Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Paper Products ranks #105 of 838 by danger score (42/100) at ER-volume #97 of 838 (27,645/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #105
- danger rank of 838
- #97
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 42/100
- danger score
- 27,645/yr
- estimated ER visits (avg)
Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.
Where this category's danger score sits nationally
Danger score (42/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
42 Higher than most more dangerous than 84% of 838 product categories
scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value
Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.
Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024
Composite verdict
Composite Safety Score: 74/100
One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 9 | 72nd | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 27,645 | 87th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -13% | 46th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 75 | 78th | 20% | CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count |
Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.
Where 552,908 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1137. Segments sum to 552,908 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.
Two danger lenses
Same-group peer scores and this product's dial
The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Containers & Packaging group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.
Containers & Packaging danger scores
How this 42/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for paper products - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 27,645 ER visits/yr High volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 8.9% Above median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.01% Low fatality rate
- 5-year trend-13%
Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for paper products are declining by about 13% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2018 (34,319 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2007 (23,043 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is foreign body to the ear, accounting for approximately 81,747 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by foreign body to the face (64,561 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 114,567 cases over the NEISS window, and females appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 8.9% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.01%) result in fatality.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 75 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how paper products fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 51,242 | 63,325 | |
| 5-14 | 53,952 | 43,563 | |
| 15-24 | 16,132 | 18,427 | |
| 25-34 | 16,713 | 23,571 | |
| 35-44 | 16,486 | 23,440 | |
| 45-54 | 16,041 | 22,773 | |
| 55-64 | 16,853 | 23,610 | |
| 65-74 | 14,541 | 24,534 | |
| 75+ | 38,256 | 69,389 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Ear | Foreign Body | |
| Face | Foreign Body | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Lower Trunk | Strain, Sprain | |
| Internal | Ingestion | |
| Lower Trunk | Fracture | |
| Lower Trunk | Other | |
| Internal | Aspiration | |
| Face | Laceration | |
| Upper Trunk | Other | |
| Face | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Head | Laceration | |
| Lower Trunk | Contusions, Abr. |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
88YOF HAD A MECHANICAL TRIP AND FALL WHILE TRYING TO GET HER MAIL FALLING FORWARD AND ATTEMPTED TO CATCH HERSELF WITH RIGHT HAND DX: LACERATION OF RIGHT WRIST; SKIN TEAR TO RIGHT HAND; SKIN TEAR TO RIGHT KNEE
6MOM CHILD ATE A BUNCH OF TOILET PAPER, VOMITING DX: VOMITNG IN PEDIATRIC PATIENT
12 YOM WITH A PIECE OF PAPER IN EAR. DX FB EAR
50YOF C/O RIGHT LUMBAR MUSCLE PAIN FOR 2 DAYS. 2 DAYS AGO WAS BENDING DOWN TO PICK UP A NAPKIN AND ABOUT AN HOUR LATER NOTICED LEFT LUMBAR PAIN. DX: LUMBAR BACK PAIN
3YOF STUCK A PIECE OF TISSUE PAPER IN LEFT EAR DX: FOREIGN BODY EAR
10 MOF COMES TO ED WITH A STICKER STUCK TO ROOF OF HER MOUTH, DX: FOREIGN BODY MOUTH
4YOM STUCK A PIECE OF PAPER IN HIS RIGHT EAR DX: FOREIGN BODY EAR
8 YOF ROLLED UP SOME PAPER AND PUT IT INTO HER RIGHT EAR THIS MORNING. DX: FOREIGN BODY RIGHT EXTERNAL EAR CANAL
84YOF PT STATES SOME PAPERS FELL TO FLOOR & SHE WENT TO PICK THEM UP, SLIPPED & FELL; STRUCK FACE & LEFT TORSO; C/O LEFT FOOT & LEFT LEG PAIN NO DX
2YOF PRESENTS WITH A HEAD INJURY S/P PT'S MOTHER STATES THE PT SLIPPED AND FELL BACKWARDS TODAY AROUD NOON HITTING HER HEAD AT HOME WHILE RUNNING IN THE KITCHEN. PT SLIPPED AND FELL ON A PIECE OF PAPER. DX: HEAD INJURY
3YOF STUCK A PIECE OF WRAPPING PAPER IN NOSTRIL DX: FOREIGN BODY NOSE
101 YOF FROM HOME WENT TO GET THE MAIL. SHE WAS WALKING UP THE STAIRS WHEN SHE SLIPPED ON A PIECE OF MAIL AND LOST HER BALANCE AND TRIPPED BACKWARDS. SHE STRUCK HER HEAD ON A THIN WOODEN CABINET AND LANDED ON HER BACK AND BUTTOCKS. C/O SEVERE PAIN IN LEFT HIP DX RIGHT 5-7 AND LEFT 5-6 RIB FX, LEFT SACRAL ALA FX, LEFT INFERIOR PUBIC RAMUS FX, LEFT ANTERIOR ACETABULUM FX
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
I was in the process of warming food (chicken) in the microwave on a Walmart Brand Great Value microwavable paper plate. - 110 plate package. The food was on the plate in the microwave no more than 45 seconds and a flame presented, burning the plate and causing me to open the microwave to extinguish the flame. I was able to blow the flame out. Luckily I was standing in the kitchen while the incident took place, as the food was timed for 1.5 minutes. I'm still not certain why the plate would catch fire and have also requested the microwave be inspected. I do have photos of the plate and the microwave was clean. I was very concerned regarding this issue as others might encounter the same problem or I may have walked about from the unit and not have seen the beginning of the fire. This is very disturbing and I never would have used the plate in the microwave if I had known this was a possibility. Thank you.
