Against cosleeping? - I don't buy this campaign by crib manufacturers

I have to say that after reviewing analysis of the studies that are out there (in as layman a way as I must), I can't help but conclude that intelligent bedsharing with an infant is just as safe and probably safer than crib sleeping. When crib manufacturers are cosponsors of a health campaign disavowing infants sleeping next to their natural mother (like most other humans and all other mammals on earth), color me skeptical.

How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe - this is the real kicker
Why babies should never sleep alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding - a bit more academic, but published in PAEDIATRIC RESPIRATORY REVIEWS (2005)
The Changing Concept of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Diagnostic Coding Shifts, Controversies Regarding the Sleeping Environment, and New Variables to Consider in Reducing Risk - policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics

-------------

With the generous support of the National Institutes of Child and Human Development, Drs. Sarah Mosko, Christopher Richards and I are presently exploring the effects of mother-infant pairs sleeping apart and together over successive nights in a sleep laboratory. Our studies show that while co-sleeping, infants breastfeed more frequently and for longer total duration; they have more arousals, many of which are induced by the mother's movements or sounds, and that the infants spend less time in the deep stage of sleep from which some infants have difficulty arousing (apnea). We have been impressed with both the mother's and infant's acute responsiveness to the other's activities, all of which seem to change the infant's physiology in ways that look potentially helpful in resisting a SIDS event, although we cannot prove this at this time.

-----------

You can also be reassured by overnight video studies of co-sleeping mothers and babies, which show that co-sleeping mothers, even in deep sleep, are aware of their baby's position, and move when necessary to avoid over-laying. At no time in these studies did co-sleeping mothers impede the breathing of their babies, who had higher average oxygen levels than solitary sleeping babies. Co-sleeping mothers and babies will almost always sleep facing each other, with the baby lying on the side or back. This is much safer for the baby than lying on the front, which increases the risks of SIDS. This information is summarised by James McKenna, who conducted these sleep-lab studies, at www.naturalchild.com /james_mckenna/, and also see his lovely article for Mothering Breastfeeding & Bedsharing Still Useful (and Important) After All These Years

------------

A conflict of interest? Who is behind this new national campaign to warn parents not to sleep with their babies? In addition to the USCPSC, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) is co-sponsoring this campaign. The JPMA? An association of crib manufacturers. This is a huge conflict of interest. Actually, this campaign is exactly in the interest of the JPMA.

-----------

The Alaska Division of Public Health and the Alaska Chapter of the AAP continue to recommend that (1) parents always put their infants to sleep on their back unless told otherwise by a medical provider, (2) infants never sleep on a water bed or couch, and (3) infants sleep in an infant crib or with a nonsmoking, unimpaired caregiver on a standard adult non–water mattress. Among parents who do not use tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs, sleeping with their infant is a perfectly reasonable and potentially beneficial option. We call on the AAP to revise their recommendations to reflect the scientifically defensible position that bed sharing is only a risk if the parent is impaired or the sleeping surface is inappropriate.

-----------

Thus, we [The Section on Breastfeeding of the American Academy of Pediatrics] are of the opinion that the Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome should have given greater emphasis to positive protective prescriptive recommendations such as universal supine sleeping position,6 reduction of maternal smoking and use of other illicit or harmful substances, proper proximate sleeping arrangements, bedding, and infant clothing, and, most importantly, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of the infant's life and its continuation for ≥1 year.7 Unfortunately, the media's response to the task force's statement has focused on the 2 controversial and problematic recommendations regarding pacifier use and bed sharing, diverting the public's attention from the task force's otherwise positive recommendations.

unrelated but interesting from that:

Of particular concern are the data from one of the studies cited by the task force that habitual pacifier use or dependence may actually increase the risk of SIDS if the pacifier is not used at the time of the last sleep (increased incidence of SIDS [odds ratio: 1.95]).4 Thus, habitual pacifier use may, paradoxically, increase risk for SIDS if the mother fails to insert a pacifier at sleep time. Furthermore, careful review of the cited pacifier and SIDS data also indicates that no distinction was made between those infants who were breastfed and those who were not, precluding any conclusion as to the value of pacifier use in the breastfeeding infant.5

------------

[Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition] The cosleeping recommendations2 are flawed also, often not controlling for sleep surface or breastfeeding, and were all case-control studies, with their attendant flaws.

It is disturbing that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can publish the recommendations of a 5-person task force without consulting the much larger Section on Breastfeeding, a section that has no financial conflicts of interest.

It is unclear if any of the recommendations will decrease SIDS more than safe bed-sharing practices combined with exclusive breastfeeding (without pacifiers). The data cited are simply not convincing.
...
The AAP's credibility is eroding already, with heavy donations from the formula industry, selling the rights to the AAP breastfeeding book to Ross, and now these recommendations and the way their publication was handled. The publication of these SIDS articles shows a serious lack of rigorous scientific oversight. The articles, as a whole, may be valuable, but the recommendations drawn from them are seriously flawed.

In issuing the recommendations, you postulate a physiologic explanation. Yet, there is an explanation that may explain why some data link breastfeeding with lower SIDS rates: formula-fed infants are known to be less arousable. This itself may stem from possible differences in brain maturation in some formula-fed infants, the difficulty in digesting formula that may cause infants to sleep more deeply (just like an adult who gets sleepy after a heavy meal), and the fact that formula-fed infants sleep longer because they are not awakened frequently for suckling and feeding. Infants who do not cosleep are less arousable because they do not have the stimulation of their mother nearby. I predict that the data linking safe bed sharing and exclusive breastfeeding to lower rates of SIDS will strengthen over time.

----------

We [group of doctors in the field of pediatric sleep medicine] agree that the data regarding the risks of bed sharing as a form of cosleeping in specific high-risks groups (eg, parents who smoke, consume alcohol, or use sedating medications) or in certain circumstances (eg, couch sharing) are compelling; however, the evidence that the practice of bed sharing universally poses a risk to infants is not. There also were no data presented in the policy statement supporting the assumption that the combination of using pacifiers and sleeping separately from the infant in the same room will reduce the incidence of SIDS, nor was there any discussion of whether alternative strategies (eg, use of a monitoring device for infants sleeping in separate rooms) might be equally effective. A policy that requires thousands of families to modify their traditional sleeping and parenting practices, which in turn are based on deep-rooted cultural values and beliefs, would seem to require overwhelming evidence of risk associated with those practices.