Are Pet Toys Regulated?

Laws Regulating Pet Toys

There are virtually no federal or state laws, which expressly apply solely to the manufacture and sale of pet toys. However as a result of past consumer concerns it is possible that in the future there may be limitations on the amount of lead and/or other chemicals contained in pet toys. Below are some of the emerging issues and considerations to ensure your product is safe.
 
Although pet toys are “consumer goods” the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has stated that the agency does not have the resources or the mandate to regulate pet products unless a person is injured from the product.  The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008  gave the CPSC  additional authority to regulate childrens' products  including reducing allowable lead content, increasing funding for the CPSC,  and provisions for additional penalties for violations. Although no mention of pet products is made in the Act, a Committee report in the negotiations for the Act discussed whether the CPSC had the mandate to look at the safety of pet products and it may be an area of increasing focus.  Because there are no specific pet toy laws or regulations this Web Page discusses the requirements for similar products: childrens toys.


Because pet toys could be used by children, and are often in households with children present you  may chose to have your product meet the specifications set forth by the CPSC for lead and other hazards in children’s toys and other children’s products.  Compliance with this standard, or  similar standards may also be required by some retailers to ensure that products meet their specifications. However, note that these standards are  legally required for children’s products and are not legally required for pet products.

Another issue relating to pet toys is plastic softeners also known as phthalates.  Some consumers have expressed concern with these chemicals as many consider them endocrine disrupters.  Numerous states and foreign governments have begun to consider regulations regarding these chemicals solely with regard to children’s products, such as toys and baby bottles.

Phthalates and Other Plastic Softeners

Phthlates have been getting a lot of attention with regard to children's toys and baby bottles. Phthalates, and associated chemicals such as bisphenol-a are often added to plastic products to make them more flexible. 

There is concern that this group of chemicals may cause reproductive problems and may be considered endocrine disruptors. Phthalates are regulated in numerous countries and the European Union, which banned the chemical in toys in 1999. Recently Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed the law that will ban the use of phthalates in toys designed for children under the age of 3.

The effect of phthalates in toys for pets has been studied.  The Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research sponsored by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency showed that toys for pets may be a source of phthalates. The Agency advises reducing the usage of these toys especially during gestation and in case of little puppies. Another study confirmed  that toys and training devices are potential sources of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in pet dogs.

Whether regulation of phthalates will increase to the realm of pet toys is unknown.  What is known is that consumer groups are having an impact on the retailers who are choosing not to carry certain products with these chemicals. 

Lead Paint Issues

During 2007 and 2008 after the pet food recalls and the recall of children's toys due to lead paint concerns, some journalists and consumer groups had pet toys tested to determine whether those toys contained lead.  Numerous news reports were circulated confirming that there were some pet toys on the market that had positive levels of lead. However, the toys tested that had levels of lead, the vast majority were not considered high levels under the standards set for children's' toys. See the following articles for their claimed findings. (Please note that not all of these articles are objective.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22pettoys.html
http://www.itchmo.com/expertox-finds-lead-other-toxins-in-wal-mart-pet-toys-2877
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/pet_food_recalls73.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/03/Business/That_cute_new_toy_Fid.shtml http://www.stevedalepetworld.com/content/view/310/71/

During this period some retailers also began to require testing of products to see if they complied with the lead standard set for children's articles. Many retailers now require quality assurance testing for a variety of potential hazards.  The tester must ensure that all labeling requirements are met including for California's Proposition 65, and country of origin labeling and must test for lead and other safety concerns. These retailers may require standards that are greater than those required by regulation. If you are interested in testing your products APPA has a web page in the Regulatory Section of the APPA web site  that lists laboratories that will test pet products. Many of these will test pet toys to determine lead content as well as durability.

CPSC Lead Level Standards

The  CPSC has lead standards for children's products. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008  requires  the quantity of lead in children's products to be reduced through a phased in approach.  The law mandated a phased-in ban on lead in all children's products and  provided for changes  in how lead content in paint is tested and calculated.

Which Products Must Meet This Regulation?

According to the CPSC Information Sheet, "the ban covers paint or any other similar surface coating that contains more than 0.06% lead (lead containing paint). It also covers toys or other articles intended for use by children and furniture coated with lead-containing paint. Pieces of furniture such as beds, bookcases, chairs, chests, tables, dressers, and console televisions are covered by the regulation. Appliances such as ranges, refrigerators, and washers, fixtures such as built-in cabinets, window, and doors, and household products such as window shades and venetian blinds are not. While paints for boats and cars are not covered by the ban, products sold directly to consumers or which consumers use in homes, schools, hospitals, parks, playgrounds, and other areas are. Therefore, products intended for use by children and furniture located in these types of places may not have more than 0.06% lead when children or consumers will have direct access to the painted surface."

