This we know.<\/p>\n
But, I just read a disturbing article today in which the statement was made, \u201cmany states require child-proof or child-resistant packaging<\/em>.\u201d The Consumer Product Safety Commission states that some substances need to be in safety packaging that is \u201csignificantly difficult<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/span> for children to open, not \u201cimpossible<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/span> to open.<\/p>\n As members of this industry, one of the measures we can take is to educate our media friends. Be vigilant. When we see the misrepresentation of \u201cchild proof\u201d<\/em> we need to contact the media and let them know the potential danger.<\/p>\n Please join me in the effort to change the narrative. Child resistant does not mean child proof.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can well imagine, the misuse of the terms is not only bothersome because it is not correct, but because it reinforces the wrong message. We know a package is considered child resistant even if 20% of the children can access a harmful amount of the product. So when the media refer to packaging as childproof it sets an expectation that children cannot gain access to the contents. It suggests that parents and caregivers can rely on
the package to keep their children safe. This is a dangerous assumption. As you know, harmful substances need to be stored out of reach and out of
sight of children to provide the first line of defense. Safety packages are the second line of defense.<\/p>\n