Philips Avent Glass Natural Response Baby Bottle

What we like and what concerns us

Good

• Borosilicate glass body with a silicone nipple
• Philips describes its materials by part type on a support page
• Fewer internal pieces than vented systems when used without an accessory vent

Caution

• The screw ring is polypropylene, so the system is not plastic-free
• Materials come from a family-level page, and Philips’s BPS statement does not list this model
• A consumer case about microplastic disclosure closed in 2025 by stipulated dismissal; that is legal history, not a test result

What the evidence shows

• The Best Baby Bottles (Philips Avent Natural Glass entry) BabyGearLab, 2025-04

  BabyGearLab scored the Philips Avent Natural Glass 63 of 100 (rank 4 of 14 bottles), listed in 4 oz and 8 oz sizes as borosilicate glass with silicone and BPA-free plastic parts. Cons noted were a heavy design and possibly inadequate nipple flow for some infants. It is a performance and eco-health score, not a chemical analysis; the date is the page update date.

  Independent review. About the same product line, not this exact item.

• Safest Baby Bottles Sans Lead & Microplastics: Baby Registry Guide Mamavation (reporting testing by Eric Ritter, DetectLead.com), 2024-03-13

  Lists the Philips AVENT Glass Natural Baby Bottle with Natural Response Nipple as no detectable lead on one test and 33 ppm lead on a second test. The article says detected lead across the study was in bottle print or design but does not say which part was measured; model number SCY913/04 is not stated. Mamavation did not commission the testing, and no third-party lab confirmation or reporting limit is stated. Our research already records this reading as not located to a specific part of the bottle.

  Independent lab test. About the same product line, not this exact item.

• Philips Avent Natural Glass Baby Bottle: 21 ppm cadmium in the silicone nipple, safe by all standards Lead Safe Mama, LLC (Tamara Rubin), 2022-01-25

  In a Philips Avent Natural glass bottle (model number not stated) the glass and plastic cap parts were lead non-detect, and the silicone nipple read cadmium 21 +/- 2 ppm and 15 +/- 2 ppm on two 60-second readings. Post updated 2024-03-08.

  Independent lab test. Match to this exact product not confirmed.

• #XRFTesting: Avent Glass Baby Bottle Lead Safe Mama, LLC (Tamara Rubin), 2017-03-04

  All components of an Avent glass baby bottle by Philips (model and generation not stated) were reported non-detect for lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic, including the exterior measurement markings. Numeric reporting limits are not stated; post updated 2023-06-28, and commenters say the bottle is no longer readily available.

  Independent lab test. Match to this exact product not confirmed.

These are independent sources we located and read. Manufacturer statements are not counted as evidence. How we weigh sources

Product identity

The exact model page is on a staging host and shows no price. The model’s support page lists only an Important Information leaflet about choosing a nipple flow rate, which has no materials or care instructions. Model and generation should be re-checked at publication.

What touches the liquid

The body material is only one part of this product. Each part below is listed with what the maker says it is made of, and whether it reaches milk, formula or water.

Construction, coatings and base

Heat, sterilizing and dishwasher

The model page says the bottles can be sterilized and are dishwasher safe. It gives no temperatures, and boiling and microwave instructions were not found.

Formula preparation: The CDC says very hot water, about 158°F / 70°C, is needed to kill germs when a baby is younger than 2 months, was born prematurely or has a weakened immune system. Standard preparation otherwise follows the formula maker's instructions. Never use a microwave, and bottles must be clean and sanitized. Pathogen control for higher-risk infants takes priority over any concern about particle release, so this page never suggests cooler water for those babies. CDC, Infant Formula Preparation and Storage.

Cleanability

The model page does not give a part count. As sold, with no accessory vent, the assembly is bottle, ring and nipple.

We show the facts and not a score. A CPSC recall in 2016 tied mold to an opaque, removable valve that held moisture, so hidden or narrow wet passages are worth checking on any cup.

What was tested, and what is only a claim

Independent testing of this exact product

None found as of September 30, 2026. That is missing evidence, not a finding against the product. Where a laboratory report is published, we will show the lab, method, batch, analyte, result, unit and detection limits, and we will never write a non-detect as zero.

Independent screening results for this product line

These are third-party results for the same brand and line, but the tested bottle is not confirmed to be this exact model or generation. They are screening results, most of them from advocacy testers using a handheld XRF instrument, which reads elements at the surface of a part. They are not accredited laboratory reports, they do not measure particles or migration into milk, and a non-detect is not zero.

