Pacifiers Won't Make Newborns Shun Breast

The conventional wisdom that pacifiers can interfere with early breast-feeding efforts might not hold milk. Katherine Harmon reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The first hours of life can be rough. So for years newborns in the hospital were given pacifiers to calm and quiet them—with many breast-feeding advocates worrying the newborns would get used to the artificial nipple and be less inclined to take to the breast.

But never fear. A study finds that keeping kids from getting pacifiers did not help later breast-feeding. In fact, it looks like this hindered the kids eventually becoming exclusively breast-fed.

The study followed more than 2,000 infants born over the course of about a year. When pacifiers were prohibited, surprisingly, fewer babies were breast-fed exclusively while in the hospital and more received supplemental formula. The findings were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. [Laura Kair and Carrie Phillipi, "Increase in Supplemental Formula Feeds Observed Following Removal of Pacifiers from a Mother Baby Unit"]


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 World Health Organization recommends breast-feeding babies exclusively for six months and then partially until age two. So for those early hours, a pacifier might be just what the doctor—or maternity ward nurse—ordered.

—Katherine Harmon

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe