United States
Canada
The Certification Question Most Parents Don’t Know to Ask
A parent picking up a baby teether at a boutique or scrolling through a product listing will often see claims like “non-toxic,” “natural,” or “hypoallergenic” printed on the packaging. Those phrases sound reassuring. The problem is that none of them are legally defined or regulated in the United States, which means a brand can print them on any product regardless of how it was tested — or whether it was tested at all.
The certifications that actually mean something are the ones tied to specific federal regulations and third-party lab testing. In the US, the two primary regulators involved in baby teether safety are the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and, depending on the teether’s intended use, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Understanding what each agency covers — and what ASTM standards sit underneath them — is the fastest way to evaluate whether a teether is genuinely safe.
How the CPSC and FDA Divide Jurisdiction Over Teethers
The regulatory picture for teethers is a bit more layered than it appears at first glance. According to the CPSC, a teether designed primarily to soothe a child (but not to relieve teething pain as a medical claim) falls under CPSC jurisdiction and must comply with ASTM F963, the US Toy Standard. Teethers with domed ends face additional performance requirements under 16 C.F.R. Part 1510.
But if a teether is marketed primarily to ease teething pain — framing the product as a pain-relief device — it shifts outside CPSC jurisdiction and falls instead under the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, which may treat it as a medical device. In practice, most consumer silicone and wood teethers sold as soothing or sensory toys stay squarely in CPSC territory. Parents should still note that food-grade silicone used in teethers is held to FDA material standards, since it comes into direct oral contact with infants. Brands that specify their silicone meets FDA food-contact standards are indicating the raw material itself has been evaluated for safety — a meaningful distinction from generic “silicone” claims.
The Core Certifications to Look For
CPSIA Compliance and the Children’s Product Certificate (CPC)
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 is the foundational law governing children’s products in the US. Under the CPSIA, all children’s products — including teethers — must be tested by a CPSC-accepted third-party laboratory and backed by a Children’s Product Certificate (CPC). The CPC is a document issued by the manufacturer or importer that certifies the product has been tested and is compliant with all applicable safety rules. Testing done at labs that are not CPSC-accepted does not count toward compliance, and a CPC based on invalid test results is itself invalid.
For teethers sold in the US in 2026, CPSIA compliance covers several overlapping requirements:
- Lead content: Accessible components of children’s products must not exceed 100 ppm of total lead. Surface coatings and paints face a stricter limit of 90 ppm.
- Phthalates: Teethers are classified as “child care articles” under the CPSIA — products designed for children age 3 or younger to help with sucking or teething. As child care articles, they must not contain more than 0.1% (1,000 ppm) of any regulated phthalate in accessible component parts. This applies to any plasticized material in the product.
- Heavy metals: ASTM F963 sets solubility limits for antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and selenium in toy substrate materials, all of which apply to teethers that fall under the toy standard.
- Small parts: Products intended for children under three — which includes virtually all teethers — must comply with 16 C.F.R. Part 1501, the small parts regulation, to prevent choking, aspiration, or ingestion hazards.
ASTM F963 — The US Toy Safety Standard
ASTM F963 is the voluntary standard that became mandatory under Section 106 of the CPSIA. The current version is ASTM F963-23. Section 4.22 of this standard specifically addresses teethers and teething toys, and teethers with domed ends face additional performance requirements. Testing under ASTM F963 must be conducted at a CPSC-accepted laboratory. A brand that references ASTM F963 compliance is telling you the product has gone through the physical, mechanical, and chemical testing the standard requires — not just a factory self-declaration.
When a teether listing or packaging states it “meets or exceeds CPSC and CPSIA safety requirements,” that phrase is pointing to this entire framework: third-party lab testing, a valid CPC, and compliance with ASTM F963 and the underlying lead, phthalate, and heavy-metal rules.
What to Actually Check on the Packaging (and What to Ignore)
Given the gap between marketing language and legal certification, here is a practical breakdown:
Meaningful indicators:
- “CPSC certified” or “exceeds CPSC/CPSIA requirements” — indicates third-party testing has been conducted
- “ASTM F963 compliant” — confirms testing to the mandatory US toy safety standard
- “Food-grade silicone (FDA standards)” — signals the silicone material meets food-contact requirements
- “Free of BPA, PVC, phthalates, lead, and cadmium” — when backed by a CPC and third-party testing, these are specific chemical claims with legal weight
- “Tested at a government-accredited lab” — confirms the testing was done at a CPSC-accepted facility, not an internal or unrecognized lab
Labels that require more scrutiny:
- “Non-toxic” — not a regulated term; no specific test required
- “Natural” — similarly unregulated; can appear on any product
- “Hypoallergenic” — no legal definition in the US for baby products
- “BPA-free” alone, without additional certification language — technically easy to claim since BPA is not used in silicone or most modern plastics anyway
For fabric or textile teethers, certifications like OEKO-TEX Standard 100 can add a meaningful layer of assurance, confirming the absence of harmful dyes and heavy metals in the textile components. For wood teethers, FSC certification (Forest Stewardship Council) confirms responsible sourcing and the absence of harmful adhesives like formaldehyde.
It is also worth checking whether the brand makes its test reports available upon request. Reputable manufacturers tend to hold documentation that can be provided to retailers or consumers — this is actually a CPSIA requirement, not a courtesy.
Why Material Choice Matters Alongside Certification
Certifications confirm a product has been tested. Material choice shapes what risks exist in the first place. Food-grade silicone is widely considered one of the safest teether materials available — it does not leach chemicals, holds up to repeated cleaning, and has no documented toxicity concerns at normal use levels. Solid, untreated hardwoods like beech are another well-regarded option: they tend to be free of the phthalate risk that comes with soft plastics, and unfinished wood is actually exempt from certain CPSIA lead and heavy-metal testing requirements because the material itself does not carry those risks.
Soft PVC plastics and gel-filled teethers carry the most concern. PVC often requires phthalate plasticizers to achieve its flexible texture, and gel-filled designs can crack or leak. Neither is banned outright, but both require more scrutiny on the certification side — and neither is the direction most safety-conscious brands have moved in recent years.
Loulou Lollipop’s silicone teethers are made from 100% food-grade silicone that meets FDA material standards, and the products exceed US CPSC and CPSIA safety requirements — tested regularly at government-accredited labs. The inks used in the designs are water-based and food-safe, injected into the silicone rather than applied as a surface coating, which eliminates a common point of chemical exposure in painted or printed teethers. Their teething sets combine a teether with a clip, giving parents a practical way to keep the teether accessible without the safety concerns that come with loose cords or attachments that don’t meet CPSC cord and strap requirements.
The underlying point is that certifications and materials work together. A product can technically pass minimum testing while still being made from materials that require more chemical intervention to get there. Parents who understand both sides of the question — what the certifications require and what the materials bring to the table — are in a much stronger position to make a genuinely informed choice.