Talk:Baby bottle

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Parenting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject ParentingParenting articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[microplastics#Humans|microplastics exposure]] The anchor (Humans) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Baby Bottles made from plastic are unsafe

I seriously doubt that baby bottles are now made of plastic for reasons of safety.

Agreed. Clarified that in the article. Samw 04:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should our decisions about how the article evolves be guided by gut hunches, or research? My gut hunch—rather, my experience with the patent literature on manufactured consumer products, and resulting intuitions—suggests to me that it is likely that the original patents introducing plastic materials, in exchange for glass, are likely to have referenced safety issues (because of the often encompassing nature of patent arguments). This does not speak to real business motivation, only to stated arguments in IP literature underlying changes in manufacturing. And my hunch is no more important than the foregoing ones; what is needed is guidance from references to decide between the ways in which the content of the article might be shaped. (A visitor)

Question

An anon brought up the following, I am placing it here to hopefully add to the debate. I am not removing from article, as I have not the time to ensure tht it is answered correctly.

Question
!! Please explain WHY sterilization is neccessary. According to this article by a paediatrician http://parenting.ivillage.com/baby/bnutrition/0,,b11b,00.html it seems to be no longer necessary in most developed countries !!

Bisphenol A in many plastic baby bottles

I think an important piece of information that is missing in this article is the recent discovery that bisphenol A, a chemical used as an additive in the manufacture of many hard, clear plastics (of the type baby bottles are made from), has been shown to leak in significant quantities into liquids, particularly when heated. It has also been shown to be linked to increased susceptibility to genetic abnormalities and forms of cancer (breast and prostrate). This should be further researched and added to the article, IMO. There are currently some manufacturers that have stopped using bisphenol A. (Medela, for one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19spartan71 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, but urge careful research leading us to the consensus of scientific perspective on the matter, and not web-based commentary (which abounds on this subject). (A visitor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.19.171 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References.

The reference formatting need some serious work. Just a heads up. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted existing references minimally where needed, provided some updates, and indicated where new ones are still needed. Guptan99 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting patent references discovered, so adding sentence.

I came across a connection in the patent literature, between an early use of a "check-valve" in baby bottles to both the newest, most modern disposable baby bottles and to modern adult drinking cups (e.g., coffee cups). It will add to the references that interested readers might pursue, and show the ways in which developments in one area lead to developments in another. (I am leaving out further far-flung impacts, but they are also in the literature.) Adding it, look forward to any discussion here that might ensue. Adieu. (a visitor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.19.171 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this history section revision, with expanded and clarified citations, and further added information from the identified (clarified, original) sources. Changes included:

The term "prehistory" being changed; this term formally refers to a period of history before recorded time, and so conflicted with the ceramic feeding bottle example given.
A sentence being added from the cited source to indicate examples of the soft materials referred to.
Citations with broken links being replaced with an active link to the same site, to the presumed page of information origin when this could be discerned. When source of information could not be assigned, a tag was added to indicate unknown source.
Sentences being added, about the modern bottles, modern nipples, and the check-valve and pressure balancing innovations, and its antecedents.

Article still needs work, but references are now complete and traceable, and a more complete timeline of features/innovations exists, based on the originally identified sources. Adieu. (a visitor)

Dead citation, impossible to reconnect, and unclear as to necessity, removed

A citation on silicone-sleeved bottles appearing in the sterilization section was removed, because its content could not verified—the web citation is partial, and leads to a non-English language site with no clear content on the subject. Googling the article title does not provide access to the article, either. Here is the partial, untraceable, and so removed citation, as it appeared before the edit (a visitor):

Glass Baby Bottles using Silicone Encapsulated Sleeve to prevent broken glass accidents.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.19.171 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning, sterilisation section revised, minimal substantive changes to content.

Mainly, the flow of the material was altered. Note, the recommendation of the UK NHS is a much weightier reference than the "webmd" recommendation that follows it. This was the only reason to alter the order in which these two recommendations were presented, and the ordering can be returned to US-before-UK if a substantial, reliable, authoritative US reference can be identified. (For the same reason, the text for the US recommendation was altered from "the recommendation" to "a recommendation".) Only other substantial change was removal of a dead, untraceable citation, see above. (a visitor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.19.171 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Controversy section

This section was weak earlier, and is not yet strong after my conservative edit. The earlier contained a statement ascribed to Amer Acad Pediatrics that I could not verify, despite considerable effort—a statement indicating any bottle feeding in first two months interfered with ability of mother and child to successfully breastfeed. This sentence was therefore removed, and a description and citations for the current relevant AAP policy were added, in its stead. A further reference to S Barston's site (FearlessFormula Feeders) and book (Bottled Up) were added for balance.

Note that I am committed in my opposition to forensic referencing, the sloppy Wikipedia practice of adding text without citation, then expecting later editors to research and add-in references through forensic research into possible sources. This practice/expectation promotes sloppy science writing, and would waste untold hours for each paragraph of undocumented, untraceable sentences—and even then would not allow one to be sure that one has actually provided the source from which the original information was drawn. The fact that I spent the better part of an hour trying to find an AAP statement to the effect described (2 month statement) arose because the statement seemed plausible, and important if it could be sourced. I simply could not (and should not have been expected to) reference it forensically. LeProf

Blacklisted Links Found on Baby bottle

Cyberbot II has detected links on Baby bottle which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-04912-argentina-bans-bpa-in-baby-bottles-a4-en-12.pdf
Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby bottle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423062853/http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/services/az/other/nutrition/documents/bottlefeeding.pdf to http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/services/az/other/nutrition/documents/bottlefeeding.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baby bottle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle

I prepared one bottle just give me I want to start my bown business shridevi ganachari 103.10.226.130 (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]