New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Pacifier Greatly Reduces Risk of Sudden Infant Death

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Pacifiers aren't just for soothing colicky babies anymore. A new study has found that use of a pacifier during sleep reduced the chances of a baby suffering from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) by 90 percent. Furthermore, pacifiers eliminated the increased risk associated with babies who slept on their stomach or in soft bedding--factors that have been shown to increase the risk of SIDS as much as 10-fold.

"A baby who sleeps on his stomach without a pacifier has a 2.5 times greater risk of SIDS," explains De-Kun Li, a reproductive epidemiologist with Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., who led the research. "If you use a pacifier, that baby's risk disappears." The work draws on interviews with 185 mothers of SIDS babies and 312 mothers of control infants collected between 1997 and 2000.

Of course, this doesn't mean that babies should be allowed to sleep on their stomachs, he cautions. Campaigns to promote sleeping on the back have cut the incidence of SIDS significantly. But pacifier use showed benefits no matter the baby's age, how it slept and even if its mother smoked during or after pregnancy, according to the research, published online by the British Medical Journal.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The study adds to a growing body of evidence that pacifier use cuts SIDS risk, though the causes of the disorder and how pacifiers help protect against it remain poorly understood. Although some experts have suggested that the simple act of sucking on a pacifier may be helping to correct minor developmental deficiencies in the babies, Li believes it is much simpler. "The bulky handle sticks out," he notes. "If you have the bulky handle, even if the baby wants to bury [its] face in soft bedding, [it] can't." Plus, babies who sucked their thumb still benefited from pacifier use whereas, if sucking alone was responsible for the preventive mechanism, the thumb should have been enough.

Myths persist that the use of pacifiers (or thumb sucking) will affect tooth development or the infant's ability to take to breast-feeding, but by simply waiting a few weeks to start using a pacifier and stopping when the baby becomes a toddler such impacts can be avoided, Li notes. As a result, he and his colleagues unequivocally recommend pacifier use, particularly for babies whose habits or families put them at high risk. "A pacifier is a simple, easy to use and already widely used tool that can reduce SIDS," he concludes.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe