If you're skeptical about the extent of the problem with toxic chemicals in pet products, consider the case of Nancy Rogers. More than a decade ago, nurse Nancy sent chew toys from more than two dozen of her dogs to a lab for testing. It was a cost she borne herself after two of her relatively young dogs died, and she increasingly suspected their deaths were related to their repeated exposure to chemicals in training toys.

Tests showed that a dog's favorite tennis ball contained 335.7 parts per million of lead, which was below the allowable lead level for children's toys at the time but is now well above Europe's permissible lead level of just 90 parts per million.

A few years later, Rogers pursued toy testing of his own, as did the Michigan-based Ecology Center, a nonprofit that analyzes toxic chemicals in consumer products, including children's toys. The organization tested hundreds of pet toys, including tennis balls, pet beds, collars and leashes. Almost half (45%) of these products contain at least one detectable hazardous chemical. These chemicals include heavy metals such as arsenic and lead, as well as bromine and chlorine.

In the tennis balls tested, lead content was as high as 48%. Text on a dog ball contained 2696ppm of lead and 262ppm of arsenic. However, researchers found that tennis balls intended for human use do not contain lead, but these tennis balls often contain fiberglass in their shells, which can cause problems of their own, such as filing down a dog's teeth.

Some retailers develop their own pet product safety standards. For example, PetSmart claims to regularly test and review products to ensure safety, but these standards and testing methods are not made public or standardized across the retail industry, leaving manufacturers somewhat confused.

Some manufacturers voluntarily adopt European standards for lead content in children's toys and/or other types of consumer product safety standards. However, the company is again inconsistent with this and has not disclosed the results or process of any testing. None of this inspires confidence that the work is actually being done.

Part of the problem here is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has no jurisdiction over pet products. This stems from the simple fact that dogs, cats, and other non-human animals are not granted personhood and consumer status, nor the rights associated with such things. And, even if the Consumer Product Safety Commission steps in to protect the health of humans interacting with pet products, the reality is that we interact with pet products differently than pets do.

As always, one of the best ways to avoid toxic chemicals is to see if the toy passes the smell test. If it smells like chemicals, it most likely contains something you and your pet would be better off avoiding. Toys treated with stain-resistant compounds or flame retardants are definitely to be avoided, and I would also avoid toys made from conventional cotton (unless it’s post-consumer recycled cotton).

Some dangers are more obvious, such as small parts or decorations on toys that can pose a choking hazard to dogs. It's not unheard of to find sewing needles, pins, or other foreign objects in stuffed toys meant for dogs. Therefore, it is best to inspect all toys by visual inspection and squeezing before giving them to the animal.

Synthetic rubber and “natural” latex

Many dog toys are made from synthetic rubber (basically a plastic) or "natural" rubber. The problem is, there's no marketing standard for the term "natural," which means consumers can't tell whether a dog toy is similar to the 100% natural Dunlop latex found in mattresses and pillows, or if it's some kind of chemical compound that contains small amounts of rubber tree latex. 

Easing the conscience of manufacturers.