The Complete Guide to
Wooden Toy Safety
with Stains & Paints

When it comes to colouring wooden toys, there is a great deal of confusion.
This guide explains what toy-safe actually means and exactly what you should look for when choosing wood stains or paints for toys.

There are different things to consider for making toys for sale and making toys for personal use. If it’s for personal use, you have greater freedom with them if your child is over mouthing age, although we don’t recommend exercising that freedom. When you hand-down your lovingly hand-made toys to someone else, you want to make sure they’re safe for all children if any of them happens to mouth them. If you’re a manufacturer, all of your toys must be safe for mouthing regardless of the age target of your toys. The regulation is strict and clear on this.

This is a detailed guide aimed at professional level of understanding toy safety when it comes to wood coating. It’s a long article as it covers the essential details for both technical and regulatory aspects. We also cover additional questions the makers might have when using a particular product. After this article, your knowledge and understanding on the subject will be accurate, up-to-date and better than most people, including many people in the industry! No more confusion from misguided & incorrect assumptions or outright false claims spread by some manufacturers.

For manufacturers, colouring wooden toys requires balancing regulatory compliance, toxicology, material performance, and exposure scenarios. For parents, it means the highest caution for safety beyond any regulatory compliance. Sometimes what the manufacturers or regulators judge to be ‘safe’ doesn’t pass the parents’ standards, especially in the U.S., compared to the EU standards.

We’ll talk about the scope of EN 71-3 and CPSIA/ASTM, what types of colourants are most suitable for wooden toys, preservatives in water-based coatings, why you need VOC, safety assessment for different age groups.

We’ll talk about why dyes, including food dyes, should never be used for toys. There’s a dangerous trend of using food dyes for children’s toys amongst the micro-manufacturers and DIY sellers, marketed by companies who don’t understand the basics of toxicology and safety assessment. This is irresponsible, harmful and will almost certainly fail to meet the regulatory standards in the EU, so we’ll address it. If you’re a parent making toys that is not for sale and strictly for your own children who no longer mouth the toys, it’s up to your own judgement, but it is still not recommended. Toys should be safe in all scenarios where any children might interact with it.

There are also suppliers who test raw material to claim toy safety of their paint or stains – this is meaningless and misleading. You’ll learn to understand all this in detail so you don’t fall for misleading claims.

The article has many technical elements, but if you’re interested in the toy safety, you’ll find them all very useful and hopefully not so boring!

Unfortunately, we’ve seen flat-out false claims made by some unprofessional companies in this area. Their customers lack technical knowledge to assess these bogus claims and do things that are actually harmful without knowing it. Our aim is to share in-depth information with correct technical details with our customers so they can make better judgements in their own safety assessments.

I’ve got ChatGPT to review this article and it says this is ‘unusually technically correct for consumer-facing toy safety writing’ and ‘better than most manufacturer documents I’ve seen’! After this article, you’ll be better informed on what toy safety means in wood coating than most people and probably more than many people in the industry!

1. The Safety Assessment Basics

The first rule of thumb is – Safety is always evaluated on the real life use scenarios of a finished toy, not the raw materials. Material interacts with the wood, primer, binder or sealant, may change the pH, may form concentration when dried … many things are open to change and raw material status is not the same as what it might become on the finished toy.

Secondly, it is evaluated on the worst case scenario and the actual biological harm this scenario would cause. i.e. a child chews off the coating and swallows it. What happens to the child’s body? Testing a material on a toy and testing what becomes bioavailable and interacts with a child’s body are very different things.

Toy safety in Europe is regulated under the EN 71 standards. There’s a series of them for different safety aspects (physical design of the toy, for example), but the relevant categories for stains and paints are EN71-3 and EN71-9.

EN71-3 tests migration of inorganic metals. EN71-9 tests organic chemical compounds in toys.

In the US they all fall under CPSIA and ASTM F963, but they’re very limited compared to the EN71 standards. There are much more to be desired in the US standards, so for all makers and parents, EN71 sets the ultimate standards.

The reason why people normally only talk about EN71-3 is that we assume manufacturers do not use controlled substances that fall under EN71-9 in the first place. Most toy coatings avoid restricted substances by design, so testing for EN71-9 is often not required. But this all changes if you use dyes such as food-dyes. We’ll talk about it more later.

