Paper packaging has a barrier problem.

Fibre provides stiffness, printability and an established recycling pathway.

What it does not naturally provide is reliable resistance to water, grease, oxygen and many of the other substances packaging has to keep either inside or outside a product.

That is why apparently simple paper packs often become much more complicated.

Polyethylene extrusion coatings.

Polymer dispersions.

Wax.

Aluminum.

Specialty adhesives.

Barrier laminates.

Fluorinated chemistry in some historical applications.

Those additional materials allow fibre packaging to move into applications that uncoated paper could never handle.

They can also make recycling more difficult and increase dependence on fossil-derived chemistry.

Finnish biomaterials company Innomost believes part of the answer may already exist in the tree.

Its Suberinno™ Suberin material is derived from Nordic birch bark, a forest-industry side stream that has traditionally gone mainly into relatively low-value uses such as energy production.

Suberin is the natural protective biopolymer that helps bark resist water, oils and environmental exposure.

Innomost is extracting and refining those compounds into a functional ingredient intended for coatings, adhesives and fibre-based packaging. The company says formulations containing Suberinno can contribute moisture, grease and oxygen-barrier properties while also providing adhesion and durability.

That combination is potentially important.

But the real commercial question is not whether birch bark contains an interesting molecule.

Scientists have known about suberin’s hydrophobic properties for years.

The difficult question is:

Can a forest side stream become a barrier chemistry that performs reliably on paper machines and coating lines, meets food-contact requirements, survives converting and still allows the finished fibre package to be recycled effectively?

That is the test that will determine whether suberin becomes another promising bio-based coating ingredient or a meaningful industrial alternative to fossil-derived barriers.

Birch bark is already engineered to be a barrier

Suberin is not a material invented specifically for packaging.

Plants use it themselves.

It is a complex natural biopolyester found in protective tissues including bark, cork and root structures. Its chemistry contains both aliphatic and aromatic components and gives plant tissues resistance to water movement and external environmental stresses. A 2026 scientific review describes suberin as a naturally occurring material with inherent barrier properties and identifies coatings and sustainable materials among its emerging applications.

Birch bark is particularly interesting because it is already generated at substantial scale by the Nordic forest industry.

The bark is not the primary product.

It appears as a side stream when logs are processed.

Innomost’s proposition is therefore not to grow another dedicated agricultural feedstock for packaging chemicals.

It is to extract more value from biomass that already enters the forest-products system.

The company currently operates a pilot production facility in Kokkola, Finland.

Its published pilot-plant specifications indicate capacity to process as much as one million kilograms of birch bark annually, producing up to roughly 100,000 kilograms of bark powders and around 10,000 kilograms of extracts at full capacity.

That is an important circular-economy distinction.

The material is renewable.

But potentially more important, it is a co-product of an existing industrial value chain.

This is really a forest-industry value question

Birch bark has traditionally generated value mainly through combustion.

That is useful.

Burning bark can supply renewable heat and energy to forest-industry operations.

But combustion extracts its energy value only once.

Chemical valorization asks whether certain molecules can be removed first and sold into higher-value applications before the remaining biomass enters energy recovery or another outlet.

For the Nordic forest sector, that changes the economics of a tonne of wood.

The same harvested log can potentially produce:

timber,

chips,

pulp fibre,

energy,

and specialty chemical feedstocks.

Innomost itself describes this as an opportunity to increase the value obtained from existing forest-industry side streams rather than simply expanding raw-material consumption.

This is part of a much broader transition occurring in pulp and paper.

Forest companies increasingly want more from wood than conventional tonnes of pulp, paper and lumber.

Lignin is being developed for adhesives, carbon materials and chemicals.

Hemicellulose is being examined for polymers and functional ingredients.

Tall oil already supplies chemical markets.

Bark contains another set of potentially valuable compounds.

Suberin therefore matters not only as packaging chemistry.

It is another example of the forest industry’s attempt to move from selling biomass by the tonne toward selling molecular functionality.

Moisture resistance alone would not be enough

There is already no shortage of bio-based coating concepts.

Starch.

Cellulose derivatives.

Chitosan.

Alginate.

Proteins.

Natural waxes.

Lignin.

Shellac.

Nanocellulose.

Various combinations can provide useful paper-barrier properties.

The difficulty is that packaging rarely needs only one barrier.

A food tray might need resistance to liquid water and grease.

Coffee packaging may require oxygen and aroma protection.

Dry food may require water-vapour control.

Frozen or chilled packaging can experience condensation.

A paper cup needs liquid resistance, sealing and mechanical integrity.

