Pet Toy Safety in 2026: What the Market Now Expects from Brands and Manufacturers

By: QIMA

Jun 24, 2026

The global pet care market has grown consistently for over a decade, placing pet toy safety at the center of that expansion. In the US alone, pet product sales top $150 billion annually, with toys and accessories among the fastest-growing sub-categories. But as the market expands, so do the risks - and so do the safety standards buyers, retailers, and regulators expect brands to meet.

Unlike children's toys, pet toys are not subject to a single mandatory safety framework in most markets. There is no equivalent to the EU's Toy Safety Directive or the US Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) that applies exclusively to pet products. Yet this regulatory gap does not mean anything goes. It means that the compliance burden is more fragmented, more driven by retailer requirements, and, in the absence of a clear legal minimum, more dependent on brands proactively demonstrating that their products are safe.

For manufacturers and brands supplying global markets, understanding the hazards in pet toys, the frameworks that apply, and what buyers require is no longer optional. It is a prerequisite for accessing premium retail channels and building lasting consumer trust.

This blog covers:

Why the regulatory gap around pet toys creates commercial risk
The most common hazards found in pet toys and why they matter
What US and EU frameworks apply in practice
What major retailers and buyers require from suppliers
Why independent third-party certification is becoming a market baseline

The Pet Toy Safety Regulatory Gap — and Why It Creates Risk

In the United States, federal oversight of pet toys is limited. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has broad authority to act on consumer products that pose unreasonable risks, but there is no dedicated mandatory safety standard for pet toys. ASTM International's subcommittee F15.05, formed in 2022, has been developing the first international standards specifically for dog toys and pet safety products, an acknowledgment from the standards community that this gap is real and commercially significant.

In the European Union, the picture is similar. The EU's REACH Regulation (EC No 1907/2006) applies to all consumer articles, including pet toys, and imposes restrictions on hazardous chemical substances. But there is no pet-toy-specific directive that mandates CE marking or prescribes test methods for physical safety.

This creates a compliance landscape that is defined less by law and more by market expectations. Major retailers, including large e-commerce platforms and specialist pet chains, have stepped into this gap with their own supplier requirements. Many now mandate third-party test reports from ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratories as a condition of listing. Some specify that test reports must be current, meaning outdated documentation will not pass supplier audits. For brands without a structured quality and testing program, meeting these demands reactively is slow, expensive, and risky.

The direction of travel is also clear: as pet ownership grows and consumer awareness of product safety increases, regulatory frameworks are being tightened. ASTM's ongoing standards development, combined with increasing state-level chemical restrictions in the US, signals that what is voluntary today may become mandatory tomorrow.

Key Pet Toy Safety Hazards: What Testing Must Address

Pet toys present a broad range of safety risks. A credible Pet Toy Safety testing program must cover three dimensions: physical and mechanical performance, chemical content, and durability under real-world use.

Physical and Mechanical Hazards

Mechanical failures are the most visible cause of pet toy recalls. The most common issues include:

Small detachable parts. Components that can be chewed off and swallowed pose serious choking and intestinal injury risks. This is particularly acute for toys with buttons, eyes, squeakers, or decorative attachments.
Insufficient tensile and seam strength. Stitching and joints on plush and rope toys must withstand sustained biting and pulling forces. Seam failures under normal use are common in factory testing.
Sharp edges and points. Metal and wooden toys, as well as extremely hard or brittle plastic components, can create sharp edges or points if poorly finished, damaged, or broken. These hazards can cause oral, paw, and eye injuries, making edge and point testing an important part of mechanical safety evaluation.
Inadequate bite resistance. For toys marketed to aggressive chewers, durability testing must reflect the actual forces involved. Toys that fragment under normal chewing create ingestion and puncture risks.

Chemical Hazards

Because pets chew, mouth, and carry their toys constantly, chemical exposure from toy materials is a significant and often underappreciated risk. Testing should screen for:

Heavy metals. Lead, cadmium, and chromium VI in surface coatings and colorants are among the most tightly regulated substances in consumer products globally. Inexpensive imported toys have been found with lead levels well above safe limits for children's products.
Phthalates. These plasticizers, commonly used in PVC and vinyl components, are restricted under EU REACH and several US state laws. They are a frequent failure point in plastic pet toy components.
Azo dyes and PAHs. Carcinogenic compounds can be present in textile dyes and rubber materials. Saliva and sweat migration testing assess whether these substances transfer from the toy during normal use.
Bisphenol A (BPA). California expanded restrictions on BPA effective January 2026 (SB-1266), and similar restrictions are expanding across US states. Plastic components in pet toys should be evaluated against current and upcoming limits.