Two boxes of tissues emitted a chemical smell that made an 86 year old consumer feel unwell. Her blood pressure increased from 112/40 to 200/90 or 200/100. Her pulse increase from 60 to 90-100.
I purchased some wax paper at the Dollar Store ( 65 s.f. of Durable Wax Paper, distributed by Greenbriar Intl., Inc., of Chesapeake, VA 23320) and today I used it, as advertised on the box, for microwaving. I wanted to reheat a slab of baked tofu and some broccoli florets, so I placed them on a plate ([REDACTED]) and covered them with a sheet of the waxed paper, setting the MW for one minute on 70% power. Imagine my surprise when I smelled something burning - sure enough, I looked in the MW and the waxed paper was pretty much ashes all over my food. The food, however, was just fine, warm enough to eat but not burned itself or even piping hot. I think this stuff is dangerous. I don't know why it flamed out like that, and I can't remember it ever having done that before, but if it advertises itself as microwavable, it needs to hold to that standard. Report Update 09/25: Consumer states via email update "I now believe the wax paper got caught underneath the turntable of the microwave. The food was rotated but the paper was not and so it burned."
Caller says that for weeks she has noticed a strange odor in and around certain spots of her home but could not figure it out. About one week ago the caller went to go reach for the toilet paper thats located in the garage and noticed that the strange smell coming from the product. Caller says that it gave her a violent headache from the odor as soon as she opened the plastic. Caller says that the product is stored inside of the garage and the smell is noticed from inside of the house close to the garage door. Caller wants to warns other consumers about the odors in the product and the headaches that this product has caused. Caller contacted the manufacturer and they offered her a $16 gift card and offered apologies to the consumer.
August 23, 2016 Proctor & Gamble Distributing, LLC PO Box 599 Cincinatti, OH, 45201 On Saturday, August 13, 2016 1 was visiting my brother and sister-in-law at their [REDACTED] rented house when I picked up a roll of Bounty/Dawn paper towels and tore off a couple pieces. The plastic wrapper had been removed and the paper towel roll was on the counter looking like any normal roll of paper towels. It was unseasonably hot and I tore off a few pieces of the paper towel to wipe my brow and carry with me. Within a half hour I began to experience a burning sensation in my eyes which grew more and more severe over the next half hour. It became so painful that I could barely blink without experiencing excruciating pain. My eyes became alarmingly reddened. My wife, brother and sister-in-law became justifiably concerned, as was I. We stopped at a pharmacy and bought eye wash which I used in earnest for the next hour. I also showered and attempted to further flush my eyes. We were ready to find a clinic or emergency room as I was afraid that my eyes might be experiencing lasting damage. After further flushing the severe pain subsided somewhat and by nightfall I could keep my eyes open again without intense pain. I had absolutely no idea what had caused the severe burns to my eyes until the next morning. The next morning my wife picked up another piece of the Bounty/Dawn paper towels to dry her hands after dish washing. She immediately noticed a film on her hands which she was able to rinse off. Only then did we surmise that there was soap embedded in the paper towels and that this had been the cause of my eye injury. You responded to my initial notification of this incident with a letter from a [REDACTED] on the "Bounty Team copy of which is enclosed. She also sent me a coupon worth $11.00 toward Bounty products. I am returning that coupon herewith. The pain and suffering I experienced was severe and frightening for me and my family. An $11 .00 coupon is
When recently using a new box of Puffs Lotion Tissues - 3 pack/21.3cm x 20.8cm (Procter & Gamble) I noticed a very strong chemical smell from the tissues. The odor reminded me of a lemon scented cleaning chemical. When I took the first tissue from the box and used it, I was overwhelmed by the chemical smell, and it gave me a headache. I also experienced a burning sensation on my top lip, where the tissue came in contact with my lip. I continue to feel the burning sensation on my top lip 16 hours after coming in contact with the product. The chemical smell from the box of tissues (all the boxes have the same lemon scented chemical smell) was so overpowering when it was near my bed, approximately 1 foot from my head, that I had to remove the tissues from my immediate sleeping area. My children also complained of the chemical smell on the tissues. I purchased two packages of the Puffs Lotion Tissues - 3 pack yesterday (August 16, 2012) and the other package, on inspection, also has the strong lemony chemical smell. Both packages were securely wrapped in plastic when they were purchased.
