For search queries (such as:https://api.fda.gov/other/historicaldocument.json?search=doc_type:pr+AND+text:"poison prevention packaging"), the results section includes matching FDA press releases returned by the API.
[
{
"num_of_pages": 6,
"year": "1971",
"text": "U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE\n\n' PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE\nFOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION\n\nRockvillo Maryland 2085 2\n\nNEWS Edward J. Chapin: 301 496-7623\nHome Phone: 703 437-1789\n\n71-58\n\nFOR IMIEDIATYE RELEASE\nSEPTEMBER 27, 1971\n\nLiniments and other liquid preparations containing more than\n5 percent of methyl salicylate (Wintergreen oil) would be required to be\nmarketed in special child-resistant containers with restricted openings\nunder regulations being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration\n\nCharles C. Edwards, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, said\ninjury reports to FDA's Bureau of Product Safety and other government agencies\nshow that 176 accidental ingestions of methyl salicylate by children under\nfive years of age occurred in a 3-year period, 1968 through 1970. Of these,\n\n33 children were hospitalized and eight died.\n\n. \"This product is attractive to children because of its winter-\ngreen odor,\" Dr. Edwards said. \"As little as one teaspoon of methyl salicylate\nhas been reported to be fatal.\"\n\nDr. Edwards pointed out that this action is the third proposedv\nstandard by FDA under authority of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act requiring\nspecial packaging for dangerous substances found in the household. Recently pro-\nmulgated standards include special packaging for aspirin preparations and\nfurniture oil containing 10 percent or more of petroleum distillates.\n\nThe special packaging would be designed so that not more than 2\nmflliliters (less than half a teaspoon) will flow from the container when it is\ninverted and shaken or squeezed once. Also, the standard would require that 85\n\npercent of a test group of,200 children (ages 41 to 52 months) be unable to\n\n-MORE-\n\n\n \n\n-2-\n\nopen the container and that 80 percent fail after a demonstration of how to\nopen it. Ninety percent of a test group of 100 adults must be able to open\nand close the container.\n\nThe proposed regulations, which have been reviewed by the\nPoison Prevention Packaging Act technical advisory committee, will be published\nin the September 29,,197l issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER. Interested persons\nmay, within 30 days, file comments with the Hearing Clerk, Room 6-88,\n\n5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852.\n\n# # #\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n1;. S DiLPARTMii; \"1“ OF HEALTH, EUUCATEON. AND WELFARE,\nPunLurnnAIJiisrnkuc\nLOODANDDRUGADMWHWRKHON\nRockwnc,Maryund 20852 '\n\nRobert T. De Vore: 301~443-3434\nHome: 301-493-4216\nVaiorie A. Wood: 301-443-2504\n\n71-59 . Home: 301-460-9663\nFOR RELEASE IN A.M. PAPERS\n\nFRIDAY - OCTOBER 8, 1971\n\nThe Food and Drug Administration proposed today to require that .\n\nequipment manufactured for x ray diagnosis in the healing arts incorporate\n\nnew radiation controi 1eatures to reduce patient and operator exposure\nduring x-ray examinations.\n\nThe action was taken by pubiication in the Federai Reaister of a\nproposed performance standard covering both medical and dentai diagnostic\nx-ray equipment: The standard was deveioped by the FDA Bureau of Radio-\nIogicai Heaith under the Radiation Centre? for Health and Safety Act.\n\n' X-ray examinations, the FDA noted, constitute the iargest singie\nsource of man-made radiation reaching the American peopie.\n\n,\"whiie the beneficiaT appiications of x radiation in the heaiing\narts are weil recognized, exposures_frem diagnostic x—ray procedures‘\nhave far more pubiic heaith significance than exposures from aii other\nman-made radiation sources,” said Charies C. Edwards, M.D., Food and\nDrug Commissioner. “More than 90 percent of a1? human exposure to man-\nmade radiation comes from the diagnostic use of X ray in contrast with\nabout one percent from radioactiVe discharges from nuclear power piants\n\nabout which there has been so much pubiic concern.