The chemical risk profile for pet toys is often compared to children's products precisely because of this oral exposure pattern. The same logic that drives strict chemical limits in children's toys applies directly to products that animals chew on for extended periods.

What Applies in the US Market

While there is no single mandatory standard for pet toys at the federal level, several regulatory frameworks are relevant to pet toy manufacturers and importers selling into the US:

TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). The EPA's chemical reporting requirements under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) extend to manufacturers and importers of articles containing PFAS and other restricted substances. As TSCA enforcement expands, pet toy supply chains are increasingly in scope.
California Proposition 65. Products sold in California that contain chemicals on the Prop 65 list above threshold levels require warning labels. In March 2025 alone, 358 sixty-day notices were issued for lead, phthalates, and other chemicals in products including pet goods. Any brand with California distribution must test against current Prop 65 thresholds.
Button cell battery regulations. 16 CFR Part 1263 applies to electronic pet toys containing button cell or coin batteries. Given the severe injury risk from battery ingestion, this is a non-negotiable compliance requirement for any electronic pet toy category.
Retailer requirements. Major US retailers including PetSmart, Petco, and Chewy have their own supplier codes that reference ASTM F963 chemical requirements and CPSC guidelines as benchmarks for chemical safety in pet products. Compliance with these retailer codes is effectively mandatory for any brand seeking mainstream distribution.

Looking ahead, ASTM's F15.05 subcommittee is actively developing dedicated consumer safety specifications for dog toys. When published, these standards are expected to become the reference point for US retailer requirements and could eventually be incorporated into regulatory frameworks.

What Applies in the EU Market

The EU's regulatory environment for pet toys is primarily driven by chemical substance restrictions, with EN 71 standards widely used as a practical benchmark even where not legally mandated.

REACH Regulation (EC No 1907/2006). REACH is the main framework governing hazardous chemical substances in all articles sold in the EU, including pet toys. Manufacturers must ensure materials comply with current SVHC (substances of very high concern) restrictions and Candidate List disclosure obligations. The REACH Candidate List is updated regularly, and brands must keep pace with new additions.
EN 71 as a testing benchmark. While EN 71, the European toy safety standard series, is not legally required for pet toys, its chemical migration limits (EN 71-3) and mechanical and physical safety requirements (EN 71-1) are the most widely used reference points by EU retailers and buyers. The updated EN 71-1:2026, published in January 2026, introduces revised mechanical requirements that suppliers should be aware of.
EU Toy Safety Regulation (2025/2509). The new EU Toy Safety Regulation, which replaces the 2009 Toy Safety Directive from 2030, reinforces EN 71 as the harmonized safety reference and signals the long-term direction of EU product safety policy. Pet toy brands supplying EU markets should align to these standards now rather than waiting for a mandatory transition.

For brands exporting to both the US and EU, the practical approach is to test against the strictest applicable requirements from both markets. A single well-structured testing program that covers both frameworks is more efficient than managing separate compliance tracks and reduces the risk of market-specific gaps.

What Retailers and Buyers Require

Understanding the regulatory environment is one part of the picture. But for most brands, the more immediate compliance pressure comes from the commercial supply chain, specifically from what buyers and retailers require as a condition of doing business.

The baseline requirement across major retail channels has shifted from self-declaration to third-party evidence. Buyers want:

Test reports from accredited laboratories. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is the recognized standard for laboratory competence. Test results from non-accredited labs are increasingly rejected during supplier qualification.
Current documentation. Test reports must reflect the current product specification. Reports older than 12 months, or reports that do not match the current Bill of Materials, are routinely flagged during retailer audits.
Production verification. Increasingly, buyers want evidence that a product sample passed a test and the factory producing it has consistent quality controls. Factory inspection reports and audit documentation are becoming standard requirements at the supplier qualification stage.
Consumer-facing proof of quality. For retail shelf and e-commerce listings, a visible third-party mark on packaging signals to consumers that the product has been independently verified, reducing return rates and building brand credibility.

