Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Baby Bottles Or Nipples ranks #256 of 838 by danger score (38/100) at ER-volume #409 of 838 (2,162/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #256
- danger rank of 838
- #409
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 38/100
- danger score
- 2,162/yr
- estimated ER visits (avg)
Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.
Where this category's danger score sits nationally
Danger score (38/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
38 Around the middle lower than 30% of 838 product categories
scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value
Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.
Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024
Composite verdict
Composite Safety Score: 67/100
One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 10 | 75th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 2,162 | 50th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | +4% | 71st | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 56 | 76th | 20% | CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count |
Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.
Where 43,261 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1509. Segments sum to 43,261 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.
Two danger lenses
Same-group peer scores and this product's dial
The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Nursery & Baby Products group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.
Nursery & Baby Products danger scores
How this 38/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for baby bottles or nipples - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 2,162 ER visits/yr Above median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 5.7% Above median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.39% Elevated fatality rate
- 5-year trend+4%
Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for baby bottles or nipples are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2005 (3,082 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2023 (1,715 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the mouth, accounting for approximately 6,351 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by aspiration to the internal (6,211 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 30,896 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 5.7% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.39%) result in fatality.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 56 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how baby bottles or nipples fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 16,680 | 14,216 | |
| 5-14 | 829 | 866 | |
| 15-24 | 407 | 2,277 | |
| 25-34 | 1,163 | 3,677 | |
| 35-44 | 298 | 1,046 | |
| 45-54 | 270 | 694 | |
| 55-64 | 213 | 285 | |
| 65-74 | 47 | 48 | |
| 75+ | 0 | 219 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Mouth | Laceration | |
| Internal | Aspiration | |
| All Parts Body | Anoxia | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Face | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Face | Laceration | |
| Mouth | Other | |
| Mouth | Dental Injury | |
| Mouth | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Internal | Ingestion | |
| Lower Trunk | Strain, Sprain | |
| Hand | Burn, Scald | |
| Ankle | Strain, Sprain | |
| All Parts Body | Other |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
18 MOM INJ MOUTH RUNNING W/BOTTLE IN MOUTH TRIPPED AND FELL AT BABYSITTERS HOUSE DX LAC UPPER LIP ;
18MOF WAS REST IN CAR SEAT IN BACKSEAT OF VEHICLE IN REAR END MVA, PT HIT BABY BOTTLE SHE WAS HOLDING, DX MVA
14MOM, FELL W/ BOTTLE IN HIS MOUTH, SMALL LACERATION LEFT SIDE BOTTOM LIP DX: LIP LACERATION, FRENULUM TEAR
29YOM WAS HOLDING A GLASS BABY BOTTLE WHEN IT BROKE AND HE ACCIDENTALLY CUT LEFT HAND DX: LACERATION OF LEFT HAND
44 YOF REPORTS YESTERDAY SHE BENT DOWN TO LIFT UP A BABY BOTTLE AND THAT SHE COULD NOT STRAIGHTEN BACK UP. SHE STATES SHE HAD SEVERE LOW BACK PAIN. DX: LUMBAR STRAIN.
4MOF MOM HAD CHILD ON HER LAP FEEDING HER A BOTTLE WHILE SITTING ON THE COUCH MOM FELL ASLEEP CHILD FELL OFF TO THE FLOOR UNDER HEAD DX: CLOSED HEAD INJURY
1MOM MOM WAS BOTTLE FEEDING PATIENT WHEN HE APPEARED TO CHOKE ON HIS FORMULA. SHE STATES THE FORMULA CAME OUT OF THE PATIENT'S NOSE AND HE TURNED PURPLE AROUND HIS LIPS AND WAS COUGHING. DX: INFANTILE REGURG AND ASPIRATION EVENT
2MOF WAS GETTING HER FORMULA IN A BOTTLE WHEN SHE STARTED CHOKING ON IT DX: CHOKING EPISODE
2MOF WAS DRINKING FORMULA FROM A BABY BOTTLE AND STARTED CHOKING DX: CHOKING EPISODE
35YOM TOOK SLEEPING PILL AND FELL WHILE MAKING BOTTLE FOR CHILD . PT NOT PRESCRIBED ANY MEDS. NO INJ NOTED ON EXAM PT LEFT ED DX; INTOX
16MOF PATIENT FELL INTO A TODDLER ENCLOSURE ONTO A BABY BOTTLE, SHE HAS A SMALL BRUISE ON HER LEFT CHEEK. PT LWOT. NO DX
33 YOM C/O LEFT ANKLE PAIN, STEPPED ON A BABY BOTTLE THIS AFTERNOON ROLLING HIS LEFT ANKLE, DX: LEFT ANKLE AND FOOT SPRAIN
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
Infant found with piece of Thermos Foogo Phases Leak Proof Tritan Straw Bottle, 11 Ounce. This piece can break off and is a choking hazard in young children and infants. There is an even smaller tube that can be dislodged from the button mechanism
My son got a hold of the lid and was playing with it when he put it up to his mouth and inhaled, the lid got sucked onto his face, covering his mouth and nose. HE COULD NOT BREATH!!!!! I literally had to rip the lid off his face! would have never expected this to happen to a baby's bottle lid! This lid is complete hazard to babies and should be recalled!! Thank god I was sitting right next to him, because he couldn't even cry or make a sound!!! Parents must be made aware of this item!