“\n\n(more)\n\n\n \n\n- 2 -\n\nI _Twogprovisions_of the standard are regarded as representing.out—\nstanding progress in diagnostic x-ray exposure control. One would require\nstationary general purpose x-ray machines to be designed to insure\nlimitation of the beam to approximately the size of the body area to be\nexamined. The other would require radiographic (film using) equipment to\nbe able consistently to reproduce exposure and, therefore, image quality\nfor given settings for voltage, current, and time.\n\nFailure to keep the xeray beam within the area of the body undergoing\ndiagnostic examination is one of the commonest causes of unnecessary x-ray\nexposure; Bureau of Radiological Health studies show, for example, that\na reduction of as much as 50 percent or more in the genetically significant\ndose from diagnostic x ray can result from limiting the beam to approximately\nthe size of the film or other x-ray receptor. The genetically significant\ndose is the dose that may be harmful to future generations.\n\nThe exposure reproducibility requirement of the standard would enable\nthe technologist to know with greater confidence than is now possible what\nresults to expect.at various-equipment¥settings-and thus to avoid picture\nretakes, also a common cause of unnecessary diagnostic x-ray exposure.\n\nBeam limitation in stationary general purpose equipment would have ‘\nto be insured, under the proposed standard, either by the incorporation of\ndevices for automatically adjusting the beam to film or receptor size or\nby the use of interlocking systems that would prevent x rays from being\nproduced until the eQuipment has been manually adjusted to restrict the\nbeam. Other types of diagnostic x-ray equipment also would have to\n\n(more)\n\n\n \n\n_ 2'-\n\n_ JTwo provisions of the standard are regarded as representing.out-\nstanding progress in diagnostic x-ray exposure control. One would require\nstationary generai'purpose x-ray machines to be designed to insure\nTimitation of the beam to approximateiy the size of the body area to be\nexamined. The other wouid require radiographic (fiTm using) equipment to\nbe abie consistently to reproduce exposure and, therefore, image quaTity\nfor giyen settings for voTtage, current, and time. V\n\nFaiiure to keep the xeray beam within the area of the body undergoing\ndiagnostic examination is one of the commonest causes of unnecessary x-ray\nexposure. Bureau of RadioTOQicaT HeaTth studies show. for exampie, that\na reduction of as much as 50 percent or more in the geneticaiiy significant\ndose from diagnostic x ray can resuit from iimiting the beam to approximately\nthe size of the fiim or other x-ray receptor. The geneticaiiy significant\ndose is the dose that may be harmfui to future generations.\n\nThe exposure reproducibiiity requirement of the standard would enabie\nthe technoiogist to know with greater confidence than is now possibie what\nresults to expect.at various equipment settings and thus-to avoid picture\nretakes, also a common cause of unnecessary diagnostic x—ray exposure.\n\nBeam Timitation in stationary generai purpose equipment woqu have\nto be insured, under the proposed standard, either by the incorporation of\ndevices for automaticaTTy adjusting the beam to fiim or receptor size or\nby the use of interiocking systems that wouid prevent x rays from being\n\n,produced untii the equipment has been manuaiiy adjusted to restrict the\nbeam. Other types of diagnostic x-ray equipment aTso wouid have to\n\n>(more)\n\n\n-3-\n\nprovide for beam restriction, but means other than automatic or interlocked\nrestriction could be used.\n\nThe proposed standard also would limit the amount of leakage from\nx-ray sources in diagnostic equipment. This would be TOO milliroentgens\nin one hour measured at one meter in any direction from the source. The\nproposed limitation, the FDA said, is \"in substantial accord\" with\nrecommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and\nMeasurements and the International Commission on Radiological Protection.\n\nThe FDA added that the proposed radiation leakage limit is considered\nto be appropriate “in view of the small exposures from leakage radiation\nrelative to other sources of x radiation to which the patient is exposed\nduring a diagnostic examination.”\n\nThe leakage limitation would apply to the x-ray tube within its\n\nhousing and with a beam-limiting device in place, rather than in terms\n\nof a single component, such as the tube. Manufacturers of beam-limiting\n\ndevices would be required to specify tube housing assemblies with which\ntheir products would be compatible in terms of leakage limitation\ncompliance.\n\nX4ray equipment manufacturers would be given a year following the\neffective date of the standard to produce equipment complying with its\nprovisions. The proposed standard would become effective upon republication\n\nin the Federal Reoister after 60 days for public comment.\n\n# # # # # # # #\n\n",