Assuming we’re using properly formulated pigment based stains and paints that avoid using EN71-9 controlled materials, we’re mainly concerned about EN71-3.

Many pigments are made of minerals and metal ions. The main risk factor here is the bioavailable metal ions, especially heavy metals. So that’s what EN71-3 tests. CPSIA only tests total metal contents. This does not evaluate what matters most for coloured wooden toys: saliva-migration safety. So CPSIA alone is meaningless.

The total element content is not the same as demonstrating that the colourant is safe when ingested or exposed to saliva. You might ask ‘if the total lead contents are below certain ppm, shouldn’t that mean the migration should be within that limit?’ This is the part where it’s confusing and requires more technical understanding, but the short answer is – No. You cannot compare the total amount in raw material in CPSIA total lead content test and the migration amount in EN71-3.

CPSIA and EN 71-3 use different units (total material vs extractable material) so the numbers can be compared directly. For bioavailability, Lead form matters more than total lead quantity. CPSIA is simply a manufacturing safety screen (i.e. telling manufacturers not to put more than certain limit of total lead in their product). EN71-3 is a toxicological exposure test (i.e. how much becomes bioavailable in the body? EN71-3 is the only meaningful test for us.

ASTM F693 tests some migration, but the method is inferior and the scope is much more limited compared to EN71-3. ASTM F963 tests the migration of 8 soluble heavy metals. EN71-3 tests the migration of 19 heavy metals. The extraction methods used by EN71-3 are more rigorous and the allowed amount is much stricter than ASTM F963.

The difference between ASTM F693 and EN71-3 is significant.

There are the 11 additional metals tested with EN71-3, but not with ASTM F693 : Aluminium, Boron, Cobalt, Copper, Manganese, Nickel, Strontium, Tin, Organic tin, Chromium (VI) specifically, Zinc

ASTM limit for lead is 60 mg/kg, EN 71-3 limits it at 23 mg/kg. ASTM limit for Cromium is 60 mg/kg (total Cr) vs EN 71-3 distinguishes Cr(III) and Cr(VI), with Cr(VI) allowed at only 0.2 mg/kg etc. Across the board, EN 71-3 limit is stricter.

But it’s not only that – EN71-3 applies more advanced method for extraction. This can result in different migration values, even from the same coating. i.e. if a coating shows 20mg/kg with ASTM test for lead (within EN71-3 limit), it could still show higher migration level with EN71-3 test and fail the EN71-3 standard, because EN71-3 method is more rigorous.

EN 71-3: Migration of Certain Elements (Category III — scraped-off toy material) – What does it assess?

This is the strictest category for coatings because it simulates the worst-case exposures – picture them:

Sucking, licking, mouthing, chewing, swallowing small bits of material…

It mechanically removes the coating, and uses acidic extraction (0.07 M HCl) and simulates stomach/saliva-like exposure to test the bioavailability of inorganic elements. For mouthed toys, EN 71-3 is the gold-standard migration test.

A toy that passes EN 71-3 Category III is considered legally compliant for these exposures against 19 metallic elements.

CPSIA requires different things for compliance in the US.

CPSIA requires:

• Total lead content testing
• ASTM F963 heavy metal limits for 8 metals (different extraction method and limits)
• Phthalate testing (EN 71-3 does not cover phthalates, but EN 71-9 does)
• Tracking labels, records, certifications
• Third-party lab testing for children’s products sold in the U.S. (small-batch manufacturer exemption applies)

Practically, EN71-3 has much tighter migration limits than CPSIA’s total-lead limit, so EN71-3 compliant coating will almost always pass the CPSIA metal test. But the reverse is not the case. Phthalate doesn’t need to be tested if you know the formulation doesn’t contain it. So, in reality, if you have EN71-3 compliant coating and have a manufacturer assurance for Phthalate, you can self-certify in the US without the third-party lab testing as long as you’re registered as a small-batch manufacturer.

What EN71-3 doesn’t cover

However, it is important to understand what EN 71-3 or CPSIA/ASTM do not cover:

• Organic chemicals such as:
  • Preservatives (MIT, BIT, CMIT/MIT, etc.)
  • Solvents
  • Plasticisers
  • Azo dyes and aromatic amines
• Sensitisation potential
• Volatile compounds

EN 71-3 compliance is a migration-based metals assessment, not a full chemical-safety profile.