What the manufacturer states

• BPA: '0 BPA, following EU regulation 10/2011.' Manufacturer disclosure Philips (USA)
• BPA and BPS: Philips says food-contact parts of its listed models are BPA- and BPS-free. The model list displayed did not include SCY913/04, so this BPS statement is not applied to this bottle. Manufacturer disclosure Philips (USA support)

Background evidence about the materials (not this product)

These studies tested generic products, not this exact one. They show what is possible, and they don't show that this product releases anything or causes harm.

• Borosilicate glass: A glass bottle is a strong body choice, but read the rest of the fluid path before assuming a glass system has no plastic in it. Evidence for borosilicate glass
• Silicone: Silicone is practical and often preferred for nipples and soft interfaces. Findings on generic silicone are background and do not establish exposure or harm from any one product. Evidence for silicone
• Polypropylene (PP, resin code 5): Laboratory studies have measured temperature-dependent microplastic release from polypropylene infant feeding bottles. The clinical significance of infant ingestion at these levels remains uncertain. Evidence for polypropylene

Recalls and legal history

No recall of this exact product was located in the sources reviewed. A recall elsewhere in the category does not apply to it.

We searched the CPSC recall database by brand on September 30, 2026. For Philips Avent: No bottle recall. The Avent recall found concerns digital video baby monitors (2023). CPSC recall service

Legal history

• Miller et al. v. Philips North America LLC (N.D. Cal., 3:24-cv-03781). Consumers alleged that Philips Avent baby bottles and cups sold as “BPA Free” released microplastics when used as directed. On February 20, 2025 the court dismissed the theory that the “BPA Free” label was itself a false statement, because it promised only that BPA was absent, and let a claim proceed that Philips failed to disclose the microplastic release. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 13, 2025. On May 27, 2025 the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the putative class. Closed May 27, 2025. We did not find the terms of any settlement, and a stipulated dismissal is not a ruling on whether the bottles are safe. This is legal history and not evidence about what the product releases.

What we still don't know

• The exact current SKU and generation, to be confirmed at publication
• Whether Philips's BPS statement covers SCY913/04
• The materials of the cap and any other parts not listed
• Exact-product laboratory data
• The screens of Avent glass bottles do not name SCY913/04, and a 33 ppm lead reading in one test was not located to a part

What would change our verdict

• A per-model Philips materials table or an independent laboratory report
• A change in generation or components
• A recall, or a court finding about particle release

Price

Prices and stock change often. Price and retailer availability play no part in the verdict.

Sources

Every source below was checked on the date shown, and the kind of evidence is named.

