By the time they could hold their own bottle we used plastic both for safe surface temperatures on the bottle and in case they threw it or dropped it as you mentioned.
I was guessing the commenter was referring to the expense of buying glass bottles, because they cost about double, and that "literal nightmare" was hyperbole.
See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277241662..., (Micro/nano glass pollution as an emerging pollutant in near future)
Now microplastics is all the rage so you see these studies, next you will see Micro-X whatever it is. The fact is that this is a headline grabbing study without any meaning and that did not show anything actually. They even say it in their study (but this does nto make headlines) that the study does not show at what concentration microplastics become a problem, just that at very unreasonably high concentrations they used it caoused cell death in petry cells. Almost Everything will cause cell damage at very high concentrations
Pfft who am I kidding, what an insane idea. People would just complain that the model has some unknowable flaw, and is therefore entirely useless.
But animal studies don’t supersede human health outcome studies which the person above is suggesting. Animal studies, like in vitro studies, are at the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence.
It’s sort of a worrying study for me personally. Because bottle feeding only really works so well because you can microwave, both for cleaning and for heating, modern bottles so easily. If you have to go back to glass containers it’ll be a literal nightmare for most parents.