This consumer is reporting a 24 roll of toilet tissue that he purchased from retailer in Topeka, Kansas around July 28, 2017. The caller opened the package during the first week in August, 2017 and noticed it had a splotch of something on it that he noticed after his first use. He removed the roll of toilet tissue then showed it to his wife who took out a new roll from the same package but saw that it had a light spray of small dots of the same type of stain. He contacted the manufacturer who advised him to return the first roll of toilet tissue but not the second. [REDACTED] who is the Product Liability was his contact but [REDACTED] was not keeping in touch with him so he went to [REDACTED] Supervisor who verified for him that the substance on the toilet tissue was blood. [REDACTED] supervisor verified that the substance on the toilet tissue was blood. The consumer asked if he could check this same stain for disease and the manufacturer responded that they did not have that type of equipment. [REDACTED] asked the caller what he expected from the manufacturer. He answered that he would ask that he become reimbursed, that his medical bills be paid, compensated for his emotional distress because he already had PTSD and emotional distress. He states that now he is afraid to touch his wife children and is constantly worried about which is causing him more distress. He does plan to have his blood checked for communicable diseases. I thought to refer him to the health department or FDA however he was very distressed and I didn't want to upset him further. After checking to find that we had reports regarding this product I went ahead with tis one.
On 4/9/10 the consumer's daughter swallowed the white circular paper material inside a Mr. Bubble Bath bottle cap. While the consumer's wife was bathing her daughter she saw her daughter swallow it. The consumer took his daughter to King's Daughters Hospital emergency room located 823 Grand Ave Yazoo City, MS 39194. The doctor examined the child and advised the consumer that the white circular paper material inside the bottle cap that his daughter swallowed would pass threw. The consumer's daughter went home the same day. The consumer states during the next 2 years he noticed that his daughter experienced shortness of breathe and would regurgitate her food on several different occasions. In 2012 the consumer took his daughter to Blair E. Batson Children's Hospital in Jackson MS and a doctor conducted a Barium test. The doctor advised the consumer that something obstructed his daughter's esophagus and made a pouch. The consumer's daughter had surgery to remove the white circular paper material that she swallowed. The consumer's daughter stayed a few days in the hospital. The consumer's daughter has gone for a yearly examination since her surgery as directed by the doctor. The consumer states that the white circular paper material found inside a bottle cap poses a safety hazard due to it not being detected in an X-ray. The consumer states this piece of white circular paper material inside a bottle cap is found in many different bottled containers. The consumer has not contacted the manufacturer and does not plan to. He does not have the bottle of Mr. Bubble Bath but has the white circular paper material that was inside the bottle cap which his daughter swallowed.
Showing 8 of 75 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to paper products on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Containers & Packaging
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Paper Products: cross-group products nearest on danger score (42/100), estimated annual ER visits (27,645/yr), and hospitalization share (8.9%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
- Bench Or Table Saws Home Communication & Entertainment 8.9%admitted
- Clotheslines Or Clothes Drying Racks Building Materials & Home Structures 8.9%admitted
- Gas Fumes Or Gas Vapors Of Unknown Origin Building Materials & Home Structures 8.9%admitted
- Painting Equip., Powered (sprayers, Rollers, Brushes) Home Communication & Entertainment 8.9%admitted
Related Products in Containers & Packaging
Read with this product
About this data
CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.
According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Paper Products ranks #105 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #97 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does paper products rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, paper products ranks #105 by PlainSafety danger score (42/100) and #97 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (27,645/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from paper products?
The most common injury is foreign body to the ear, accounting for approximately 81,747 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from paper products increasing or decreasing?
Down 13% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for paper products injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 114,567 cases recorded over 20 years. Females are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by paper products?
Of all ER visits involving paper products, approximately 8.9% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (91.1%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with paper products?
You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.
PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.