How do federal and state limits for lead and arsenic in toothpaste differ, and which standards apply to children’s toothpaste?
Executive summary
Federal regulatory thresholds for heavy metals in toothpaste are broadly permissive by public‑health advocates’ standards and have not been harmonized with recent state actions, while Washington state has adopted a much stricter numeric limit that some tested products exceed [1] [2] [3]. Independent testing led by the consumer group Lead Safe Mama found lead in roughly 90% of sampled toothpastes and arsenic in about 65%, with several samples above Washington’s limit but below the higher federal cushions referenced in reporting [1] [4] [5].
1. Federal baseline: an outdated, permissive floor
The federal regulatory environment does not currently impose the low, food‑style lead limits that many public‑health experts call for, and reporting indicates federal limits for toothpaste are substantially higher than recent state rules and advocate recommendations, with some outlets citing permitted federal ranges in the tens of thousands of parts‑per‑billion for lead in toothpaste [4] [3] [2]. The Baby Food Safety Act of 2024 — which would set a 10 ppb lead limit for kids’ food — does not extend those numeric protections to toothpaste and remains stalled in Congress, and California’s baby food standard of 6 ppb likewise does not apply to oral care products [1]. Multiple news reports and experts quoted in them characterize the federal thresholds as “outdated” and not protective enough, particularly for children [2].
2. Washington state’s tighter numeric limit and its effects
Washington state adopted a substantially stricter limit for lead in toothpaste — reported as 1,000 ppb — and independent laboratory testing showed that the highest levels detected in the Lead Safe Mama sampling violated Washington’s limit even while remaining under the larger federal thresholds cited in reporting [1] [2] [4]. Several outlets explicitly state that some toothpaste samples exceeded Washington’s 1,000 ppb cutoff, a key reason the Washington rule has become the de facto tougher standard used by advocates to evaluate brands [2] [3].
3. Which standards legally apply to children’s toothpaste
Legally, children’s toothpaste falls under the same regulatory patchwork as adult toothpaste: federal cosmetic and consumer product rules as enforced by agencies such as the FDA, unless a state has enacted a specific product‑level restriction like Washington’s [2] [4]. The Baby Food Safety Act and state baby‑food limits do not explicitly cover toothpaste, so the low lead limits for baby food (10 ppb federal proposal; 6 ppb California) do not currently bind children’s toothpaste unless a state law says so [1]. Practically that means most children’s toothpastes are judged against the general federal standards and any applicable state rules [1] [4].
4. Health stakes and why children are treated differently in advocacy
Public‑health experts and pediatricians cited in the coverage stress that lead has no known safe exposure level for children and that children swallow more toothpaste than adults, heightening risk — arguments driving calls for stricter, child‑centric limits [2] [6]. Lead Safe Mama’s tests focused heavily on children’s products for that reason and found that many brands marketed to children nonetheless contained detectable lead and arsenic [4] [5].
5. Industry responses and the “natural” defense
Manufacturers and some industry defenders argue heavy metals can be naturally occurring in mineral ingredients and that complete elimination can be technically difficult — a line of defense reported in interviews and quoted material — while advocates counter that feasible manufacturing and sourcing changes can reduce contamination and call for regulatory tightening [6] [2]. The reporting shows this tension: testing groups press for lower numerical standards and stricter oversight, whereas producers highlight ingredient provenance and testing methods [6] [2].
6. The regulatory gap and what it means for policy
The current landscape is a regulatory patchwork: federal thresholds remain higher and unchanged enough that many tested toothpastes comply with them even when failing Washington’s stricter limit, leaving children’s oral care dependent on state action or new federal rules to close the gap [1] [4] [3]. Advocates point to the disconnect between food‑grade limits proposed for baby foods and the absence of parallel toothpaste rules as the primary policy failing; reporters and toxicologists interviewed argue that reconciling those differences is the core next step if children's exposure is to be meaningfully reduced [1] [2].