Brands that approach certification reactively, scrambling to produce documentation when a retailer asks, consistently find the process more expensive and disruptive than those who build it into their product development cycle. The cost of compliance is fixed; the cost of non-compliance, in the form of rejected shipments, delisted products, or recalls, is not.

The Role of Third-Party Certification

Third-party product certification goes beyond a single test report. A robust certification scheme combines initial laboratory testing of the product with ongoing surveillance of the manufacturing process, ensuring that what was tested reflects what is being produced at scale.

The international reference for product certification schemes is ISO/IEC 17067. Type 3 certification under this standard, which includes both product type testing by an accredited laboratory and factory surveillance, is the most credible form of certification for consumer goods, including pet toys. It means:

The product has been evaluated against recognized safety requirements by an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory.
The manufacturer's production facility has been assessed and approved before the certificate is issued.
Production quality is monitored through regular factory inspections, not just at launch.
Certified products are authorized to carry a test mark, providing a consumer-visible signal of independent verification.

For pet toy brands, this level of certification addresses the full range of what retailers, buyers, and consumers are increasingly asking for, in a single structured program that covers US, European, and global market requirements.

Conclusion

The pet toy market is growing, and the safety expectations that come with that growth are rising in parallel. The absence of a single global mandatory standard does not simplify the compliance picture, it fragments it, creating a patchwork of retailer requirements, state-level chemical laws, and evolving standards that brands must navigate simultaneously.

The brands that build structured safety and certification programs into their product development process, rather than treating compliance as a last-minute checklist, will be better positioned to access premium retail channels, enter new markets, and respond to the inevitable tightening of requirements ahead.

If you are a pet toy manufacturer or brand looking to build a credible compliance program and strengthen your market positioning, QIMA's testing and certification services are designed to help, from lab testing against US, EU, and global protocols to third-party certification with factory surveillance. Reach out to our team to learn more.

Request a quote or visit our Test Mark page

Frequently Asked Questions

Are pet toys legally required to meet safety standards in the US or EU?

There is no single mandatory safety standard that applies exclusively to pet toys in either the US or the EU. However, federal and state-level chemical regulations apply to all consumer products, including pet toys, and major retailers in both markets typically require third-party test evidence as a condition of listing. The regulatory gap does not reduce the compliance burden; it shifts it from law to commercial requirement.

What are the most common safety failures in pet toys?

The most frequent failure points are mechanical (small parts that detach and pose choking or ingestion risks, insufficient seam, and tensile strength) and chemical (heavy metals in surface coatings, restricted phthalates in plastic components, azo dye contamination in textiles). Bite force durability failures are also common for toys marketed to aggressive chewers.

Why do retailers require test reports from ISO/IEC 17025 accredited labs?

ISO/IEC 17025 is the international standard for the technical competence of testing laboratories. Accreditation under this standard means a lab's methods, equipment, and procedures have been independently verified. Retailers require accredited lab reports because they provide a credible, defensible basis for supplier qualification - results from non-accredited labs carry no such assurance and are routinely rejected during audits.

What is the difference between a test report and a product certification?

A test report documents the results of testing a specific sample at a point in time. A product certification combines that laboratory evaluation with an assessment of the manufacturing process, verifying that the factory producing the product has the quality controls to consistently manufacture it to the tested specification. Certification also typically includes ongoing factory surveillance and authorizes use of a certification mark on packaging.

What is the QIMA Mark for Pet Toys?

The QIMA Mark is a third-party product certification mark based on a Type 3 scheme under ISO/IEC 17067. For pet toys, it covers laboratory testing against US, European, and global safety protocols, combined with factory inspection and annual surveillance. Products that earn the mark are authorized to display it on packaging as a consumer-facing signal of independent verification. Contact the QIMA team for details on scope and eligibility.

Do the same chemical limits that apply to children's toys apply to pet toys?

Not automatically. There is no regulation that directly extends children's toy chemical limits to pet toys. However, because pets chew, mouth, and carry toys in the same way young children do, the same logic around oral exposure applies. Most credible pet toy testing programs reference EN 71-3 (chemical migration) and relevant REACH restrictions as the chemical safety benchmark, and this approach is increasingly what buyers and retailers expect.