Other organic chemicals are only regulated when they fall under EN 71-9, but most water-based toy coatings avoid formulating with restricted substances like Phthalate, so EN 71-9 is often ‘declared’ than tested. However, if you ever use dyes, EN71-9 test applies. More on this later.

EN71-12 for Teethers

Another area EN71-3 does not cover is toys intended for intense, repeated mouthing, like teethers.

It applies to toys intended for children under 36 months and toys intended to be placed in the mouth. EN71-12 tests nitrosamines which are high-priority carcinogens, normally a concern with natural rubber latex, not with wood.

Wooden teethers do NOT require EN 71-12, because no nitrosamines can form from cellulose/lignin.

But ANY coating, stain, oil, wax, or finish you apply must also not introduce nitrosatable amines, or else the toy becomes subject to EN 71-12.

Even if the underlying material is wood, when you add alkyds or any coating containing amines, you can unintentionally add nitrosatable amines. Oils containing drier or many plant extracts contain secondary amines as natural contaminants.

What this means in practice

Passing EN 71-3 means the toy is safe if a child occasionally chews or accidentally ingests small amounts of coating. (Again, assuming we’re not using any substances falling under EN71-9)

It does not mean the toy is intended for regular chewing or is suitable as a teether.

We do not recommend using any colourants or coatings for toys intended for actively mouthing children. For teething toys, the safest allowed practice is:

Unfinished hardwood (Beech, Maple, Birch, Ash) – No stains, No dyes, No oils, No waxes, No paints, No varnishes

3. Why Dyes (including Food Dyes) Are Not Safe for Wooden Toys

Firstly, you must use pigments, not dyes for toys because pigments are fundamentally safer than dyes as toy coatings.

Pigments (used in professional toy stains and paints):

• Are large, insoluble particles (100–500 nm)
• Have extremely low bioavailability
• Are usually crystalline and inert
• Pass through the GI tract unchanged when swallowed
• EN71-3 is designed specifically to measure worst-case metal release from these particles

Dyes (including food dyes):

• Are small organic molecules
• Are fully soluble in saliva and water
• Can diffuse through mucous membranes
• Are chemically reactive and can be metabolized
• Many are azo dyes that can break down into aromatic amines

These hazards are not covered by EN71-3 or ASTM F963 metal tests. This is the territory of EN71-9.

EN 71-9 targets substances that fall into categories such as: carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxicants, allergenic or sensitising agents, VOCs, solvents, azo dyes, plasticisers, certain preservatives etc.

In dyes, the primary risks are:

• Azo cleavage → aromatic amines (some are carcinogenic, mutagenic or sensitizing)
• High bioavailability because dyes dissolve into body fluids
• Allergenic / intolerance reactions (tartrazine, erythrosine, sunset yellow etc)
• GI uptake and systemic circulation — unlike pigments, dyes enter the bloodstream
• Instability in saliva or acidic gastric fluid, causing reactive metabolites

To say that food dyes are safe because it passes the EN71-3 is scientifically meaningless. Companies who say these things are completely ignorant of what safety assessment means. Most synthetic dyes like textile dyes – not just food dyes – will pass EN71-3 heavy metal tests. They’re simply not made of minerals and metal oxides like pigments. It’s an irrelevant test. The hazard profile is completely different.

Regulators ask for EN71-3 tests because toy companies should not be using dyes in the first place. With pigments, EN71-3 is the correct test.

Most food dyes are azo dyes and they fall squarely under the restrictions set by EN71-9. These are heavily regulated, and many azo dyes are outright prohibited. Toys using dyes must be tested with EN71-9 (not EN71-3).

All azo dyes, including food-grades, are almost certainly going to fail EN71-9 standard. Under EN71-9, substances are judged not only by the dye’s original structure, but by testing the reaction with saliva simulant, sweat, stomach acid and assessing their metabolites and decomposition products. They’re very reactive chemicals – they don’t stay stable like pigments.

Azo dyes can cleave into many other chemical compounds that are banned by EN71-9. This is why reputable toy-coating manufacturers never use dyes.

Food dyes are not regarded safe for young children

Baby foods, formula and products for children under 3 are legally prohibited from using synthetic food dyes in countries like UK and EU. Many food dyes are banned outright in the EU for any ages.
If a dye isn’t considered safe to eat, it isn’t automatically safe to chew on a toy.

