No container prevents a choking hazard
On this page14
The instinct is to look for a safer container
And there is not one. A choking hazard is a property of the object, not of what it is kept in.
A child-resistant closure is a different function
It resists opening, which the pet and veterinary property sets out against the effectiveness standards. It does not make contents safe.
And this shelf has none anyway
288 closures and not a child-resistant one among them: 179 plain lids, 42 metal CT caps, 22 dome lids, 17 lug caps.
A sealed container is not a barrier either
9 sealing discs out of 288, and a sealing disc is a tamper and moisture feature rather than an access control.
So the required statement is the mechanism
A warning on the package, in prescribed wording, with a symbol. Which is what the regulation provides rather than a container requirement.
And the statement needs area
Roughly 50 characters plus a symbol, prominently displayed. On our smallest container that is a real constraint.
Which usually means secondary packaging
A carton or a card, and we sell primary containers. The statement typically goes somewhere we do not supply.
So a container catalog contributes the dimensions
Diameter on 218 containers from 0.62 to 4.62 inches, and height from 0.5 to 6.75. Which is what decides whether an object fits and whether a statement does.
And nothing else
No safety claim, no suitability claim and no determination about intended use.
Which is a short list and an honest one
The alternative is implying that a jar solves a hazard, and that would be the worst thing a page like this could do.
The nine leaves are mostly adult collecting
Where the statement question may not arise at all, and the container question is purely about fit.
For those, the small end is the whole answer
16 containers under 30 mL and two hinged boxes half an inch tall.
For the four that cross, settle the regime first
Because it changes what has to be printed and therefore what container is possible.