State Actions

A number of states have been taking actions to increase protections of chemicals in children's toys and other children's products.  Twenty states have or are contemplating laws that are in some cases stricter than what Congress envisions. 

Many states are also considering banning or limiting the use of Phthalates and other plastic softeners for children's toys and other products.

• Guardianship Is A Legal Concept-The law of guardianship, at least with regard to human guardians, has specific legal obligations to act for the benefit of the ward. Although the groups that are supporting this language change are not suggesting changing legal obligations of a guardian, the legally defined responsibilities of a guardian may not work in the context of caring for animals. For example, if an animal guardian chooses not to continue veterinary treatments, a third party, such as an animal rights group could petition a court to require continuation of treatment, claiming that it was in the best interest of the animal. This would limit a pet owner’s choice in determining the care provided for their pet. Third parties could also petition a court to prevent animals from being spayed, neutered, given away or even bred. Similarly, a guardian might need some kind of approval before seeking to put a terminally ill pet to sleep.
• Animal guardianship is a very unsettled area of the law and numerous issues may developif pet owners are casually transformed into pet guardians. For example, can a veterinarian make the decisions for an animal’s care? What if a guardian and veterinarian disagree about a pet's care? Will pets have legal standing to sue their guardians for failure to provide care as humans can under present guardianship law? Can guardians be divested of their property rights? Who would pay for the care of divested pets? Who would pay for veterinary treatment, if the veterinary care was not approved or requested by the guardian?
• Initiated by Animal Rights Groups- Spearheading the efforts to change owners to guardians are animal rights activists. A typical mission statement of one of these groups states that it is “an international animal protection organization dedicated to ending the exploitation and abuse of animals by raising the status of animals beyond that of mere property, and by defending their rights, welfare and habitat.” By changing the language that we use to define our relationships with animals, these groups hope to shift the perspective away from thinking about animals as mere property, and endowing pets with human-like legal rights, that recognize animals as individuals with feelings, needs and interests of their own.  The proponents of animal guardianship laws see this effort as the first step on the road to ending the concept of pet ownership.
• Punishment Exists For Animal Cruelty- One of the arguments that the animal rights groups make in support of guardianship laws is that by treating animals as property they have no more rights than inanimate objects. However, virtually every state, as well as the federal government, has animal cruelty laws that protect animals against cruelty and abuse. Most states deem it an act of cruelty, for instance, to "overdrive, overwork, or work an animal when it is unfit for labor." Abandonment, poisoning, and failure to supply animals with adequate food, water, and shelter are also identified as crimes in many state anti-cruelty laws.
• The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has taken a position against changing the term 'owner' to 'guardian' stating that there is no evidence 'guardianship' enhances the relationship between owner and pet. In their policy statement the AVMA states that “The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the optimal health and well-being of animals. Further, the AVMA recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for their animals' care. Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, diminish it. Such changes in terminology may decrease the ability of veterinarians to provide services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering”.
• The Council of State Governments recently adopted a policy opposing animal guardianship, as well as tort law reforms entitling owners to compensation for emotional distress and loss of companionship. Copies of the policy were distributed to federal and state agriculture committee members and all state agriculture commissioners. The expectation is that legislators will use the policy to pass laws against both legal theories. The CSG, a national organization that advises the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of state government on matters of public policy, approved the statement as a means of preparing states for what is seen as the latest front in the animal rights campaign. The CSG policy states in part: “guardianship statues would undermine the protective care that owners can provide for their animals and the freedom of choice owners now are free to exercise, and could permit third parties to petition courts for custody of a pet, livestock or animal for which they do not approve of the husbandry practices; and would permit challenging in a court of law the course of treatment an animal’s owner and veterinarian decide on, or permit animal owners and veterinarians to be sued for providing what another individual may regard as inadequate care”
• Community Acceptance- In July 2000, Boulder County, Colorado, was the first jurisdiction in the nation to amend their county ordinance by adopting the change in terminology from "animal owner" to "animal guardian." Other counties and municipalities have followed Boulder County's lead, including San Francisco, Berkeley, Albany, West Hollywood and Marin County California; Sherwood, Arkansas; Amherst, Massachusetts; Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin; Woodstock, New York; St Louis Missouri; Bloomington, Indiana; Wanaque, New Jersey, and the State of Rhode Island.