What goes wrong

No child-resistant closure on the shelf

Updated October 2026

On this page9

The measured position The catalog does hold them And they match this shelf well Why they do not appear What to do in the meantime But a matching neck is not a compliant package So ask the closure supplier for their position We would rather publish the gap than let the shelf imply it References

The one format most likely to need a child-resistant closure has none on its shelf, and we would rather say so.

The measured position

The derived shelf for capsules and tablets is 157 containers and 211 closures. Of those 211, 187 are continuous thread and 20 are dome lids, and not one is child-resistant.

The catalog does hold them

Seventy-one child-resistant closures across ten neck finishes: 24-400, 38-400, 28-400, 20-400, 33-400, 45-400, 53-400, 70-400, 58-400 and 89-400. So the components exist and they are not scarce.

And they match this shelf well

89-400 covers 69 of the containers here and has 3 child-resistant closures; 70-400 covers 40 and has 4; 58-400 covers 15 and has 3; 53-400 covers 11 and has 4. **135 of the 157 containers have a child-resistant closure in the same neck notation.**

Why they do not appear

Our closure fit data does not carry the pairing for the child-resistant family, so the shelf builder has nothing to show. It is a derivation gap rather than a stock gap, and it is recorded as an open task.

What to do in the meantime

Shop the child-resistant closures directly and match them by full neck notation rather than by diameter. For 89-400 and 70-400, which between them cover 109 of the 157 containers, the options are there.

But a matching neck is not a compliant package

The notation matching is a starting point. 16 CFR 1700.15 tests the assembled package against an effectiveness protocol, in contact with the contents and across customary use, and that is a test somebody has to have run.

So ask the closure supplier for their position

Which package, which contents, which protocol and what result. That document is what stands behind a child-resistant claim, and no neck notation substitutes for it.

We would rather publish the gap than let the shelf imply it

A shelf showing no child-resistant option on the format that most often needs one reads as though we do not stock them. We stock 71, and saying so costs us nothing but an admission that a derivation is incomplete.

References

16 CFR 1700.15, Poison prevention packaging standards: not less than 85 percent child-resistant effectiveness without a demonstration and 80 percent after one, the packaging must keep working in actual contact with the substance and across the openings and closings customary for its size and contents, and special packaging under those paragraphs shall not be reused. law.cornell.edu

16 CFR 1700.14(a)(13), Dietary supplements containing iron, requiring special packaging where a supplement contains the equivalent of 250 mg or more of elemental iron from any source in a single package at 0.025 percent or more weight-to-volume for liquids or 0.05 percent or more weight-to-weight for nonliquids, excepting iron present solely as a colorant and powdered preparations at no more than 0.12 percent weight-to-weight. law.cornell.edu

Written from federal regulation and from measured catalog data, not from a packaging line. Whether a product crosses the iron threshold is a calculation about your formula and your fill count, and the figures here are the test rather than the answer. Nothing on these pages certifies a package as child-resistant; 16 CFR 1700.15 tests the assembly, not the cap.