High migration risk

Topcoats cannot be treated as a ‘safety barrier’, because once the surface is damaged, it’s no use. EN71-3 is specifically designed to protect children who chew off the material and swallow. Topcoat is not going to prevent the dye being ingested from chewing. Topcoat does not encapsulate the dye particles, it’s simply sitting on top. Safety must be inherent in the base colourant.

Food dyes are designed to dissolve easily in water, saliva and digestive fluids.
This means:

• they migrate rapidly from wood
• they are released even through topcoats once the toy’s damaged
• they enter saliva immediately
• the child is exposed to free dye molecules, not encapsulated pigment particles

Small molecules = higher bio-reactivity

As mentioned above, Food dyes are tiny, reactive molecules with high bio-reactivity. Unlike large pigment molecules, they’re readily bioavailable when swallowed, easily cross biological membranes, undergo metabolic transformation and react with proteins.

Carcinogenicity and toxicology concerns

Many food dyes, especially the ones sold as powders, belong to the azo dye class.

Azo dyes can break down into aromatic amines when it meets saliva, gastric juice or gut microbiota.
Some aromatic amines are genotoxic, carcinogenic and developmental toxicants.

‘Food-grade’ dyes have limits for heavy metals, insoluble particles, microbial contamination and certain processing by-products. That’s it. ‘Food-grade’ has nothing to do with whether the dye molecules themselves are safe or not.

More food dyes are banned every year

The toxicology of food dyes is under constant review around the world. Many previously-approved dyes have been banned in the EU, UK, US, India, and other regions now. Many others are currently under reassessment as new data on neurotoxicity, hyperactivity concerns, sensitisation, and carcinogenic potential emerges.

A dye considered “safe” today may be banned next year. Relying on “it’s not banned yet” is not an appropriate safety approach for children’s toys.

In 2023, we’ve upset many people on social media by saying food-dyes are not safe and they shouldn’t be used in toys. We were attacked heavily by a group of people who were mislead to use food-dyes for toys by a company who sell them. They mocked us saying ‘the dyes are allowed to be in foods, so they’re safe to eat and safe for toys’. We wrote long technical articles (containing many of the same facts in this one) to educate people and we were mocked for writing a ‘thesis’ by people who were making commercial toys with food dyes without any idea of safety assessment. Many customers of this company were even mislead to believe their petroleum-based synthetic food dyes are natural products. They insisted that food-dyes are safe because they’re ‘pure’ from impurities, without the basic understanding of toxicology – that it’s the dye molecules themselves that are the problems. Unfortunately, these beliefs widely spread amongst the non-technical audiences as the company continued spreading these misinformations.

Fast forward to 22 April 2025, in less than 2 years since, the FDA announced plans to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic food dyes. Viewers of the senate hearing learnt that dye with animal studies showing cancer risk that was banned for cosmetics was allowed and used in foods in the US. The phase-out in the US will continue to eventual out-right bans likely in the future.

The food rules are political compromises with the industry, not proof of biological safety.

The principle is that dyes made with organic chemicals are never suitable as toy coatings because of the fundamental chemistry, regardless of the food rules.

On a side note, natural plant dyes often contain allergens, reactive metabolites, tannins, phenols etc. Oils and compounds in plants are often sensitising. Natural materials are prone to growing bacteria when wet etc. So please do not use random natural dyes either.

The best practice is clear: water-soluble dyes are NOT used in toy finishes

The toy industry universally uses insoluble pigments encapsulated in a binder matrix with EN71-3 standard. EN71-3 standard is in place with an assumption that all professional toy makers use pigments, not dyes.

Soluble dyes are avoided because their migration and toxicological profiles are unsuitable for toys.

If a company sells food dyes as “toy-safe wood stains,” they are ignoring basic toxicology and safety principles.

4. Other organic chemical risks

So, if you’re avoiding dyes and sticking to encapsulated pigments, what other ingredients should you be concerned about?

As with the dye molecules, the concern is the presence of low-molecular-weight organic chemicals. Let’s have a look.

Acrylic binders

Acrylic polymers (PMMA, PnBMA, EA/MMA copolymers, etc.) are:

• large molecular-weight
• non-reactive
• non-migratory
• not bioavailable
• not soluble in saliva once cured

A fully cured acrylic film is considered inert.
That’s why they’re widely used in children’s paints, toy finishes, food packaging, baby products, medical devices and food contact coatings.

