Plastic baby bottles harm babies (well some of them do)

Plastic baby bottles harm babies (well some of them do)

Author
Discussion

Coco H

Original Poster:

4,237 posts

244 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7943200.stm

I am stuffed. Both of mine used Avent bottles from 3 months and 5 months when I stopped feeding myself.

mike325112

1,070 posts

191 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Coco H said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7943200.stm

I am stuffed. Both of mine used Avent bottles from 3 months and 5 months when I stopped feeding myself.
Oi! - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Actually yours is a better title...
So which ones are harmfull?

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

224 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
It's probably much ado about nothing- there seems to be differing scientific evidence from both sides.

Just for your info, water bottles on office water coolers tend to contain BPA as well as many, many other products.

mike325112

1,070 posts

191 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
I think the issue is when they are heated and it leaches in to the milk

Coco H

Original Poster:

4,237 posts

244 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Basically most of the bottles sold in the UK are harmful. MAM bottles are free, Asda do a bpa free range and more to follow.

I don't know what the answer is for idiots like me who used them, heated them, filled them with boiling water etc - all on hospitals instructions.

andy400

10,731 posts

238 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Now that I am of an age where I know a number of recent mums, I really get the impression that there's something new almost every week that you must stop doing/using/eating immediately or your child will spontaneously combust or something, despite the fact that no children previously brought up with the item/method/foodstuff have suffered any harm.

It all seems a bit silly and alarmist, but I wonder what my reaction will be if I'm ever a dad? scratchchin

DangerousMike

11,327 posts

199 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
1. its pretty obvious from looking at it for 2 seconds that BPA isn't a nice chemical. (it looks like a steroid hormone).

2. it's present in small quantities in plastics.

3. it doesn't come out very easily unless you, for example, pour boiling water in the bottle.

not worth worrying about... its only the kind of thing that is visible in a large population and with a sample size of 2 you won't detect anything.

DangerousMike

11,327 posts

199 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
people/humans are very poor at evaluating risk, generally.

for example many people will happily drive to work every day but are terrified of flying.

motco

16,231 posts

253 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Most canned soft drinks contain small but measurable quantities of bisphenol A, apparently. It's a component of the epoxy resin internal coating.

Lemmonie

6,314 posts

262 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
On the upside of course it may encorage women to actualy BREASTFEED their babies.

100% safe then

miniman

26,354 posts

269 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Coco H said:
I don't know what the answer is for idiots like me who used them, heated them, filled them with boiling water etc - all on hospitals instructions.
Stop panicking and understand that the levels of BPA in the bottles are miniscule and that actually there is little evidence in either direction?

Dogwatch

6,274 posts

229 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Lemmonie said:
On the upside of course it may encorage women to actualy BREASTFEED their babies.

100% safe then
Until some researcher comes up with a half-baked scare theory.....

GreenDog

2,261 posts

199 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
motco said:
Most canned soft drinks contain small but measurable quantities of bisphenol A, apparently. It's a component of the epoxy resin internal coating.
Just been reading the Tommee Tippee website and they say the coating is also used as a coating on the inside of metalic powdered baby milk containers. I suppose they aren't heated or likely to be scratched though.

DangerousMike

11,327 posts

199 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Dogwatch said:
Lemmonie said:
On the upside of course it may encorage women to actualy BREASTFEED their babies.

100% safe then
Until some researcher comes up with a half-baked scare theory.....
generally research gets done and published truthfully. the press then reports findings of such research without considering important factors such as sample size, validity of conclusions etc.

peer review is quite good at checking studies are valid and weighing their significance.

supersingle

3,205 posts

226 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
Lemmonie said:
On the upside of course it may encorage women to actualy BREASTFEED their babies.

100% safe then
Yeah, why don't you just ratchet the guilt up another notch? rolleyes

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

224 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
I used to work for a water cooler supplier and every time this came into the press we'd get phone calls about it. A lot of the studies are small scale and the results don't always seem conclusive.

Blame Canada, they're the ones who've been having hissyfits over BPA for a long time.

Coco H

Original Poster:

4,237 posts

244 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
There's probably nothing in it - but I always worry something will be the next Thalidomide /chinese milk scandal and you would kick yourself if you had done nothing about it.

On the otherhand it could just be another tinfoil hat moment

mike325112

1,070 posts

191 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
miniman said:
Coco H said:
I don't know what the answer is for idiots like me who used them, heated them, filled them with boiling water etc - all on hospitals instructions.
Stop panicking and understand that the levels of BPA in the bottles are miniscule and that actually there is little evidence in either direction?
I know what your saying but they said the same at the time of Minamata or love canal (be careful if you put that in google!).

The problem with research is that most scares come to nothing but a percentage of them turn out to be dangerous, and sometimes there is no clue which is the case.

I would have ignored this before and written it off as hysteria, but impendeding fatherhood has changed my opinion somewhat. I think its something to do with being completely responsible for another human being, its not as if they will have any choice what they eat/drink for a while.

speedy_thrills

7,775 posts

250 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
DangerousMike said:
people/humans are very poor at evaluating risk, generally.

for example many people will happily drive to work every day but are terrified of flying.
yes I agree. It isn't even worth considering.

speedchick

5,197 posts

229 months

Saturday 14th March 2009
quotequote all
supersingle said:
Lemmonie said:
On the upside of course it may encorage women to actualy BREASTFEED their babies.

100% safe then
Yeah, why don't you just ratchet the guilt up another notch? rolleyes
Yeah, some of us tried to, with my first, I couldn't provide enough milk for her, and with my second, I got an infection 8 days after giving birth, and had to go on anti biotics, which would have passed to him, so I was told to stop breast feeding.