We Analyzed, Boiled, Stretched, Poked, and Squeezed 20 Pacifiers for Hazards and Harmful Chemicals

CR’s scientists spent an entire year thoroughly testing pacifiers in our independent labs for potentially hazardous chemicals and physical defects that could pose safety risks to babies. A chemical analysis was also conducted on the nipples of 20 pacifiers intended for babies ages 0 to 6 months. Our goal wasn’t simply to evaluate whether the contaminant levels of lead, nitrosamines, bisphenols, and phthalates were compliant with standards, but to look for levels of contaminants that were even lower than those standards.

An analysis of incident reports posted from 2014 to 2024 on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s public consumer safety database, SaferProducts.gov, revealed 178 specific pacifier-related incidents, with one reported death, 62 injuries, and 115 non-injuries. These statistics reinforced the need for CR to also test each pacifier’s physical limitations. We evaluated the pacifiers’ guard/shield performance, structural integrity, and choking hazards, and bite tests were performed on each nipple. See “How We Tested Pacifiers,” below, for more information on how chemical and physical tests were performed. 

CR’s product safety experts also conducted an age-grading evaluation, comparing the age recommendations provided online with those labeled on the product, to determine whether pacifiers were being labeled and marketed consistently by the manufacturers.

All 20 pacifiers were tested for total lead, nitrosamines, bisphenol S, and phthalates. All were found to have levels well below CR’s most rigorous limits for these chemicals. “All pacifiers we tested had levels well below CR’s strict limits—good news for parents concerned about chemical exposure,” says Ashita Kapoor, CR’s associate director of product safety. “It’s also a great reminder that federal safety rules for children’s products are effective ways of reducing exposure to unnecessary risks from contamination.”

While all pacifiers sold in the U.S. are subject to strict safety regulations, unsafe pacifiers can and do enter the marketplace, as our pacifier safety investigation shows. Consumers can choose from the products listed in our chart below, which represent a significant share of the U.S. market and have performed well in our tests.

None of the pacifiers posed choking or strangulation risks in our physical tests, and all passed our structural integrity tests (when heavy force was applied to their nipples, shields, and handles, no parts broke or detached). No issues were reported for four of the 20 pacifiers we tested for bite force tests. Three natural rubber pacifiers achieved excellent results when tested under the maximum applied bite force: the Itzy Ritzy Soother, Bibs Pacifiers, and Frigg Natural Rubber Baby Pacifier. Silicone pacifiers weren’t as strong as rubber; our highest performing silicone pacifier in the bite test was the Nuk Timeless Comfy Pacifier. 

While most pacifiers had clear labels, a few had labeling or age-grading discrepancies. Although this may seem like a minor issue, CR’s stance is that parents should never have to do their own research when it comes to pacifier labels or guess whether pacifier attachments, such as those made to resemble stuffed animals, are safe. Incident reports have tied the popular WubbaNub, for example, a plush-and-pacifier combo, to a hazardous sleeping environment risk, and it is recommended for use only when babies are awake. (Safe sleep guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend no plush or soft items in your baby’s sleep area, to avoid the risk of suffocation.) 

On its company website, WubbaNub states: “WubbaNub pacifiers can be used under observed napping and awake sucking. We’re advocates for safe sleep as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For extended overnight sleep, use a pacifier without the plush, such as our WubbaNub branded pacifier.” However, CR’s testers found that its package does not feature the same claims. We believe this safety warning should be prominently displayed on the package, where parents can easily see it. 

CR contacted WubbaNub to request adding the warning to their packaging, and the company indicated that it is willing to do so: “We understand the importance of clear messaging at the point of purchase. While this warning is currently featured on our website, we are open to reviewing and incorporating additional messaging into future packaging updates.”

In an ideal world, all pacifier manufacturers would include clear and consistent age grading; warnings about checking for rips, tears, or damage; and expiration dates on their labels. But the only labeling standard required is the following warning on the individual packaging and on any retail display containing two or more pacifiers: “Warning—Do Not Tie Pacifier Around Child’s Neck as it Presents a Strangulation Danger.” This warning must appear “legibly” and “conspicuously.”

Most of the pacifiers we tested featured this warning label correctly. Four of them—Bibs, Itzy Ritzy Soother, Shein, and Sweet Child pacifiers—had the warning, but it was written incorrectly, in our experts’ judgment. And Ryan & Rose Cutie Pat Flat Pacifier was missing the CPSC’s mandatory warning statement about strangulation risk on its label. CR contacted Ryan & Rose, which responded, “Our current flat single packaging already includes the full verbiage. While the 10 packs did contain the line ‘Do not tie around a child’s neck,’ they were missing the added clarification ‘as it presents a strangulation danger.’ We are updating the flat 10 packs to ensure everything is consistent, and in the meantime, we will add stickers with the complete wording on all 10 packs going forward.”

The 20 pacifiers we tested for dangerous chemicals and durability performed well in our evaluations. Pacifiers are listed alphabetically below.

Let’s break down the specifics on CR’s rigorous chemical and physical testing.

• Nitrosamines: We tested for nitrosamines (which may be linked to cancer) using a lab method called gas chromatography with mass spectrometry. This followed the European safety standard BS EN 12868:2017.

• Lead: We measured lead levels in each pacifier using a modified version of Environmental Protection Agency Method 6020B, which detects trace metals. 

• Phthalates: We tested for these chemicals (a number of which have been shown to be endocrine-disrupting chemicals) using a rigorous test called Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS).

• Bisphenol S: Similar to phthalates, bisphenols may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals. We tested for them using the accurate Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, while following a 2013 published scientific method from the Journal of Chromatography A. 

• Guard or shield requirements: We pushed each pacifier nipple through an opening the size of a baby’s mouth while pulling with a 2-pound force for 10 seconds. To pass this test, no part of the guard or shield should pass through the opening.

• Structural integrity: We tested the strength of each pacifier’s nipple, shield, and handle using 2- and 10-pound forces before and after heating and cooling the pacifier parts. The pacifiers should not break or come apart during the tests. 

• Bite resistance: We wanted to know how resistant each pacifier was to biting. Lower resistance to biting can make pacifiers more prone to breaking inside a child’s mouth and creating a choking hazard. We pressed a spearlike rod against the side of each pacifier’s nipple until it either punctured or reached 140 pounds of force. There is no official standard for pacifier bite tests, and there is limited data on children’s bite force; CR is a leader in these tests.

• Ribbons, strings, or other attachments: We pointed out which pacifiers are sold with attachments that may pose a strangulation risk.