The coating also has to adhere to the substrate, resist cracking during converting and run at commercially acceptable speed.

That is why Innomost’s claim that suberin can contribute moisture, grease and oxygen barrier in the same formulation is more interesting than simple hydrophobicity.

A multifunctional coating potentially reduces the number of separate materials required to obtain the final package performance.

That could simplify the structure.

But “can contribute” is important wording.

Innomost says Suberinno can function as a primary component in some systems or be blended with other organic and inorganic materials depending on required performance.

In other words, this is not necessarily a one-ingredient replacement for every PE coating, EVOH layer, aluminum barrier or specialty dispersion currently used.

Packaging requirements will still determine the formulation.

The industry needs numbers, not just barrier categories

This is where commercialization will become more demanding.

“Moisture barrier” can describe dramatically different performance levels.

The same is true for oxygen resistance.

For a packaging engineer, the relevant questions are quantitative:

What is the water-vapour transmission rate?

What is the oxygen transmission rate?

At what temperature and relative humidity?

At what coating weight?

On which substrate?

How does performance change after creasing?

What happens after heat exposure?

What happens when the package contains oil for several weeks?

Does the coating crack when the paperboard is folded?

How does barrier performance change in high-humidity cold-chain conditions?

The current Innomost material describes the functions and potential applications, but publicly available company information does not yet provide a comprehensive, application-specific set of WVTR, OTR and grease-resistance benchmarks against incumbent industrial coatings.

That does not mean the performance is absent.

It means customers will need application-specific validation.

And Innomost itself acknowledges that industrial testing, processability and customer reference cases remain essential before broader adoption.

That is an important qualification.

There is already independent science behind suberin barrier performance

The broader scientific case for suberin is not based only on supplier claims.

Research predating Innomost’s current commercial push has demonstrated that birch-bark-derived suberin fatty acids can improve moisture resistance in coated materials.

A 2015 study found that relatively small amounts of suberin fatty acids significantly improved the water-vapour barrier performance of cellulose ether films.

More recent reviews similarly identify bark-derived suberin as a promising route toward hydrophobic and moisture-resistant coatings.

And the research is moving beyond laboratory films.

In 2026, a University of Oulu-led project involving UPM and Metsä Board produced a separate bark-derived suberin coating at semi-pilot scale.

Researchers coated two different wood-fibre substrates over multiple trial runs, producing approximately 1,200–1,500 metres of coated material.

The University of Oulu said the trials demonstrated that the material could be processed using equipment representative of industrial coating conditions, while testing of the coated substrates is continuing.

That project is separate from Innomost.

But it strengthens the wider industrial case.

Several groups are independently investigating whether suberin can move from interesting plant chemistry into practical paper-surface technology.

The Oulu work reveals where the real bottleneck is moving

The important phrase in the University of Oulu announcement is not “bio-based.”

It is semi-pilot scale.

Paper-coating laboratories can make excellent samples with a wire-wound bar or small coater.

Industrial coating machines are less forgiving.

A formulation has to maintain:

stable viscosity,

controlled solids,

predictable rheology,

good wetting,

uniform coat weight,

adequate drying,

low foaming,

clean equipment behavior,

and consistent film formation

while running across a continuous web.

A coating that takes several minutes to form a perfect laboratory film may be useless if a commercial line gives it seconds.

This is why Innomost founder Sami Selkälä’s own statement is worth taking seriously: replacing fossil barrier chemistry requires more than renewable feedstock; the material still has to deliver the required function and work with the substrate and formulation system.

That is exactly right.

Renewable chemistry does not receive an exemption from production engineering.

Recyclability is another claim that needs proof

Innomost positions Suberinno partly as a route toward more recyclable fibre packaging.

The logic is understandable.

Replacing a thick plastic extrusion coating or difficult laminate with a coating more compatible with fibre recovery could potentially increase fibre yield and reduce reject material at the paper mill.

But this should not yet be translated into the blanket statement:

“suberin-coated paper is recyclable.”

Paper recyclability depends on the complete package.

Coating weight matters.

Other binders matter.

Pigments matter.

Adhesives matter.

Wet-strength chemistry matters.

The substrate matters.

And the formulation that works for one application may differ substantially from another.

Innomost has previously described its birch-bark materials as capable of enabling recyclable packaging, but its current public technical pages do not provide independent repulpability results demonstrating that every Suberinno formulation meets a recognized paper-recycling protocol.

That distinction should remain explicit.

Bio-based does not automatically mean repulpable.

Biodegradable does not automatically mean recyclable.