"doc_type": "pr"
}
]For count queries (such as: https://api.fda.gov/other/historicaldocument.json?count=year), the results section will look something like the following:
{
"meta": {
"disclaimer": "Do not rely on openFDA to make decisions regarding medical care. While we make every effort to ensure that data is accurate, you should assume all results are unvalidated. We may limit or otherwise restrict your access to the API in line with our Terms of Service.",
"terms": "https://open.fda.gov/terms/",
"license": "https://open.fda.gov/license/",
"last_updated": "2024-03-20"
},
"results": [
{
"term": 2010,
"count": 262
},
{
"term": 2006,
"count": 248
},
{
"term": 2009,
"count": 245
},
{
"term": 2011,
"count": 231
},
{
"term": 2007,
"count": 227
},
{
"term": 2003,
"count": 209
},
{
"term": 2008,
"count": 183
},
{
"term": 1973,
"count": 180
},
{
"term": 1977,
"count": 171
},
{
"term": 2012,
"count": 162
},
{
"term": 2014,
"count": 162
},
{
"term": 1982,
"count": 161
},
{
"term": 2004,
"count": 161
},
{
"term": 2013,
"count": 160
},
{
"term": 1967,
"count": 159
},
{
"term": 1998,
"count": 154
},
{
"term": 1989,
"count": 148
},
{
"term": 1986,
"count": 147
},
{
"term": 2005,
"count": 146
},
{
"term": 1974,
"count": 145
},
{
"term": 1975,
"count": 142
},
{
"term": 1976,
"count": 141
},
{
"term": 1984,
"count": 138
},
{
"term": 1997,
"count": 136
},
{
"term": 1988,
"count": 134
},
{
"term": 1992,
"count": 133
},
{
"term": 1968,
"count": 132
},
{
"term": 2002,
"count": 131
},
{
"term": 1985,
"count": 129
},
{
"term": 1993,
"count": 127
},
{
"term": 1990,
"count": 123
},
{
"term": 1978,
"count": 122
},
{
"term": 1980,
"count": 121
},
{
"term": 1991,
"count": 121
},
{
"term": 1972,
"count": 113
},
{
"term": 1971,
"count": 109
},
{
"term": 2000,
"count": 105
},
{
"term": 1994,
"count": 102
},
{
"term": 1999,
"count": 102
},
{
"term": 1983,
"count": 100
},
{
"term": 1962,
"count": 97
},
{
"term": 1987,
"count": 94
},
{
"term": 1979,
"count": 93
},
{
"term": 1996,
"count": 92
},
{
"term": 1970,
"count": 91
},
{
"term": 1961,
"count": 90
},
{
"term": 1995,
"count": 89
},
{
"term": 1963,
"count": 85
},
{
"term": 1959,
"count": 83
},
{
"term": 1969,
"count": 80
},
{
"term": 1929,
"count": 75
},
{
"term": 1964,
"count": 74
},
{
"term": 1981,
"count": 72
},
{
"term": 1913,
"count": 70
},
{
"term": 1960,
"count": 69
},
{
"term": 1914,
"count": 66
},
{
"term": 1930,
"count": 64
},
{
"term": 1931,
"count": 61
},
{
"term": 1965,
"count": 60
},
{
"term": 1924,
"count": 55
},
{
"term": 1919,
"count": 53
},
{
"term": 1925,
"count": 53
},
{
"term": 1916,
"count": 49
},
{
"term": 1936,
"count": 48
},
{
"term": 1957,
"count": 47
},
{
"term": 1920,
"count": 43
},
{
"term": 1923,
"count": 43
},
{
"term": 1915,
"count": 42
},
{
"term": 1922,
"count": 41
},
{
"term": 1932,
"count": 40
},
{
"term": 1958,
"count": 40
},
{
"term": 1933,
"count": 39
},
{
"term": 1926,
"count": 37
},
{
"term": 1935,
"count": 36
},
{
"term": 1956,
"count": 36
},
{
"term": 2001,
"count": 36
},
{
"term": 1918,
"count": 35
},
{
"term": 1941,
"count": 35
},
{
"term": 1955,
"count": 34
},
{
"term": 1939,
"count": 32
},
{
"term": 1928,
"count": 31
},
{
"term": 1934,
"count": 31
},
{
"term": 1954,
"count": 31
},
{
"term": 1927,
"count": 30
},
{
"term": 1921,
"count": 29
},
{
"term": 1940,
"count": 27
},
{
"term": 1938,
"count": 26
},
{
"term": 1953,
"count": 26
},
{
"term": 1917,
"count": 24
},
{
"term": 1951,
"count": 22
},
{
"term": 1950,
"count": 18
},
{
"term": 1942,
"count": 16
},
{
"term": 1937,
"count": 14
},
{
"term": 1944,
"count": 10
},
{
"term": 1948,
"count": 10
},
{
"term": 1949,
"count": 5
},
{
"term": 1947,
"count": 4
},
{
"term": 1945,
"count": 2
},
{
"term": 1946,
"count": 1
}
]
}