The acrylic polymer itself is rarely the safety concern.

VOCs

These are coalescents / co-solvents that help the latex particles fuse to form a continuous film. They’re essential elements to create a safe film that doesn’t let anything leach out.

These evaporate during drying and not present any longer once the film cures. So they don’t cause concern for the final toy.

We’ll mention VOC a bit more later.

Residual monomers

They also evaporate during drying. EN71-9 allows low residual monomer content because the final dried film is essentially monomer-free.

Surfactants

EN71-9 only restricts certain classes, which manufacturers avoid using. They can be irritating when wet, but doesn’t migrate once the film cures.

Plasticisers

Modern formulations do not use plasticisers. They’re easily avoided.

A Mid-way Summary

Pigment-based polymer stains are the safest, proven options for toys because they inherently avoids harmful and restricted substances by design.

Pigments are encapsulated in a stable acrylic matrix. This prevents migration, even in saliva and in gut.

Acrylic films become chemically inert when cured. No saliva solubility, no bioavailability.

VOC ingredients evaporate quickly (especially in low-VOC formulation) and are virtually absent in the final toy.

Dye-based Systems (including “food dyes,” aniline dyes, universal colorants) contain the most problematic organic chemicals with various break-down products that are strictly regulated with EN71-9. They’re inherently more hazardous to the body and not appropriate for toy finishes, certainly never for kids with mouthing ages.

5. Preservatives

All waterborne dispersions and emulsions are susceptible to microbial growth. Preservatives are necessary to prevent fungal and bacteria growth and binder degradation. This is the last piece of organic chemical that needs to be addressed.

However, preservatives can be sensitizing in susceptible people. As we know, preservatives are a contentious area in cosmetics.

Toy stains also contain preservatives at very low levels. Colour-Finish contains preservative at ultra low levels of less than 0.025% in the wet product. Dried film exposure is virtually zero.

However, we suggest avoiding using it on toys intended for regular chewing or teething.
We only recommend raw, unfinished wood for toys for teething age.

The polymer-pigments matrix is inert, VOCs evaporate and are not present in the dried film.

The presence of the near-zero preservatives is the main reason we do not recommend Colour-Finish for regular teething age children. This is not to say they cause harm (in an encapsulated form with near-zero amount), but it is for the highest level of caution.

As a side note, even some raw woods can irritate gums or cause reactions. Only use certain hard, non-toxic wood (Beech, Maple, Birch, Hard Maple, Ash for example). Don’t use wood that contain resins or tannins (like Cedar, Pine etc) or wood that can splinter from chewing.

6. A note on VOC and why it means Safety

Many people misunderstand what VOCs are and why they appear even in the safest water-based toy coatings.
To put it simply:

If you want pigments to be properly encapsulated and immobilised (so they cannot migrate into saliva), you must use a polymer system — and polymer systems cannot be made without some VOCs (coalescents).

Pigment safety depends on a strong, continuous polymer film. The pigments are only safe when:

• The binder forms a complete film
• Pigments are trapped within that polymer matrix
• The final coating is chemically stable, not powdery or water-dispersible

To achieve this, there are several unavoidable chemical components that are, technically, VOCs.

“Zero VOC paints” for walls are easier because they don’t need saliva resistance and don’t rely on pigment encapsulation. They don’t need the dense, fully coalesced film for safety. Zero VOC for wall paint is for air quality, not for a safe licking of the wall.

The primary goal of toy stain is a child’s safety when using the finished toy. A true “NO VOC” toy stain or paint is currently impossible. Without it, the polymer particles would not fuse into a continuous film, leaving pigment unbound and expose it for migration. The tiny VOC content is why the stain is safe for saliva contact once cured.

BTW, many paints/stains sold as “zero-VOC” are technically “very low VOC” — some definitions allow up to ~5 g/L or more of VOC and still be labelled “zero”.

“Zero-VOC” or “low-VOC” water-based toy coatings can release very small amounts of volatile compounds after the coating is touch-dry. To ensure all residual volatile compounds are fully evaporated, you just need to wait. A tiny percentage will continue diffusing out over days until it completely evaporates.