And replacing fossil carbon does not itself establish compatibility with a paper mill.

For fibre packaging, the relevant future evidence should include pulper yield, screening rejects, fibre quality and whether the recovered fibre can return to papermaking.

PPWR creates demand—but it does not certify the solution

The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation makes technologies like this commercially timely.

From 2030, packaging placed on the EU market will have to comply with design-for-recycling requirements as the bloc progressively moves toward more demanding recyclability performance.

That encourages packaging manufacturers to reconsider structures whose functional barriers interfere with fibre recovery.

But PPWR does not say “bio-based coating equals compliant packaging.”

The finished package still has to meet the applicable recycling criteria.

This is important because regulation could otherwise encourage a new generation of environmental shorthand.

Plastic becomes bad.

Bio-based becomes good.

Paper plus natural coating becomes recyclable.

Real packaging is more complicated.

A fossil-derived dispersion that separates effectively during repulping may in some circumstances work better in an existing recycling system than a poorly designed bio-based coating.

The goal should therefore not be maximum renewable content regardless of performance.

It should be the combination of renewable sourcing, required barrier performance and verified end-of-life compatibility.

Food packaging creates an additional qualification hurdle

The source positions Suberinno for food, non-food and dry-product packaging.

That opens a large market.

It also raises the regulatory bar substantially.

A material that works beautifully on industrial protective paper cannot automatically be used in direct food contact.

Food-contact packaging may require assessment of:

migration,

impurities,

reaction products,

extractables,

temperature exposure,

fatty-food contact,

contact duration,

and the complete coating formulation.

Innomost has discussed food-packaging applications publicly, but its current product and coating pages do not present a blanket food-contact authorization covering every Suberinno coating formulation.

That is normal for an ingredient being evaluated in multiple formulations.

The final compliance case can depend on how the material is used.

But it means “suitable for food packaging development” should not automatically become “approved for all food contact.”

This distinction will be especially important if suberin moves into applications involving fatty foods, where grease resistance is one of its most attractive characteristics.

Scale may become the next major constraint

Innomost already has something many biomaterial startups do not:

an operating production facility.

Its Kokkola pilot plant began producing batches in 2023.

Published information indicates production at the scale of hundreds of kilograms per batch and potential extract output of around 10 tonnes annually at full pilot capacity.

That is substantial for development and customer trials.

It is small compared with mainstream packaging chemistry.

A single large paper or board operation can consume thousands of tonnes of coating chemicals annually.

If a new barrier system is applied at several grams per square metre across high-volume food packaging, material demand increases rapidly.

Innomost told Packaging Europe that it plans to build an industrial plant and scale production during the next two to three years.

That may become the commercial inflection point.

Until then, the company can demonstrate functionality and qualify applications.

Industrial adoption requires something harder:

consistent tonnes.

Feedstock availability may be an advantage—but extraction yield still matters

Birch bark itself is not necessarily the scarce component.

Finland and the wider Nordic region have substantial forest industries generating bark continuously.

The more relevant question is how much usable suberin-derived material can be produced economically from each tonne of bark.

Innomost’s published pilot figures are instructive.

A facility capable of processing up to one million kilograms of bark annually was designed for roughly 10,000 kilograms of extracts, alongside larger volumes of bark powders.

Those figures should not be interpreted as a simple 1% Suberinno yield—the plant produces several products and processing routes.

But they illustrate a broader biorefinery reality:

large biomass streams do not automatically translate into equally large specialty-chemical output.

Extraction efficiency, purification, solvent recovery, energy use and co-product valorization therefore become central to economics.

If valuable molecules are extracted while the remaining bark continues to provide useful energy or other products, the business case strengthens.

If significant quantities of biomass, chemicals or energy are required for relatively little useful barrier material, the environmental and commercial equation becomes harder.

A full life-cycle assessment will eventually be important.

This is why replacing PE is not the only useful application

The most obvious narrative is that suberin could replace plastic coatings on paper.

That may be too narrow.

Innomost describes the material as working as a primary functional ingredient in some systems and as a component in others.

It also identifies uses in adhesives, binders and polymer formulations.

This creates a potentially more realistic commercialization pathway.

The first large-volume application does not have to be a complete one-for-one replacement for extrusion polyethylene.

Suberin may first create value by replacing part of the fossil chemistry inside a coating.

Or improving grease resistance enough to reduce another barrier component.

Or providing hydrophobicity in a hybrid bio-based formulation.

Or replacing some fossil-derived tackifier or polyol chemistry in an adhesive.