Baby bottles chipped in the dishwasher after washing per manufacturer guidelines leaving tiny shards of glass on the bottle
Mercury, lead, and cadmium exposure
I am a District Coordinator for Georgia's Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. During a home assessment for a child who has tested above the current BLRV established by the CDC, I tested an insulated water bottle/tumbler with my XRF device that the child used frequently. The item consistently tested positive for lead on the bottom. It is important to note, however, that toward the end of the assessment, the batteries of my XRF malfunctioned and I was unable to calibrate out.
Pura Stainless knowingly sold Lead-contaminated children's products through at least 2018. There was no recall. These products are still in use in homes today. Summary / Overview: In 2017 and 2018 - and possibly later - Pura Stainless continued to sell high-Lead-content insulated stainless steel Pura Kiki baby bottles after learning of the following issue with their product: multiple documented instances of product failure resulting in child-accessible Lead at very high levels (as much as 800,000 ppm) in one component far in excess of the CPSIA Lead-content ban for Lead in children's products (limiting Lead in substrates to 100 ppm.) Pura's sales of Lead-contaminated children's product on store shelves (virtual and brick and mortar) and distribution from warehouse inventory continued after the company stated (in writing to customers - see below) that they had begun to manufacture a Lead-free version of the product. Lead-contaminated versions of this product continued to be sold through at least 2018, and may have been sold as late as 2019 (possibly even later, until Lead-contaminated inventory was exhausted). These unsafe and illegal Lead-contaminated baby bottles are still in use in homes across the United States today in 2023, as no voluntary recall was ever announced by the manufacturer. Separately, [REDACTED] knowingly continued to allow their certification to be used on the packaging of (and marketing for) these products after learning that the products were in violation of the CPSIA due to unsafe levels of Lead. See attached PDF for full report which your website did not accept in text form. We have published correspondence from Pura Kiki dated July 7, 2018 where they admit that they are continuing to sell their (older) Lead-contaminated stock (see website) despite having been directly made aware of the Lead issue in 2017. FOUR) Compounding Factor: Product Durability / Intended Duration of Use: A primary compounding factor with this product is that
[REDACTED] August 24th, 2025 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 4330 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Subject: Product Safety Concern Tommee Tippee Baby Bottle Lid Dear CPSC, I am writing to formally report a serious safety hazard involving a Tommee Tippee baby bottle lid. During use, my young daughter accidentally sucked the bottle lid tightly against her face. The lid created a suction seal over her nose and mouth, causing her to be unable to breathe. She came dangerously close to suffocation. Thankfully, I was present and able to remove it quickly, but the outcome could have been tragic. This design poses a severe suffocation hazard to infants and toddlers. I strongly urge the CPSC to investigate this matter and determine whether corrective action, such as a product redesign, warning label, or recall, is necessary to prevent other families from facing a similar incident. Product details: Brand: Tommee Tippee Product type: Baby Bottle & Lid Description of incident: Lid created a vacuum seal over childs face, obstructing breathing Injury: Child nearly suffocated (no permanent injury due to immediate intervention) I am also submitting this report to Tommee Tippee directly but believe it is essential that the CPSC be aware of the potential hazard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if further details or documentation are required. Sincerely, [REDACTED]
This afternoon, my ten month old daughter's caretaker gave her a short (4 oz in a 5 oz bottle) glass Born-free bottle. We've been using both the Born-Free glass and plastic bottles sporadically since she was first born and exclusively since six months without problem. My daughter took ahold of the top nipple part of the bottle because we are teaching her to feed herself and she gave the bottle a good clunk on the floor. That glass bottle shattered right in front of her, not broke into large pieces, but shattered. Fortunately her caretaker was quick enough to get her out of the way but not before her little foot was cut by the glass. I am so angry. Anything could have happened. Those bottles should be built to withstand a baby playing with them.
Showing 8 of 56 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to baby bottles or nipples on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Nursery & Baby Products
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Baby Bottles Or Nipples: cross-group products nearest on danger score (38/100), estimated annual ER visits (2,162/yr), and hospitalization share (5.7%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
Related Products in Nursery & Baby Products
Read with this product
About this data
CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.
According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Baby Bottles Or Nipples ranks #256 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #409 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does baby bottles or nipples rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, baby bottles or nipples ranks #256 by PlainSafety danger score (38/100) and #409 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (2,162/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from baby bottles or nipples?
The most common injury is laceration to the mouth, accounting for approximately 6,351 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from baby bottles or nipples increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for baby bottles or nipples injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 30,896 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by baby bottles or nipples?
Of all ER visits involving baby bottles or nipples, approximately 5.7% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (94.3%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with baby bottles or nipples?
You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.
PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.