• What are the Philips Avent bottles and parts made of?, Philips (USA support). Manufacturer disclosure Accessed September 30, 2026. Philips states glass containers are borosilicate glass, screw rings are polypropylene, nipples are silicone, and the AirFree vent insert is PBT and silicone (LSR). A family-level page: it lists materials by part type, not by model number.
• Is my Philips Avent product BPA and BPS free?, Philips (USA support). Manufacturer disclosure Accessed September 30, 2026. Philips states that food-contact parts of the listed models are BPA- and BPS-free. The list displayed did not include SCY913/04. The visible model list names SCY914/04, SCY914/03 and SCY916/02; SCY913 was not among the models displayed.
• Philips Avent Glass Natural Response Baby Bottle SCY913/04, Philips (USA). Manufacturer disclosure Accessed September 30, 2026. The exact model page: 4 bottles of 8 oz / 240 mL with medium-flow nipples for 3 to 6 months, sterilizable and dishwasher safe, '0 BPA, following EU regulation 10/2011'. A staging-host address; no price is shown. The model’s support page lists one document, an Important Information leaflet about choosing a nipple flow rate, with no materials or care instructions.
• Miller v. Philips North America LLC (N.D. Cal.), as reported in law-firm summaries, Jenner & Block; Perkins Coie; Winston & Strawn (secondary summaries). Legal history Published February 20, 2025. Accessed September 30, 2026. A February 2025 order dismissed the theory that the literal 'BPA Free' label was a false statement about microplastics but let an omission theory (failure to disclose microplastic release when heated) proceed; a later motion to certify an interlocutory appeal was reported as denied. Law-firm summaries. Superseded for status by the docket records (S69) and the litigation tracker (S70).
• Microplastic release from the degradation of polypropylene feeding bottles during infant formula preparation, Li D et al., Nature Food (2020). Independent study Accessed September 30, 2026. Polypropylene infant feeding bottles released microplastics at values as high as 16,200,000 particles per litre; sterilization and high-temperature water significantly increased release. The authors estimated 14,600 to 4,550,000 particles per capita per day across 48 regions for infants up to 12 months, and called for assessing whether exposure at these levels poses a risk to infant health. It measured particle release and modelled intake, not health effects. Published November 2020 (Europe PMC). The abstract was read through Europe PMC because the journal page needs a cookie handshake.
• Migration of 35 Siloxanes from Silicone Food Contact Materials in China and Their Potential Exposure Assessment, Chen Y et al., Foods (MDPI) 15(8):1387 (2026). Independent study Published April 16, 2026. Accessed September 30, 2026. Tested migration of 35 siloxanes from 30 silicone food-contact products into food simulants under worst-case conditions and modelled exposure. Cyclic siloxanes exceeded proposed limits in several samples, particularly for children; D4 and D5 showed negligible risk while D3 raised potential concern, and 14 low-molecular-weight siloxanes (including D6 and L12) exceeded the threshold of toxicological concern across all age groups in the modelled scenarios. The products were silicone food-contact items sold in China, not the products on this page, and the exposure figures are modelled. Abstract read through Crossref.
• #XRFTesting: Avent Glass Baby Bottle, Lead Safe Mama (Tamara Rubin). Independent test Published March 4, 2017. Accessed September 30, 2026. An advocacy tester’s XRF screening reported all components non-detect for lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic, with each component tested more than once. Updated June 2023. It names “Avent Glass Baby Bottle by Phillips” without a model number or size.
• Philips Avent Natural Glass Baby Bottle: 21 ppm cadmium in the silicone nipple, safe by all standards, Lead Safe Mama (Tamara Rubin). Independent test Published January 25, 2022. Accessed September 30, 2026. An advocacy tester’s XRF screening reported lead non-detect in all components tested, cadmium of 21 ± 2 ppm and 15 ± 2 ppm in two 60-second readings of the silicone nipple, and antimony of 10 ± 5 ppm in one reading. The author calls the cadmium level safe by all current standards. Updated March 2024. No model number or size is given.
• Safest Baby Bottles Sans Lead & Microplastics, Mamavation with DetectLead (Eric Ritter). Independent test Published March 13, 2024. Accessed September 30, 2026. DetectLead screened 32 baby bottles with a handheld XRF analyzer and reported detectable lead in the print or design of many of them. It reported 7 ppm and 6 ppm lead for the Dr. Brown’s Natural Flow Anti-Colic Options+ Narrow Glass, no detectable lead and a second reading of 33 ppm for the Philips Avent Glass Natural, and no detectable lead for the Comotomo Natural Feel. It states that no laboratory microplastic testing was done. A consumer-advocacy blog reporting handheld XRF screening. No accreditation is stated.
• CPSC recall database search by brand, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (SaferProducts.gov recall service). Regulatory Accessed September 30, 2026. No CPSC recall of a bottle or cup was found for Pura Stainless, Lifefactory, Philips Avent, Dr. Brown’s/Handi-Craft, Hegen, Comotomo, ezpz, Munchkin or Evenflo. The recalls found for those brands concerned other products: Philips Avent video monitors (2023), Dr. Brown’s pacifier holders (2018) and bottle soap (2017), Munchkin pacifiers (1995) and shoes (2001), and a Pura fragrance diffuser (2025). Searched by brand on 2026-09-30. Some searches returned a service error and were repeated; the results are summarized on the recalls block.
• CourtListener docket records: Miller v. Philips North America LLC (3:24-cv-03781) and Miller v. Handi-Craft Company, Inc. (4:24-cv-03782), CourtListener (Free Law Project) search of federal docket records. Legal history Accessed September 30, 2026. Miller v. Philips North America LLC, N.D. Cal. 3:24-cv-03781, was filed June 25, 2024 and terminated May 27, 2025. Miller v. Handi-Craft Company, Inc., N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-03782 (plaintiffs Miller, Cortez and Wojciechowski), was filed June 25, 2024 and terminated May 20, 2025. Docket metadata was read through CourtListener’s search interface. The docket pages themselves block automated readers, so individual entries were read through the litigation tracker and court order cited below.
• Plastics Litigation Tracker: Miller v. Philips North America and Miller v. Handi-Craft, Plastics Litigation Tracker. Legal history Accessed September 30, 2026. Philips: a February 20, 2025 ruling on the motion to dismiss, a second amended complaint on March 13, 2025, and on May 27, 2025 a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the putative class. Handi-Craft: an April 29, 2025 ruling on the motion to dismiss and, on May 20, 2025, a plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. A tracker summarizing docket activity, not the docket.
• Order on the motion to dismiss, Miller et al. v. Philips North America LLC (Entry 46-1), U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., as hosted by the State Impact Center. Legal history Published February 20, 2025. Accessed September 30, 2026. The order dismissed claims resting on the “BPA Free” label being a false statement and allowed claims that Philips omitted a safety hazard to proceed. It makes no finding that the bottles are unsafe. The PDF was summarized rather than quoted; its text is compressed.