Those partial substitutions may be less dramatic than a “plastic-free paper package.”

They may also be easier to commercialize.

Packaging transitions frequently happen through formulation changes rather than complete material revolutions.

Multifunctionality could be the real economic advantage

Specialty coating ingredients have to justify their cost.

A bio-based raw material that simply performs the same single function as a mature petrochemical at a significantly higher price has a difficult commercial path.

A material that performs several functions can change that calculation.

If one suberin-derived ingredient contributes:

water resistance,

grease resistance,

oxygen barrier,

adhesion,

and film formation,

a formulator may be able to reduce or eliminate several other components.

Innomost specifically emphasizes this multifunctionality.

That may ultimately matter more than renewable content alone.

The packaging industry does not necessarily need more ingredients.

It needs simpler formulations that do more with fewer incompatible components.

If suberin can genuinely provide that combination at industrial coating speeds, it becomes much more interesting.

Bio-based barriers are moving into a crowded race

Innomost is also not working in an empty market.

Companies and universities are developing barrier technologies based on:

cellulose,

nanocellulose,

starch,

lignin,

chitosan,

seaweed,

proteins,

natural waxes,

PHA,

dispersion polymers,

and hybrid formulations.

A 2026 review of paper barrier coatings describes rapid development across biopolymers and nanocomposite systems but also emphasizes persistent scale-up challenges.

Kelpi, for example, has been developing seaweed-derived coatings for paper and board and has progressed to regulatory work for food-contact applications.

The Oulu-UPM-Metsä Board project is independently exploring suberin.

That competition is healthy.

It also means renewable origin will not be enough to differentiate Innomost.

The winning technologies will likely be selected according to a much tougher matrix:

barrier performance,

coat weight,

machine speed,

drying energy,

cost,

raw-material availability,

food-contact compliance,

sealability,

printability,

repulpability,

and consistency.

Sustainability gets the material into the evaluation.

Performance determines whether it stays there.

Birch bark’s real opportunity may be to make fibre packaging less chemically complicated

That may be the most interesting way to look at Suberinno.

Paper packaging will never become functional by removing chemistry entirely.

A bare cellulose sheet simply cannot provide everything required by modern food and consumer-goods supply chains.

The question is which chemistry gets added.

If forest-derived molecules can provide some of the same protection currently obtained from multiple fossil-derived components, fibre packaging could become materially simpler without becoming functionally weaker.

That would be meaningful.

Not because the package is “natural.”

Not because bark sounds environmentally attractive.

But because the resulting structure might use fewer incompatible materials while preserving the properties required to protect the product.

That is a much higher standard.

The next milestone is not another laboratory claim

Innomost has already established several important pieces.

A defined forest-industry feedstock exists.

A patented extraction process exists.

A pilot production facility exists.

Suberin’s hydrophobic chemistry is scientifically established.

Company trials indicate applicability in coatings and adhesives.

Separate Finnish research has demonstrated suberin coating at semi-pilot web scale.

The remaining questions are increasingly industrial.

Can the coating hit application-specific WVTR and OTR requirements?

Can it run consistently on commercial coaters?

At what coat weight?

What does it cost per square metre?

Can the package be heat sealed?

Does the barrier survive converting?

Is it compliant for the intended food-contact condition?

How does it behave in a paper mill?

And can Innomost manufacture enough of it at consistent quality?

Those questions are less exciting than saying birch bark can replace plastic.

They are also the questions that decide whether packaging technologies reach supermarket shelves.

The forest industry may be growing a new chemical business from what it once burned

There is a larger industrial implication here.

A pulp or sawmill traditionally maximizes value by turning the best part of the log into its highest-value conventional product and finding useful outlets for everything else.

Bark often sits relatively low in that hierarchy.

Suberin potentially changes that.

If bark becomes feedstock for high-value barrier materials, adhesives and functional chemicals, another part of the tree enters the specialty-material economy.

That does not eliminate bark’s energy value.

It creates the possibility of cascading value before final energy recovery.

And that may ultimately be the most important part of Innomost’s story.

The company is not merely trying to create a greener coating.

It is attempting to connect two industrial transitions:

paper packaging’s search for better barrier chemistry and the forest industry’s search for higher-value uses for every fraction of wood.

Whether Suberinno succeeds will depend on much more than its renewable origin.

It has to prove that nature’s barrier can survive contact with industrial reality.

If it can, birch bark could move from boiler fuel to something considerably more valuable:

a functional ingredient helping fibre packaging enter applications that still depend heavily on fossil chemistry.

Last Updated on 15/09/2026 by Jota Machinery