method, sample selection and acceptance limits before the trial. Retain the unprinted paper, printed web and finished pack so that a later failure can be traced to the relevant stage.

For abrasion testing, ASTM D5264 provides a method for printed materials using a Sutherland rub tester. Agree any additional wet or grease-contact procedure separately. A tape check may help investigate ink lifting, but paper fibre tear can complicate interpretation. ASTM D3359 is scoped to coating adhesion on metallic substrates, so it should not be presented as a universal paper ink test.

After approval, retain the paper grade, artwork revision, ink system, test results and reference samples. Agree which changes trigger review, such as a new coating, ink formulation, heavier coverage or a different converting route. Batch traceability and an agreed change process make repeat orders easier to control.

Send an RFQ that produces comparable quotations

Specify whether you need unprinted reels for your own converter or finished printed sheets, wraps or bags. These are different supply scopes. Ask each supplier to state what is included in the quotation and what remains the converter’s responsibility.

Compare quotations on the same grade, dimensions, supply scope and delivery basis. For printed products, include plate or setup costs, minimum order quantity and trial results. Comparing cost per 1,000 accepted sheets or wraps can expose the effect of grammage, trim losses and production waste. Use representative saleable output for the calculation; theoretical material yield is not a guaranteed production result.

Frequently asked questions

Can greaseproof paper be printed with a logo

Yes, suitable grades can be printed with a logo or repeat design. Confirm the printing surface and ink compatibility, then approve appearance, handling resistance and finished-pack performance on the chosen paper.

Does a higher KIT value mean better print quality

No. KIT measures a form of surface grease resistance under its test conditions. It does not measure colour reproduction, drying or ink anchorage. Choose the barrier requirement from the food application and test printing separately.

Are water based inks automatically safe for food wraps

No. The ink needs to be suitable for the intended packaging use, and the finished pack needs an assessment for its market and contact conditions. Printing, drying, set-off, substrate transfer and storage all matter.

Does greaseproof paper always need corona treatment

No. Treatment depends on the actual surface and ink system. A successful trial and suitable surface assessment are more useful than applying a film-printing dyne target to every paper grade.

Can the same specification be used for white and brown paper

Some functional requirements may stay the same, but the printed colour and contrast can change. Approve the artwork on each paper colour and check any additional ink coverage needed to achieve the intended appearance.

Why test again after converting

Folding, cutting, gluing and winding can reveal failures that are absent in a flat proof. Check the finished format for grease leakage, ink transfer, seam strength and handling performance under its intended use conditions.

Discuss your greaseproof paper specification with Sure Paper

Send Sure Paper your food application, destination market, target GSM, artwork coverage and reel or sheet specification. Include an approved sample or describe the problem you need to resolve, such as rub-off, grease staining or unstable feeding.

Contact Sure Paper to discuss grade options and trial requirements. State whether you need paper for your converter or a finished printed format, so the quotation can address the supply scope and approval evidence you need.

Technical and editorial reference notes

These notes document the main corrections and supporting sources. They are for the publisher and do not need to be copied into the article. Sources were checked on 23 September 2026; no laboratory or press trials were performed for this rewrite.

Test methods and food contact assessment

TAPPI T 559 cm-22 defines the KIT method’s scope and the need to assess its use on other barrier systems. The article separates KIT from ink adhesion, real service time and food-contact compliance.

ISO 16532-1 describes grease permeability testing with creased or uncreased paper. ISO 535 describes water absorptiveness and excludes papers below 50 g/m². The original universal Cobb target has been removed.

ASTM D5264 supports the abrasion test reference. ASTM D3359 has a metallic-substrate scope and is not specified as a standard acceptance method for all printed paper.

EU Regulation 2023/2006 addresses transfer through the substrate and set-off for printing on the non-food-contact side. EuPIA risk assessment guidance explains why migration conditions developed for plastics may be unsuitable for non-plastic materials. The draft’s blanket EN 1186 and EN 13130 test requirements have been replaced by an application-specific assessment.

21 CFR 175.300 concerns resinous and polymeric coatings; it is not a universal printing-ink approval. The rewrite avoids assigning a single US regulation to every finished printed wrap.

Press settings and supplier positioning

Wikoff’s water-based flexo troubleshooting guide supports investigating ink, transfer, drying and winding conditions together. Enercon’s dyne testing guidance explains why a dyne reading does not guarantee adhesion. Universal anilox, plate hardness, corona, speed and conditioning targets have been removed.

The article uses Sure Paper as the supplier contact for grade options and quotation requirements. It does not claim an in-house laboratory, a guaranteed press speed or completed compatibility testing. Availability, supply scope and grade-specific documents remain matters for the quotation and approval process.

The original “PFAS-free fluorochemical” wording, universal non-absorbency claim and automatic print-quality superiority claim have been removed. The final image and link plans address greaseproof printing and converting throughout.