For children’s toys, recommended practice is 72 hours minimum drying in warm, ventilated conditions (20–25°C, low humidity).

For parents, we recommend 7 days full cure time before the toys are used. The 7-day window is not because the coating pauses any hazard but for prudence. 7 days is a plenty of time for the liquid to form a stable film and for all residual volatiles to dissipate in a normal condition. (10–14 days if the environment is cool or humid or it’s applied in multiple coats)

To be clear, EN71-3 compliant coatings (such as Colour-Finish) reach safe migration levels when touch-dry, but curing improves film continuity.

Is Safe & Natural Wooden Toy Stain or Paint possible?

We avoid synthetic (petroleum-derived) and prefer natural and biodegradable options whenever possible. Many wooden toy makers would love to make all ‘plastic-free’ toys with their lovely creations. So can we do it?

Unfortunately, the answer is No if you want to use colours. We’ve gone through all the scenarios where you might attempt to make safe all-natural wooden toys on this post. So check it out for detailed explanations.

For coloured wooden toys that need to be safe when mouthed or chewed, there is currently no safe alternative to modern acrylic (or acrylic-hybrid) polymer binders.
Natural oils, waxes, shellac etc cannot encapsulate pigments, cannot prevent saliva migration, and cannot pass EN 71-3 under realistic conditions. Anyone who claim to do this is making misleading claims. If you want plastic-free toys, you should not use colours.

To make coloured toys saliva-safe, the coating must

• Bind pigments permanently
• Prevent pigment particles from migrating into saliva
• Remain stable in acidic (pH 1–4) and alkaline environments
• Form a continuous polymer film
• Resist mechanical scraping and chewing

Natural coatings simply cannot do this. Natural oils do not form a solid encapsulating matrix and do not resist acidic degradation. Wax is, of course, melts and degrade easily. Shellac dissolves under saliva and sweat etc.

What if I make toys for older children only?

If you make toys for older children who don’t mouth them, you’re free to use anything personally. It is your own personal responsibility. You can use the information you learnt on this page and then go on to make the best judgement for yourself freely.

However, if you make toys for sale, you CANNOT “opt out” of EN 71-3 by saying “not for mouthing” or “not a toy.”

If the product is intended for children, or a reasonable person would expect a child to play with it… It is a toy under EU law, and therefore EN 71-3 (or EN71-9) applies automatically, regardless of what the maker claims.

As exactly written in ‘Directive 2009/48/EC (EU Toy Safety Directive) — Article 2’, a product is a toy if it is:

“designed or intended, whether or not exclusively, for use in play by children under 14 years of age.”

So, a colourful wooden block is already regarded as a toy. A decorative item that looks and functions like a toy is regarded as a toy. You cannot escape toy regulations by adding a disclaimer like “Not suitable for mouthing”.

The exact same principle applies in the US under CPSIA. CPSC has explicitly stated:

“A warning or label does not change a product’s classification if children are expected to use it.”

Meaning any labels saying “Not for children under 3” or “Not to be mouthed” doesn’t exempt you from the CPSIA obligations for all toys.

A Short Summary — Making Safe Coloured Wooden Toys

To make coloured wooden toys as safely as possible:

For toys intended for children beyond teething age, where mouthing is occasional and not persistent:

• Use EN 71-3 compliant, pigment-based stains or paints where pigments are encapsulated in a durable binder. Modern acrylic polymer binder and pigments matrix is the safest way to prevent migration/bioavailability of heavy metals with saliva contact and swallowing.
• CPSIA or ASTM F693 standards are not as good as EN71-3
• Never use dye/food dye – they are highly bio-reactive and not safe. Azo dyes are heavily regulated under EN71-9 and food-dyes will certainly fail the test. Topcoats do not encapsulate the dye molecules to keep it safe from migration.

Our Colour-Finish is the safe choice that meet all the requirement for parents or professional toy makers.

For teething-age toys:

• Avoid all stains, paints, dyes (including food dyes, natural dyes), and emulsions

Additional points

• Small amount of VOCs will evaporate completely in dried film. They’re essential for creating safe coatings.

For micro-manufacturers – Remember to:

• Maintain documentation
• Conduct your own risk assessment
• Perform periodic third-party EN 71-3 tests for your finished toy

Hope this is useful for you. Enjoy making beautiful and safe toys!